Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

          

Show ALL Forums
Posted In Forum:

Home   login   MyForums  
 
 Author Thread: Finding your soulmate at 34 is hard.
 neondove
Joined: 12/6/2007
Msg: 13 (view)
 
Finding your soulmate at 34 is hard.
Posted: 3/26/2013 11:32:00 PM
Its press the spacebar not enter.
 neondove
Joined: 12/6/2007
Msg: 59 (view)
 
WHAT'S YOUR FAVORITE INSPIRATIONAL QUOTE, STORY OR POEM?
Posted: 7/1/2012 9:44:42 PM
The Peace of Wild Things

When despair for the world grows in me
and I wake in the night at the least sound
in fear of what my life and my children's lives may be,
I go and lie down where the wood drake
rests in his beauty on the water, and the great heron feeds.
I come into the peace of wild things
who do not tax their lives with forethought
of grief. I come into the presence of still water.
And I feel above me the day-blind stars
waiting with their light. For a time
I rest in the grace of the world, and am free.

— Wendell Berry
 neondove
Joined: 12/6/2007
Msg: 11 (view)
 
Libertarianism: Right and Left
Posted: 9/29/2008 10:24:34 PM
Libertarianism: Right and Left

The libertarianism of the right has a view of power that does not keep to its own self-consistency. It views political power as potentially dangerous, having the great potential to be abused, and therefore needing to be kept in close check. But it does not recognize economic power as a power in society, which is an oversight that is hard to fathom, such power being so plainly obvious. Because libertarians of the right tend not to recognize economic power as a form of power in society, they are unconcerned with its concentrations – even when concentrations of economic power become staggeringly large, as they have over the past twenty or thirty years. This is an oversight that is frankly dangerous, if not delusional.

Libertarians of the left share the skepticism of highly concentrated political power, but, naturally, recognize the potential for harm and abuse from excessive concentrations of economic power. Thus, in the present order of things, corporate power is to be addressed equally, along side state or governmental power. To do otherwise is to contradict oneself, and worse, to leave the door open to fascism, to serious and extreme abuse of power, due to the lack of fore-sight to correct and put in check all forms of great concentrations of power in society.

Right libertarianism questions, challenges, and repudiates high levels of concentration of political power in society - and rightfully so, I believe - yet it is, or at least has been until recently, unwilling to question the role and nature of high levels of concentrations of economic power.

This is frankly a gross oversight, and one that makes right libertarianism a contradiction in terms: you cannot advocate limitations on powers that unduly constrict human freedom and pose threats of tyranny in a self-consistent, coherent or even reasonable manner if you are only willing to look at one form of power in society. Economic power is every bit as real as political power, some would say more so.

The 500 biggest corporations on earth now have combined revenues that total three times the GDP of the world’s biggest national economy - that of the United States. If this does not constitute power in society, I’m not sure what would.

OK, well, corporations have immense power, but that does not mean it translates into political power - does it? They are competing with one another. Yes, they are competing with one another, and they also share common interests: drive labour costs and wages down, eliminate or circumvent labour and environmental standards, find the cheapest source of labour and resources and move there, then dominate them, open borders to free flow of capital, but not to labour…..The commonalities are pretty clear.

And do they meet, discuss common interests, work together cooperatively? Of course. Wouldn’t you if you were in their position?

Do teachers join together to pursue common interests, such as decent pay, pension plans, etc.? Do janitors get together to pursue common goals of better pay and working conditions?

It is, or should be, obvious that there are common group - or, heaven forbid we use the term - class interests, that bring otherwise competing parties together to pursue common goals. The corporate elite are no different. This is not a conspiracy, but simply common sense.

The world’s corporate elite gather, among other places, at Davos Switzerland every year for the World Economic Forum, and there seek to push governments to their will, to advance common interests among the elite global investment class, to the extent that they are able - and that is a considerable length.

