What's the difference between libertarians and cancer cells?

And you can stay as ignorant as you wish, and believe in a libertarian economic system that has never, ever existed in real life.
Commercial? Really, me boy. The internet was developed for decades by the DoD and called arpanet. Nice try, though.

Regardless of how the internet was developed or the concept was invented, the network was built and is maintained by the private sector. No, it was not. the internet was developed, and the concept was developed, by the DoD. Unless you believe the DoD was the private sector, you make no sense. Please, me boy, your job is now to find an expert source that tells you the internet was a private product. Good luck.
I surf the net almost exclusively on my phone. The cellular towers are similarly built and maintained by the private sector.
Ever here of Bell Labs. Good luck with that one.
Now, where is (or was) that Libertarian economy, or society, you suggested existed?

I'm no expert but I'm pretty sure this post is delivered to you over a network built and maintained by the private sector. Right. Based on technology developed and software written by the DoD.I already noted that the concept and design of the internet was developed in the public sphere.

Libertarian societies existed among the Quakers. OK. Maybe, maybe not. But no successful libertarian economy ever existed. Some Native American tribes were fairly libertarian. The godard system in old Iceland was libertarian. The Amish of today have a rotating body of elders whose job is to facilitate consensus meetings. In all of these systems we're talking about a matter of degrees. So, you just listed several libertarian No political system is entirely libertarian just as no political system is entirely totalitarian. The point is nuanced.
So, in the hundreds of countries and hundreds of years, we have had successful socialist economies, and even communist economies. But no Libertarian economies. Kind of says what I have been saying. Which is that regardless of how badly communist economies have performed, they have done better than libertarian economies. To the point that there are communist countries, still, today. But no Libertarian economies.

But the main idea I brought up is concerned about the future. New technologies enable peer to peer relationships that formerly were not a possibility. Technology exists today, for example, that enables people to build their own internet via wireless mesh routers.

In my opinion, the future economy will be a more distributed economy. At least, that possibility exists.

One growth sector is wearable technology. Within a decade perhaps, people will have real-time data about heart rate, blood pressure, blood chemistry, vitamin deficiencies, pathogens, etc.. A doctor won't be able to tell you much that you don't already know. That will lessen the need for health insurance to cover routine checkups. We will see, eh. No way are you making sense.

In education, electricity production, healthcare, manufacturing, communication, publishing, etc. technologies are moving us toward a less centralized and more distributed economy. Really. You must have a link, then.
 
Last edited:
And you can stay as ignorant as you wish, and believe in a libertarian economic system that has never, ever existed in real life.
Commercial? Really, me boy. The internet was developed for decades by the DoD and called arpanet. Nice try, though.

Regardless of how the internet was developed or the concept was invented, the network was built and is maintained by the private sector. No, it was not. the internet was developed, and the concept was developed, by the DoD. Unless you believe the DoD was the private sector, you make no sense. Please, me boy, your job is now to find an expert source that tells you the internet was a private product. Good luck.
I surf the net almost exclusively on my phone. The cellular towers are similarly built and maintained by the private sector.
Ever here of Bell Labs. Good luck with that one.
Now, where is (or was) that Libertarian economy, or society, you suggested existed?

I'm no expert but I'm pretty sure this post is delivered to you over a network built and maintained by the private sector. Right. Based on technology developed and software written by the DoD.I already noted that the concept and design of the internet was developed in the public sphere.

Libertarian societies existed among the Quakers. OK. Maybe, maybe not. But no succesful libertarian economy ever existed. Some Native American tribes were fairly libertarian. The godard system in old Iceland was libertarian. The Amish of today have a rotating body of elders whose job is to facilitate consensus meetings. In all of these systems we're talking about a matter of degrees. No political system is entirely libertarian just as no political system is entirely totalitarian. The point is nuanced.
So, in the hundreds of countries and hundreds of years, we have had successful socialist economies, and even communist economies. But no Libertarian economies. Kind of says what I have been saying. Which is that regardless of how badly communist economies have performed, they have done better than libertarian economies. To the point that there are communist countries, still, today. But no Libertarian economies.

But the main idea I brought up is concerned about the future. New technologies enable peer to peer relationships that formerly were not a possibility. Technology exists today, for example, that enables people to build their own internet via wireless mesh routers.

In my opinion, the future economy will be a more distributed economy. At least, that possibility exists.

One growth sector is wearable technology. Within a decade perhaps, people will have real-time data about heart rate, blood pressure, blood chemistry, vitamin deficiencies, pathogens, etc.. A doctor won't be able to tell you much that you don't already know. That will lessen the need for health insurance to cover routine checkups.

