Rocketman on December 01, 2008, 03:47:46 am
Is there such a thing as a "natural born libertarian"?  I don't think so, but I admit that I could be wrong.  If you looked at Americans say 200 years ago, nearly all of them were, at least to some degree.  I made a comment before if you took a modern socialist liberal (as opposed to say Thomas Jefferson who was a classical liberal) and put them back then, the average person of the time after talking to them would have been convinced that they were absolutely insane.  "You don't believe that people should own guns?"  "You think that people should be paid by the government for not working?"  "You think that cities should limit citizens having businesses in their homes?"  The fire has been bred out of the average person.  You can't fight city hall.  He's from my political party so what he's doing must be for my benefit and so on.  Americans are going to soon pay a very heavy price for being complanisant instead of raising a stink everytime that they saw their rights going down the crapper.

Leviathan on December 01, 2008, 04:05:46 pm
I don't necessarily think it's 100% born.  There is probably a predisposition for or against submission to others.  Some might be incapable of it despite any level of conditioning, some may be so hardwired to submit to the alpha that it takes significant events to override the imperative.  But I think it's more the fact that government is no better at brainwashing than it is at anything else it does.  There was an old expression in the catholic church, I can't recall it exactly at the moment but it went to the effect that if you get a kid young, you've got'em for life.  I see that in government.  Once someone is acclimated to government and other authority, it takes significant stressors to snap'em out of it.  To some extent, a significant enough stressor is anti-gun types actually learning to shoot and getting out of the gun phobia.  At least on that topic.  But, even if you destroy one of their most closely held beliefs (guns = bad), oftentimes it doesn't cascade through the other beliefs.

Rocketman on December 01, 2008, 07:40:12 pm
Leviathan, I agree with pretty much everything in your last post.  Nothing is going to convince me that the public school system wasn't put into place for exactly the Catholic school reasoning says it was.   I think most libertarians today are to some degree "rugged individualists" and don't follow the herd mentality.  I credit my family for that.  I was raised by my grandparents and by my great grandmother. my father dying in 1954 when I was just two and my mother working all the time to pay the bills.  I think that it also accounts for my taste in music.  Instead of the Beatles and Rolling Stones I always preferred Ed Ames, Johnny Rivers, the Vogues and the Lettermen.
« Last Edit: December 02, 2008, 06:49:27 am by Rocketman »

Leviathan on December 03, 2008, 12:49:58 am
One of three possibilities arise from this.  One, Fiorella converts, Guy becomes incensed and runs back to home to get reinforcements to appease his sense of deluded jealousy (he has no real claim on her, but sometimes that doesn't seem to matter).  Two, Guy and Fiorella hook up and Guy puts up with the anarchy for her sake.  Three they don't hook up, but she converts and takes Guy under her wing in a sisterly way to walk him along the difficult road to liberty  ;)

SandySandfort on December 03, 2008, 07:55:01 am
One of three possibilities arise from this.  One, Fiorella converts, Guy becomes incensed and runs back to home to get reinforcements to appease his sense of deluded jealousy (he has no real claim on her, but sometimes that doesn't seem to matter).  Two, Guy and Fiorella hook up and Guy puts up with the anarchy for her sake.  Three they don't hook up, but she converts and takes Guy under her wing in a sisterly way to walk him along the difficult road to liberty  ;)
Four, none of the above.

Rocketman on December 03, 2008, 08:53:17 am
Leviathan:  All of your possiblities are all too predictable and therefore I don't think any of them will be the outcome.  I say that even with Sandy being the writer of the script saying it.

SandySandfort on December 04, 2008, 06:40:04 am
Leviathan:  All of your possiblities are all too predictable and therefore I don't think any of them will be the outcome.  I say that even with Sandy being the writer of the script saying it.
There is an admonition in writing that says what happens next should be inevitable but not predictable. I try to hit that mark as much as possible. If you want to predict were EFT is going, please understand that Scott and I, as is the case with most writers, engage in foreshadowing. So there are hints. (Of course, we also include plausible but false cues as well...)