It is impossible to deny the very real power of corporations in society without digressing into ideological fundamentalism and willful blindness. Refusing to challenge economic concentrations of power while espousing a libertarian philosophy is self-contradictory: right libertarianism is an oxymoron.

Would a laissez-fair, free-market capitalist who supports only limited government - a libertarian as it is known on the right - be considered an oxymoron or a self-contradiction if he was also a slave owner? Of course.

It is not very different if a libertarian advocates checks and balances on political power, yet does not question the giant corporate monopolies and oligopolies that now wield more power than democratically elected governments.

Right libertarianism is truly a contradiction in terms, unless by that you mean a conservative libertarian who also questions and challenges excessive concentrations of corporate power, and not only state or governmental power. U.S. Congressman and 2008 Presidential candidate Ron Paul, for example, I would describe as a conservative libertarian in this sense. He has his head on his shoulders when it comes to corporate powers, as far as I can tell. He is not stuck in ideological dogmatisms.

The left is equated - wrongly - with heavy-handed, bureaucratic, if not totalitarian government, at least this is the view of the left we get from the right; however, there are broadly speaking two wings or schools of thought within what has been called the left, and only one of the two fits the above description.

In the socialist movement of the 1800’s there was a definite rift and fierce debate between the two kinds of what is loosely described as left political views. Marx led the wing we are familiar with, Bakunin the other. Bakunin and the libertarian socialists were ousted, lost the battle, and were to some considerable degree eclipsed from history. Bakunin warned Marxist ideas would lead to a new form of tyranny, and of course he was right.

Now, with the Marxist-Leninist school of thought being in full disgrace within the left as well as the broader community world-wide, the alternative is becoming clear to many. I would say it deserves attention, and merits respectful consideration.





The War on Democracy: Unchecked Power Out of Control

Under what we should more honestly call monopoly capitalism, the era of the small shop owner being the primary economic player having long ago vanished, corporate power has become so concentrated – that is, economic power has become enormously concentrated – that it now threatens to engulf and eviscerate all remaining democratic power of societies world wide. We should be concerned. Jefferson warned of this 200 years ago. We did not listen. We are now facing the results of our lack of foresight.

Those on the right and left with a libertarian perspective would do well to communicate. There is a natural allegiance here, if we can learn to speak in ways that are mutually understandable. There is too little time for bickering or ideological warfare. We need to get together to protect the basics: decent, although flawed, human, imperfect limited government, within the framework of constitutional democracy and basic human rights and freedom.

If we do not come together, and not just right and left libertarians, but traditional liberals, conservatives, social democrats, and all who oppose the by now undeniable drift into fascism, and stand together for democracy, all other considerations will become merely abstract.
 neondove
Joined: 12/6/2007
Msg: 111 (view)
 
made a terrible mistake by f&&king these other guys ...
Posted: 7/30/2008 4:26:05 PM

If he can't let go of the past then you've got to let go of him.

It's not like you were together so he shouldn't feel bad...


and this is why relations between the genders is at a all time low...
 neondove
Joined: 12/6/2007
Msg: 82 (view)
 
Cheesiest Pick up lines
Posted: 7/28/2008 8:44:24 PM
your eyes are as blue as the ocean and I'm lost at sea...
 neondove
Joined: 12/6/2007
Msg: 3 (view)
 
Advice for a tomboy/girl?
Posted: 7/11/2008 9:31:58 AM
Well if you act like a guy prepare to be treated like one of the guys. I like to hang out with my buddies not date them.
 neondove
Joined: 12/6/2007
Msg: 106 (view)
 
Is this a new social phenomenon???
Posted: 7/4/2008 6:07:34 PM

Why so bitter and angry? Why stoop to slagging a guy for his choices? When women make similar proclamations, most women jump on the band wagon waving nicely scented candles in the air yelling, " You go girl! You don't NEED a man! You got the POWWWWwAH! "
I love when women feel they can't control something.



