Thoughts on Liberty - Latest Comments

Re: In Order to Achieve Individualism, We Must Acknowledge Privilege Exists

Imani — Fri, 27 Jan 2017 12:10:01 -0000

acknowledging privilege exists != embrace collectivism

Re: 6 Reasons Why Light Rail is a Terrible Idea

Mark Lesniak — Thu, 26 Jan 2017 07:29:01 -0000

I agree! But you don't build more roads! You cannot build roads out of congestions that's insane - it's the most basic arithmetic that doesn't work. You need to repurpose assets.

Re: Sex-Positive Christianity: Is It Possible?

marriageandsexpositive — Mon, 26 Dec 2016 14:02:17 -0000

In a word, YES. Of course it is. There are dozens of wonderful websites out there devoted to the message of sex-positive Christianity! Thanks for this great post.

Re: 6 Gun Safety Tips From Your Friendly Neighborhood Libertarian

Jokuvaan — Sat, 24 Dec 2016 21:06:28 -0000

Well there are some relatively cheap and reliable guns like say Glock 17, Remington 870, pretty muchly all AK variants, CZ-858, ect.

Re: The Newest Form of Slut Shaming: Skank Flank

Melissaღ — Thu, 22 Dec 2016 01:31:09 -0000

more feminists crying about silly things when there are real problems in the world

Re: Numbers Don’t Lie: Patriarchy is Alive and Kicking

actthenpens — Sat, 10 Dec 2016 22:41:39 -0000

It is great to have a defined definition of Patriachy to argue with.

The church is a good point however that only seems to apply to the USA as in Europe the church has little to no powers being largely secular.

So for instance would the welfare system voted for and mantained by females be an example of a matriachy, as that is female moral authority holding sway over society. Not only is it a female morality but it has evolved into feminist morality authority where the head of Women and Equality states "it is not nessacary that men are needed in the family"

Considering the welfare state, and the tax system, largely exists to maintain single mothers is that not an example of feminist morality authority.

So would Europe be an example of matriachy as their morality holds authority over the structure of the society. I would go further and say it is not matriachy morals that hold sway but feminist moral authority that dictate many courses of European society

Re: Male Disposability is Not an Argument Against Feminism

tom_quantum — Fri, 09 Dec 2016 16:17:41 -0000

The hell it isn't.

Re: What is Libertarian Socialism?

Unity4Liberty — Sun, 04 Dec 2016 17:03:02 -0000

No my thinking is not muddled. If you look in my reply I clearly stated that I do not think it should be mandated by law. I believe in voluntary associations. It appears it is your reading comprehension that is what is lacking.

Re: What is Libertarian Socialism?

Bill Rabara — Sun, 04 Dec 2016 16:42:23 -0000

Your thinking is muddled and dare I say flawed. The simple example I gave is an example of an entirely voluntary relationship. I offer x to y to perform z. X is the fair market value for z or else y would reject my offer. Your example of a cooperative is perfectly acceptable if the relationship is voluntary. Mandating cooperatives is against the core principles of libertarianism.

Re: What is Libertarian Socialism?

Unity4Liberty — Sun, 04 Dec 2016 11:59:54 -0000

It is not such a bizarre philosophy if you have actually spent the time to understand it. The part that makes it hard to understand is the perversions of the words libertarian and socialism. They have come to mean very different things in the laymans mind and therefore there is a cognitive bias against accepting the original philosophies of those two words. Libertarianism as understood in post mid 20th century America is pro capitalism, but before Murray Rothbard namely and a few others, this was not the case. In fact, libertarianism was understood to be an anarchist oriented socialism and in the 19th century they participated heavily in the labor movement against the robber barons. So take libertarian and add the understanding that for one to true liberty this must include the liberty to choose how, when, where, and what they produce as well as have ownership over themselves and the fruits of their labor (i.e. their property by the Lockean Labor Theory of Property). In capitalism, though there are successes by some, in any statistical measure, workers en masse as deprived of this liberty and are coerced into a system which makes them submit to a boss. I recommend you read Wealth of Nations Ch. 8. There is an excerpt early in that chapter which explains pretty clearly why workers have little leverage and why they are forced to be a subject of some boss or starve.