Leviathan on December 04, 2008, 01:32:01 pm
True.  I'm off a fair amount of the time.  But I think the foreshadowing here is pretty direct for today.  Guy believes the source of the Cererean wealth is, laughably, their "unfair" access to natural resources, and he's been overheard.  So I don't know how exactly they'll do it, but I suspect there will be an attempt to induce Guy and Fiorella's eyes to adopt the aspect of sheep.

Hmm, where have I heard that one before, though...  That part about people receiving an "unfair" advantage just because they happen to be sitting on a massive natural resource...  About that being the only possible explanation for places like the US having as much wealth as it does...   ::)  That, and this mysterious exploitation of other countries.  Which what exploitation that actually happened that's a causitive agent of the misery really amounts to installing tyrants.  Both the US and Russia did it.  And the fundamental difference between Russian and US tyrants was whether they confiscated existing top industries from their current holders to hand to favored bureaucrats or not. 

Oh, yeah, I know where I've heard that one from.  Everybody who tries to explain why Russia failed and the US didn't.  Everyone who advocates socialism, or the left-anarchist positions that I've seen.  I cannot fathom how Guy could figure that as the only possible reason they have a good standard of living there.  It's the rough equivalent of Hong Kong!  A source of reaction mass for any ships heading out, 'round, or in.  Nothing much else.  Hong Kong at least has air built in.  Yet the claim is made that it's these "unfair natural advantages" combined with exploitation of the poor (I wonder when Guy's gonna level that charge at Ceres, though in a way that's already the charge since they're supposed to be profiting at Terra's expense) that mean US isn't experiencing the problems of India, for example.

Rocketman on December 05, 2008, 06:36:50 am
I haven't personally heard anyone use the term "unfair advantage" in regards to the socialism sceme of stealing mineral wealth for a long time.  People who think that way are either best avoided or better yet shot, but if I did then I would remind them that the country of Africa probably has more mineral wealth than the entire United States does and ask them why that say the country of Nigeria or Lesotho isn't as rich as one of the American states.  I would then probably be accused of being a racist by them for bring that up.   :(  On second thought, there's an old saying that "only a fool argues with an idiot"   Bang, bang, bang.
« Last Edit: December 05, 2008, 06:39:40 am by Rocketman »

Leviathan on December 05, 2008, 09:34:09 pm
Oh, but don't you know?  Africa has been exploited by the West!  We conquered them and made them slaves (actually, they sold us the slaves they'd made of other tribes  :-\ ) and installed tyrannical leaders who made sure they never had any prosperity!  Never mind that most if not all of Africa is post-colonial at this point...  Never mind that Hong Kong was similarly captured, but because it lacked material resources of any kind Britain ignored it, failing to establish a tradition of tyrannical overlordism but instead treated it with "benevolent neglect" as the US prospered under prior to the revolution...  No, the countries that prosper are solely invested in by the west so they will prosper, and the countries that fail are similarly exploited and farmed for cheap labor and raw materials.  Of course that's how it works...

Rocketman on December 06, 2008, 07:09:50 am
My response to that would be take a look at the country of Zimbabwe since it's been in the news lately.  When the country was formerly known as Rhodesia and was a "colony of the British" it was known as the breadbasket of Africa.  They were exporting grain and had one of the highest life expectancies on the entire continent.  I was given independance in 1980 if I remember correctly.  Since then they freely elected a native madman who knows as much running the country properly as my cat knows about stock car racing and has insane levels of inflation.  People are starving and my guess is that it won't be long before the UN intervenes (meaning the USA primarily)  and wastes that commie bastard.  Yea, I would say to the liberal that said that, is that the kind of exploition that your talking about?

