Hello all

[Gracie]

Just curious...how did you find USMB? I tweet it a lot, so...just wondering if it's working, lol.

 

[Ringel05]

Just curious...how did you find USMB? I tweet it a lot, so...just wondering if it's working, lol.

Sooooo, it's your fault!!! We have to have a talk young lady.

 

[Gracie]

I tweet threads allatime. Good ones, that is. Or funny ones. Mostly interesting ones.
I sowwy. Not.

 

[emilynghiem]

Hey all! I am a right-wing, neo-reactionary, with an end goal of a propertarian/right/Rothbardian/Hoppeian libertarian society.

Hope to have some interesting discussions here.

Hi OOM!
You lost me on the Rothbard/Hoppe reference.
I have enough to do explaining the Locke/Rousseau split to liberals who don't get where
the left/right division comes from historically.

Can you fill me in on this, briefly? Since it's in your intro description, I think it's fair game.
If it goes into detailed discussion, we're supposed to start a new thread.

Thanks and please do feel free
to offend as much as possible
with your openmindedness.

I think that would make ANY discussion more interesting!
Welcome aboard! This forum has the best moderators
willing to work with anybody, so please take full advantage
of the free speech you have here.

Glad to have you join us here OffensivelyOpenMinded

P.S. I'm a Constitutionalist Democrat whose friends
mostly turn out to be Green or Libertarian who think like me outside the given boxes to check.
(I think I must be politically gay or trans, because whatever I am people
are saying I'm the opposite of my label and can't be both.
I've been called a bigot and white racist for defending equal rights of Christian beliefs,
so I'm not your typical prochoice liberal. I truly believe equal inclusion applies to all sides.
Somehow including the rightwing "offends people" so welcome to the club! )

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

Just curious...how did you find USMB? I tweet it a lot, so...just wondering if it's working, lol.

Googled political message boards. Lol

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

Hey all! I am a right-wing, neo-reactionary, with an end goal of a propertarian/right/Rothbardian/Hoppeian libertarian society.

Hope to have some interesting discussions here.

Hi OOM!
You lost me on the Rothbard/Hoppe reference.
I have enough to do explaining the Locke/Rousseau split to liberals who don't get where
the left/right division comes from historically.

Can you fill me in on this, briefly? Since it's in your intro description, I think it's fair game.
If it goes into detailed discussion, we're supposed to start a new thread.

Thanks and please do feel free
to offend as much as possible
with your openmindedness.

I think that would make ANY discussion more interesting!
Welcome aboard! This forum has the best moderators
willing to work with anybody, so please take full advantage
of the free speech you have here.

Glad to have you join us here OffensivelyOpenMinded

P.S. I'm a Constitutionalist Democrat whose friends
mostly turn out to be Green or Libertarian who think like me outside the given boxes to check.
(I think I must be politically gay or trans, because whatever I am people
are saying I'm the opposite of my label and can't be both.
I've been called a bigot and white racist for defending equal rights of Christian beliefs,
so I'm not your typical prochoice liberal. I truly believe equal inclusion applies to all sides.
Somehow including the rightwing "offends people" so welcome to the club! )

I'll make sure to give this a proper response later in the day. And thanks for the warm welcome.

 

[saveliberty]

We get less Muslims here since I tagged Hammie in some threads.

 

[320 Years of History]

You lost me on the Rothbard reference.

• Murray N. Rothbard
• Free Market: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics | Library of Economics and Liberty

You lost me on the Hoppe reference.

• Hans-Hermann Hoppe

 

[emilynghiem]

You lost me on the Rothbard reference.

• Murray N. Rothbard
• Free Market: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics | Library of Economics and Liberty

You lost me on the Hoppe reference.