In education, electricity production, healthcare, manufacturing, communication, publishing, etc. technologies are moving us toward a less centralized and more distributed economy.

I gave some examples of libertarian and anarchist leaning cultures of the past. Many of these were simulaltaneously communistic. In indigenous societies, property was often held communally. Anarchy and/or libertarianism is not mutually exclusive with communism.

In California there was a road system 500 years ago. Not trails, but actual roads and trading centers. There was no transportation authority.

If this quote is too long, skip it;
Before our white brothers arrived to make us civilized men, we didin't have any kind of prison. Because of this, we didn't have any delinquents. Without a prison, there can't be no delinquents. We had no locks nor keys therefore among us there were no thieves. When someone was so poor that he couldn't afford a horse, a tent or a blanket, he would, in that case, receive it all as a gift. We were too uncivilized to give great importance to private property. We didn't know any kind of money and consequently, the value of a human being was not determined by his wealth. We had no written laws laid down, no lawyers, no politicians, therefore we were not able to cheat and swindle one another. We were really in bad shape before the white man arrived and I don't know how to explain how we were able to manage without these fundamental things that (so they tell us) are so necessary for a civilized society.
-John Lame Deer

To the point that tribal socialism is not a realistic model for the 21st century, I agree. I've given reasons why a new and more anarchist economy is possible now due to technologies which never existed in history. We're already entering a sharing economy in many regards. That point seems to have escaped you. Or, you're just deflecting with your insistance that I show you evidence of how this all worked in the past. It's like trying to prove that it's not possible to clone a sheep because pre-20th century man was incapable of doing so.
 
Uber is a crap deal for drivers. I have friends who can attest to that. But there is no doubt the service has disrupted the government regulated cab model. Here's another factor that illustrates an important point;
When you use Uber you have an opportunity to rate the driver. In turn, the driver rates you as a passenger. An online reputation is built over time.

In the future you'll be rated on a constant basis in all manner of ways. The rating will be done mostly by machines. If you're a troll-ass dickhead to other people you'll either be avoided or things will be more expensive for you.

Or if you run a business like Chipotle and serve food ridden with bacteria, people will be informed of that.

Such a society would be self-policing to a much greater degree than we have today. I'm not saying I'm comfortable with this type of future, but I do think that's where we're headed.
 
Uber is a crap deal for drivers. I have friends who can attest to that. But there is no doubt the service has disrupted the government regulated cab model. Here's another factor that illustrates an important point;
When you use Uber you have an opportunity to rate the driver. In turn, the driver rates you as a passenger. An online reputation is built over time.

In the future you'll be rated on a constant basis in all manner of ways. The rating will be done mostly by machines. If you're a troll-ass dickhead to other people you'll either be avoided or things will be more expensive for you.

Or if you run a business like Chipotle and serve food ridden with bacteria, people will be informed of that.

Such a society would be self-policing to a much greater degree than we have today. I'm not saying I'm comfortable with this type of future, but I do think that's where we're headed.

I have mixed feelings about Uber. Great idea, unfair fees : they need more competition, but it is going to be hard due to network efect: they already have many drivers and customers connected.

Solar is great. The problem I see is the way in which large cities are being built and the way in which its three main components are moving: labour is less needed with each passing year, land costs are going upward, corporations and capital goods are becoming more important.
Anyone with some land can make a living. As labour value decreases I think it will become more important to have some land and capital goods ( machinery) this will create a balance between large corporations and households, as it is probable that in the future corporations need only a handfull of people to run.
The result will probably be two circular flows almost completely isolated from each other... I'll make a diagram to illustrate my point if I find enough spare time.
 
Fueled by self interest and unregulated.

A liberal compares our Founders to cancer cells. No wonder liberals spied for Stalin and gave him the bomb while he was slowly starving 60 million to death!! It all fits together doesn't it?

Mmmm .... wiki libertarians so you have at least a slight idea about what you are talking 'bout Ed.
 
Fueled by self interest and unregulated.

A liberal compares our Founders to cancer cells. No wonder liberals spied for Stalin and gave him the bomb while he was slowly starving 60 million to death!! It all fits together doesn't it?

Mmmm .... wiki libertarians so you have at least a slight idea about what you are talking 'bout Ed.
do you have any idea what you are trying to say other than our founders were like cancer because they were conservative and wanted tiny central govt???
 

Forum List

Back
Top