I've never understood why women have to proclaim how independent they are , who the **** cares , I don't think I've ever heard a man say that , ever.
 neondove
Joined: 12/6/2007
Msg: 531 (view)
 
why do men think they can use women for sex?
Posted: 7/1/2008 5:10:23 PM
Women get used for sex becasue they give it up so easily these days..
 neondove
Joined: 12/6/2007
Msg: 86 (view)
 
Will this fix itself?
Posted: 6/26/2008 8:56:24 PM

The point of my post and many others is that the past is the past and her current BF has no right to tell her what she did was wrong. She owes no one an explanation for her acts.
The 'girls' I went to school with are now 45 year old women with careers and families. What they did in their 20's has no bearing on who they are today, it was harmless college sex Big Deal. The OP's only 'mistake' as most of us see it, was not using a condom.
Do you read the forums here Pal? How many people these days are waiting a year or two between sexual relationships? No person should be made to feel ashamed of their natural human sex drive. It is puritanical to expect an adult to make excuses to their 'friends' for seeking pleasure from another adult. Grow up.


Holy crap , how old are you ? Typical response from a woman , you did nothing wrong its your BF's problem , go act like a whore it's not your problem.

And women wonder why Chivalry is dead , it's kinda hard having respect for someone who doesn't even respect herself.
 neondove
Joined: 12/6/2007
Msg: 59 (view)
 
made a terrible mistake by f&&king these other guys ...
Posted: 6/20/2008 8:23:46 PM
I am much older than you and have personal experience on both ends of what you are talking about. You can take this anyway you want to or not, but I can guarantee you that it is not going to work out between him and yourself!! At least in a long term type of relationship!

Men are different than women in this area. Men are physically based and think in that realm, and emotions you were feeling that lead to F**k those guys means nothing to us and he will never get over what you did! Women as you know are more emotional and in your defense the sex isn't that big of a deal, however if he had fallen deeply and emotionally in LOVE with a woman while you two were broken up. You yourself would be having the same problem that he is!
It would just be a difference in the view point of men and women!

What I have said I KNOW to be true, but you take it or leave it...


Winner , thread over
 neondove
Joined: 12/6/2007
Msg: 54 (view)
 
Will this fix itself?
Posted: 6/20/2008 5:25:18 PM
I love some of posters responses , hey your BF is insecure so if he has a problem dump his ass , tell him to put his big boy pants on , gee ever think that the guy is a human being and that he has human emotions ?, no wonder you guys are on POF. The guy more than likely is having a hard time because he really cares about her and can't stand the fact that another man got the chance to intimate with her , that would bug me.

And no stupid , "get over it" responses are going to fix it , no wonder society is laying in the gutter.
 neondove
Joined: 12/6/2007
Msg: 39 (view)
 
Is this a new social phenomenon???
Posted: 5/25/2008 8:33:29 PM
I know what your talking about OP and Im doing this. I was insecure to a extent in my earlier years and I had trouble trusting women. I've been beaten down and rejected A LOT by women in my age range but I've managed to pick myself up every time and took another shot because I truly believe you should have someone in your life , it's healthy and beautiful and natural and worthwhile. But my skin is getting a little to thick and I'm starting to hate woman as a gender I dunno , I feel like I'm heading down the road of misogyny and that's why I'm taking a break from dating.

It feels like the last 10 years of my love life have been a war that's scarred me head to toe and I don't want to become bitter hateful and jaded , I think a lot of men take a break or stop dating all together because they don't want to end up like this , some comeback , others donèt.
 neondove
Joined: 12/6/2007
Msg: 37 (view)
 
Is this a new social phenomenon???
Posted: 5/25/2008 8:09:25 PM

You get guys, who are NOT at that point, who hasn't had a date in a year....and women ask him, "Are you gay?"