Yes, I believe in individual property rights and I also do not believe in outlawing capitalism via outlawing people to work for a wage rather than be a member who shares in the responsibility and reward of ownership and management of an enterprise. But I do advocate for this organization of labor because it is a much more stable system which does not naturally result in the gross wealth inequality capitalism does which in turn causes less free markets, a bolstering of the state, increased margins of poverty, amongst other things.

There is a thing called shared ownership. It is the basis upon which the cooperatives are formed. But you could very well hire your friend as an external consultant to do the work you require and pay him by the job. He may not want to join your business and you may not want him to either. The part I frown upon is you hiring him for a wage with the intention of paying him less the worth of the fruits of his labor so you can extract direct profit through his production.

For example, you hire me to build chairs for you. The tools, materials and other indirect costs add up to an expense of $5 per chair. You pay me a wage of $10 per chair (this could be $10 per hour assuming I make 1 chair per hour). Now you go to the marketplace and sell those chairs for $30 per chair making $15 per chair in profits for the time and energy you invested into hiring me, buying the materials and tools, and selling the chairs. The extra money which you extracted from the chair business in the difference between the value of my production (the fruits of my labor) and the wage remuneration you paid me. There is some justification for you being able to extract some of this value for yourself as a result of you risking your capital in the endeavour, this process repeated over time creates a disparity in people where one class has much more power and leverage over the other. This typically results in the people in my shoes receiving less and less proportions of the fruits of our labor in wage remuneration while the industrial capitalists extract greater and greater amounts enhancing this vicious cycle forward. By moving to a system where inoted of me being paid a wage, I and everyone else employed in the enterprise are shared owners (not all equal ownership) in the enterprise making us have a vested interest in the business and as owners susceptible to the risk and the reward, I think a much better dynamic in the economy will be struck.

Re: What is Libertarian Socialism?

Bill Rabara — Sun, 04 Dec 2016 09:15:31 -0000

Such a bizarre philosophy. Do you believe in individual property rights? If so, then the philosophy seems fatally flawed with contradiction. If I decide to produce hot dogs and my friend agrees to help me do so in exchange for some of my property, then how can my friend have ownership rights of my hot dog operation? The only ethically justified answer must rely on a voluntary arrangement which is laisssez faire.

Re: The Science of Catcalling

Jason West — Fri, 02 Dec 2016 21:36:20 -0000

I didn't come for a normative article but a factual one. Why do men do it if it's so unproductive - insecurity?

Re: How to Go From Citizen to Criminal in Under 10 Minutes

timu2cool — Tue, 29 Nov 2016 06:10:20 -0000

Welcome to the MACHINE.
.What a backward ass state..Barney Fife must have been bored to the point of stupidity.

Re: Numbers Don’t Lie: Patriarchy is Alive and Kicking

tim — Sun, 20 Nov 2016 04:08:30 -0000

Just because less women have PHD's in philosophy doesn't mean they can't.
Have you ever thought that their hasn't been a female president because there hasn't been a suitable female candidate to run our country.

Re: Commercial Surrogacy is A Woman’s Reproductive and Economic Freedom

Evie — Thu, 17 Nov 2016 07:02:21 -0000

I think we should pay women who may become surrogate mother. In many countries there is such a problem as the lack of healthy surrogate mom. Or women are not going to risk their health. Why in Ukraine or Georgia there are so many beautiful surrogate mothers? These countries are not as rich as the ones in Europe, Australia, and the USA and so on. The sum of money they get is enough to meet their costs. In these countries the girls are very beautiful and well-educated. So the demand on their service is also very high. I regret that two years ago I decided to do it in Belgium. I paid a lot of money to clinic. Also in Ukraine for example they use only fresh biomaterial. So the percent of successful pregnancies is much higher. Also there are no such queues in clinics as in our countries. There people shouldn`t wait for 3-5 years to get eggs for fertilization or to use surrogate motherhood service. So I think it`s better to risk and go there, instead of waiting for years.

Re: No, You Don’t Get Moral High Ground over Third Party Voters

Stephanie Harrell — Wed, 02 Nov 2016 15:34:02 -0000

The logic is sound in this article.

I've been a left-leaning libertarian for quite some time and I am getting frustrated with the lack of reasonable and critical thought for this election.

Personally,I think Bill Weld would be leaps and bounds above Johnson. I ended up voting for Clinton simply so Trump will lose. Bill Weld is wanting to rebuild the republican party with libertarian values and that sounds just dandy to me.