Leviathan on December 06, 2008, 08:58:44 am
I haven't been using Africa as an example of the reverse.  The economic freedom scale IMO tells the story pretty plainly.  The economic freedom scale correlates quite well with how well off a given country is in terms of standard of living.  Especially at the bottom rung of society.  Funny that as zim has gone down the toilet, its economic liberty scale has also similarly declined.

Anyway, they'll just say before its independence it was being subsidized with western investments.  That since independence, the west tried to ruin it so we could step back in and assume control, and be welcomed as saviors.  Or something.  What I've seen is the socialists (and left-leaning anarchists for that matter) have a resemblance to creationists.  And they generally do not see that if they'd let go, they could have everything they claim to want.  They could have voluntary charities, even the communes if they so choose.  The mercantilists could hold their own security companies, which wouldn't actively defend competitors.  All they have to give up is getting it by force and making everyone else comply with their rules.

Rocketman on December 06, 2008, 12:10:40 pm
Anyway, they'll just say before its independence it was being subsidized with western investments.  That since independence, the west tried to ruin it so we could step back in and assume control, and be welcomed as saviors.  Or something. 
I would reply that it's the opposite that's true, that since Zimbabwe gained it's independance that the ruling party has done everything that it could to drive out western investments which has made the discolonization of the country a disaster.  That it's white land owners who were the ones that provided the food have been driven off of their families land, some of which had been in the same family for over a hundred years.  They have been murdered, raped and tortured and now the only people who inhabit the farms and orchards are land squatters who care nothing for farming other than for subsistance.  In other words it's not the colonial powers that are responsible but the Zimbabwe government (such as it is) itself.

Frank B. on December 06, 2008, 02:10:17 pm
I would reply that it's the opposite that's true, that since Zimbabwe gained it's independance that the ruling party has done everything that it could to drive out western investments which has made the discolonization of the country a disaster.  That it's white land owners who were the ones that provided the food have been driven off of their families land, some of which had been in the same family for over a hundred years.  They have been murdered, raped and tortured and now the only people who inhabit the farms and orchards are land squatters who care nothing for farming other than for subsistance.  In other words it's not the colonial powers that are responsible but the Zimbabwe government (such as it is) itself.

This brings up an interesting notion.  Suppose people live in a "toilet" because most (or at least enough) like it that way.  Consider the subsistance land squatters in Zimbabwe you mention.  Perhaps they do not work the farm lands that were given [back] to them in a modern, high production way, not because they don't know how to, or lack an incentive to do so, but rather they'd prefer to live as their ancestors did prior to colonization, similar to American Indians who preferred living in the squalor of the reservations because they prefer living off the land in poverty retaining their culture and traditions, than improving their standard of living by accepting a foreign culture.  As anarchists, we love to blame government for all ills which befall a population.  But consider that the "ill" as we see it, is in fact what they want.  So what if they have to live with murder and disease?  Their ancestors smile upon them for restoring their traditions.  Kind of like Republicans.  ;)


Rocketman on December 06, 2008, 07:38:26 pm
Frank: It's not as simple as your making it seem.  The squatters are primarily commie war vets who VIOLENTLY FORCED the productive white farmers off of the land with the governments blessing and help.  Like I mentioned before, many of the white farmers ancestors purchased that land a hundred years ago or more.  If the squatters had come to the farmers and purchased the land from them, (assuming that the farmers would sell it) at a fair price and wanted to return to subsistance farming I would have no problem with that, but that's not what happened.  If say 40% of the farmers sold their land then that would make the other 60% of the farms that weren't sold that much more valuable since food prices would rise and the for profit farms would then be more profitable.  Then when the subsistance farmers couldn't pay their taxes the profitable farmers would then be able to purchase the land and turn it back to profit once again.  Basic economics.  My guess is the majority of the squatters technical knowledge consists of knowing how to field strip an AK-47 and RPG and not how to chisel plant corn rows or how to maintain tractors.  Put them on a halfway modern farm and they haven't a clue of what to do.