OR

you can't handle a real woman or you have a small penis or your not a real man. These types of insults and shaming are getting a little tiring and predictable at that , just ignore women that spout shit like this off.
 neondove
Joined: 12/6/2007
Msg: 30 (view)
 
Remember when you were a man????
Posted: 4/27/2008 10:40:35 AM
Well I got a kick out of the title that's for sure , women don't get to define what a "real man" is because your not a men.
 neondove
Joined: 12/6/2007
Msg: 311 (view)
 
Is the USA in danger of becoming as bad as Nazi Germany
Posted: 2/4/2008 7:29:21 PM
Read Sinclair Lewis's It can't happen here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It_Can't_Happen_Here

Then read American Fascists by Chris Hedges

http://www.amazon.com/American-Fascists-Christian-Right-America/dp/0743284437

Then get chills down your spine and wake the hell up. It won't be Swastika's and Brownshirts running wild in American Cities but a made in the USA Fascism , my guess would be the Flag and the Cross.

Time to report to your local Anarchist collective and resist.
 neondove
Joined: 12/6/2007
Msg: 52 (view)
 
Why do you think the Divorce Rate is so High in North America?
Posted: 2/4/2008 7:09:25 PM
I saw a article on MSN about starter husbands , just a small snippet of a traditional institution in sharp decline , no one has any morals or ethics or brains anymore.
 neondove
Joined: 12/6/2007
Msg: 9 (view)
 
Libertarianism: Right and Left
Posted: 2/4/2008 6:51:13 PM
neondove - So, you gonna source that or what?


I did it's in the Anarchist FAQ .

http://www.infoshop.org/faq/index.html
 neondove
Joined: 12/6/2007
Msg: 7 (view)
 
Libertarianism: Right and Left
Posted: 2/3/2008 9:27:31 PM

Libertarians aren't anarchists.



The original word Libertarian is just a alternate word Anarchists used to describe themselves. The explanation you just provided is the hijacked definition the right wing in the states used for the word , you can trace it back in history to Europe , Anarchists used the term long before people in the US did.
 neondove
Joined: 12/6/2007
Msg: 6 (view)
 
Libertarianism: Right and Left
Posted: 2/3/2008 9:17:08 PM
The socialist opposition to private property spits in the face of the whole concept of liberty.


F.5 Will privatising "the commons" increase liberty?

"Anarcho"-capitalists aim for a situation in which "no land areas, no square footage in the world shall remain 'public,'" in other words everything will be "privatised." [Murray Rothbard, Nations by Consent, p. 84] They claim that privatising "the commons" (e.g. roads, parks, etc.) which are now freely available to all will increase liberty. Is this true? Here we will concern ourselves with private ownership of commonly used "property" which we all take for granted (and often pay for with taxes).

Its clear from even a brief consideration of a hypothetical society based on "privatised" roads (as suggested by Murray Rothbard [For a New Liberty, pp. 202-203] and David Friedman [The Machinery of Freedom, pp. 98-101]) that the only increase of liberty will be for the ruling elite. As "anarcho"-capitalism is based on paying for what one uses, privatisation of roads would require some method of tracking individuals to ensure that they pay for the roads they use. In the UK, for example, during the 1980s the British Tory government looked into the idea of toll-based motorways. Obviously having toll-booths on motorways would hinder their use and restrict "freedom," and so they came up with the idea of tracking cars by satellite. Every vehicle would have a tracking device installed in it and a satellite would record where people went and which roads they used. They would then be sent a bill or have their bank balances debited based on this information (in the fascist city-state/company town of Singapore such a scheme has been introduced). In London, the local government has introduced a scheme which allowed people to pay for public transport by electronic card. It also allowed the government to keep a detailed record of where and when people travelled, with obvious civil liberty implications.