• Hans-Hermann Hoppe

Way cool, 320 Years of History and OffensivelyOpenMinded
Thanks for the intro and the references.
In exchange, here are some of my favorite resources to share on cooperative economic reforms:
* Hernando de Soto Polar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
On the need for migrant workers to own interests in the land they work, if they are ever going to establish equal standing under law.
* Paul Glover Paul Glover, community organizer founder of Ithaca HOURS labor-backed indy currency Introducing HOUR Money
* Grameen Foundation | Connecting the World's Poor to Their Potential Grameen Bank and Grameen Foundation
Let's start the next revolution, by partnering all groups in collaboration, where people can be under whatever system they choose.

 

[320 Years of History]

You lost me on the Rothbard reference.

• Murray N. Rothbard
• Free Market: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics | Library of Economics and Liberty

You lost me on the Hoppe reference.

• Hans-Hermann Hoppe

Way cool, 320 Years of History and OffensivelyOpenMinded
Thanks for the intro and the references.
In exchange, here are some of my favorite resources to share on cooperative economic reforms:
* Hernando de Soto Polar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
On the need for migrant workers to own interests in the land they work, if they are ever going to establish equal standing under law.
* Paul Glover Paul Glover, community organizer founder of Ithaca HOURS labor-backed indy currency Introducing HOUR Money
* Grameen Foundation | Connecting the World's Poor to Their Potential Grameen Bank and Grameen Foundation
Let's start the next revolution, by partnering all groups in collaboration, where people can be under whatever system they choose.

I'll take a look at the content to which you linked.

As goes Rothbard, I agree with the principles he espoused, but I don't find enough pragmatic potential in them and they are too anarchical for my taste; however, that's not any different than what I'd say about much that's Libertarian. The one thing he said that I wholeheartedly embrace is this:

"It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a ‘dismal science.’ But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance."​

Hoppe's ideas are altogether too extreme for me to countenance in any regard.

"One may say innumerable things and promote almost any idea under the sun, but naturally no one is permitted to advocate ideas contrary to the very covenant of preserving and protecting private property, such as democracy and communism. There can be no tolerance toward democrats and communists in a libertarian social order. They will have to be physically separated and removed from society."​

That said, like Rothbard, the man was no fool, and to that end I respect him even as I would never cotton to an unadulterated implementation of his economic and political views.

"Experience cannot beat logic, and interpretations of observational evidence which are not in line with the laws of logical reasoning are no refutation of these but the sign of a muddled mind (or would one accept someone’s observational report that he had seen a bird that was red and non-red all over at the same time as a refutation of the law of contradiction rather than the pronouncement of an idiot?)."

“So what? Why should an a priori proof of the libertarian property theory make any difference? Why not engage in aggression anyway?” Why indeed?! But then, why should the proof that 1+1=2 make any difference? One certainly can still act on the belief that 1+1=3. The obvious answer is “because a propositional justification exists for doing one thing, but not for doing another.” But why should we be reasonable, is the next come-back. Again, the answer is obvious. For one, because it would be impossible to argue against it; and further, because the proponent raising this question would already affirm the use of reason in his act of questioning it. This still might not suffice and everyone knows that it would not, for even if the libertarian ethic and argumentative reasoning must be regarded as ultimately justified, this still does not preclude that people will act on the basis of unjustified beliefs either because they don’t know, they don’t care, or they prefer not to know. I fail to see why this should be surprising or make the proof somehow defective.”
​

As noted above, I agree with many Libertarian ideals in principle. The problem with Libertarian policy accruing from its economics isn't that I think it won't work in the abstract, but that I think the countervailing social extancies of divisiveness, insecurity and dread as expressed in the U.S. polity would run rampant in a fully Libertarian regime. Even being the socioeconomic Darwinist that I am, I cannot help but reckon that under Libertarian policy and economics, we'd have a renewed American Revolution or Civil War, one borne of the class-based rancor that routinely riles and riddles public discord, albeit today the choler rests within a manageable realm. Were the U.S. a notably more uniform society, I'd be more amenable to exploring Libertarianism, but it's not, so I cannot.