Re: What is Civil Libertarianism?

AnarchistJoe — Thu, 27 Oct 2016 23:59:12 -0000

I didn't finish the article. I had to stop to express how enlightening it was for you to parse positive rights vs. negative rights. I'd never come across that, and I'd consider myself more versed with libertarian thought than most. That was a shining in my skull; it was excellent. I now have a ton to think to about. Like all of a sudden being gifted new cones in your retina, able to see a whole new wavelength of light. Shit's heavy. Thanks!

Re: If Feminism is at Fault for Divorce Rates, I’d Like to Say Thanks

Gina Luttrell — Wed, 26 Oct 2016 09:00:31 -0000

Nine years with my husband, four years with my boyfriend and going strong!

Re: If Feminism is at Fault for Divorce Rates, I’d Like to Say Thanks

Imani — Wed, 26 Oct 2016 08:33:58 -0000

incorrect no resentment for my wife here.

Re: No, You Don’t Get Moral High Ground over Third Party Voters

Renee Matthews — Thu, 20 Oct 2016 16:27:41 -0000

Exactly! Thank you!

Re: Male Disposability is Not an Argument Against Feminism

Darknut — Wed, 12 Oct 2016 13:15:19 -0000

Jesus Christ how long are you going to ride the fucking "more men died in the God Damn Titanic" scooter?

Over all percentage wise women die as much as men in ship wrecks, but there's nothing in feminism, nor have I seen anything in a gender studies class telling anyone to put women in life boats first so what the hell is your point really?

http://www.huffingtonpost.c...

Re: Male Disposability is Not an Argument Against Feminism

Darknut — Wed, 12 Oct 2016 13:12:05 -0000

They all KNOW it but "refuse to say it." So how do you know they know it? Must be mind reading.

What the hell does anything in that article have to do with feminism? Here go to www.feministing.com www.everydayfeminism.com and show me where they told Japanese women not to ever get pregnant or have sex.

I'll wait. LOL.

God anti-feminists can really scrape the bucket for nonsense arguments but this is the dumbest one I've heard all day. All week maybe.

Re: Male Disposability is Not an Argument Against Feminism

Darknut — Wed, 12 Oct 2016 13:05:11 -0000

"I encourage you, if you haven't already, to read "Professing Feminism" by Daphne Patai and Noretta Koertge, two Women's Studies professors."

I urge YOU to read it. First of all Daphne Patai is a professor of Spanish and Portugese, and Noretta Koertge is a professor of History. Neither are "women's studies" anything at all. Starting out with an easily debunked falsehood doesn't help your position, but lets pretend you're being genuine.

But even if they were, and even if we can take your example as some gospel and indubitable (which it is not by a long shot) indictment of feminism, it's at best a red herring and has no bearing on the point of this article.

Where in "Professing Feminism" does it say "feminism denies male disposability?" or "feminism is pro war" or "feminism is against women sharing combat positions." Or anything that contradicts anything Erin is saying in this post?

Please cite with quotes from Erin's article and quotes from that book that are in direct contradiction with each other.

I'll wait.

Also further down you repeat the highly debatable canard that communism itself somehow killed tons of people, but seem to forget the death toll of capitalism. Both world wars --not started by communists, 400 years of slavery in Europe and America, the genocide of indigenous people in North America, Australia, Africa... and those killed by systemic poverty (while an abundance of food rots in silos to keep prices up) in capitalist countries in the name of imperialist capitalism seems to have slipped your mind apparently. Nooobody dies because capitalism no surree.

All systems perpetuate themselves with violence. Except ones you like I guess.

Re: No, You Don’t Get Moral High Ground over Third Party Voters

Sam — Wed, 05 Oct 2016 12:21:30 -0000

Baby steps. We have to appeal to the masses to get noticed. Anything to incrementally scale back the Leviathan is a step in the right direction

Re: No, You Don’t Get Moral High Ground over Third Party Voters

Sam — Wed, 05 Oct 2016 12:19:50 -0000

Did you read the article? Take Perot in 1992. He ran independent of a party on balancing the budget and won 19%. The GOP, after losing a big portion of voters to Perot, regrouped and you have historic landslide of the '94 midterms and the Contract with America which had a Balanced Budget front and center.

So, as the author stated, put up better candidates who push for things disaffected voters want and they will vote for that candidate