If we extrapolate from these to a system of fully privatised "commons," it would clearly require all individuals to have tracking devices on them so they could be properly billed for use of roads, pavements, etc. Obviously being tracked by private firms would be a serious threat to individual liberty. Another, less costly, option would be for private guards to randomly stop and question car-owners and individuals to make sure they had paid for the use of the road or pavement in question. "Parasites" would be arrested and fined or locked up. Again, however, being stopped and questioned by uniformed individuals has more in common with police states than liberty. Toll-boothing every street would be highly unfeasible due to the costs involved and difficulties for use that it implies. Thus the idea of privatising roads and charging drivers to gain access seems impractical at best and distinctly freedom endangering at worse. Would giving companies that information for all travellers, including pedestrians, really eliminate all civil liberty concerns?

Of course, the option of owners letting users have free access to the roads and pavements they construct and run would be difficult for a profit-based company. No one could make a profit in that case. If companies paid to construct roads for their customers/employees to use, they would be financially hindered in competition with other companies that did not, and thus would be unlikely to do so. If they restricted use purely to their own customers, the tracking problem appears again. So the costs in creating a transport network and then running it explains why capitalism has always turned to state aid to provide infrastructure (the potential power of the owners of such investments in charging monopoly prices to other capitalists explains why states have also often regulated transport).

Some may object that this picture of extensive surveillance of individuals would not occur or be impossible. However, Murray Rothbard (in a slightly different context) argued that technology would be available to collate information about individuals. He argued that "t should be pointed out that modern technology makes even more feasible the collection and dissemination of information about people's credit ratings and records of keeping or violating their contracts or arbitration agreements. Presumably, an anarchist [sic!] society would see the expansion of this sort of dissemination of data." [Society Without A State", p. 199] So with the total privatisation of society we could also see the rise of private Big Brothers, collecting information about individuals for use by property owners. The example of the Economic League (a British company which provided the "service" of tracking the political affiliations and activities of workers for employers) springs to mind.

And, of course, these privatisation suggestions ignore differences in income and market power. If, for example, variable pricing is used to discourage road use at times of peak demand (to eliminate traffic jams at rush-hour) as is suggested both by Murray Rothbard and David Friedman, then the rich will have far more "freedom" to travel than the rest of the population. And we may even see people having to go into debt just to get to work or move to look for work.

Which raises another problem with notion of total privatisation, the problem that it implies the end of freedom of travel. Unless you get permission or (and this seems more likely) pay for access, you will not be able to travel anywhere. As Rothbard himself makes clear, "anarcho"-capitalism means the end of the right to roam. He states that "it became clear to me that a totally privatised country would not have open borders at all. If every piece of land in a country were owned . . . no immigrant could enter there unless invited to enter and allowed to rent, or purchase, property." What happens to those who cannot afford to pay for access or travel (i.e., exit) is not addressed (perhaps, being unable to exit a given capitalist's land they will become bonded labourers? Or be imprisoned and used to undercut workers' wages via prison labour? Perhaps they will just be shot as trespassers? Who can tell?). Nor is it addressed how this situation actually increases freedom. For Rothbard, a "totally privatised country would be as closed as the particular inhabitants and property owners [not the same thing, we must point out] desire. It seems clear, then, that the regime of open borders that exists de facto in the US really amounts to a compulsory opening by the central state. . . and does not genuinely reflect the wishes of the proprietors." [Nations by Consent, p. 84 and p. 85] Of course, the wishes of non-proprietors (the vast majority) do not matter in the slightest. Thus, it is clear, that with the privatisation of "the commons" the right to roam, to travel, would become a privilege, subject to the laws and rules of the property owners. This can hardly be said to increase freedom for anyone bar the capitalist class.

Rothbard acknowledges that "in a fully privatised world, access rights would obviously be a crucial part of land ownership." [Op. Cit., p. 86] Given that there is no free lunch, we can imagine we would have to pay for such "rights." The implications of this are obviously unappealing and an obvious danger to individual freedom. The problem of access associated with the idea of privatising the roads can only be avoided by having a "right of passage" encoded into the "general libertarian law code." This would mean that road owners would be required, by law, to let anyone use them. But where are "absolute" property rights in this case? Are the owners of roads not to have the same rights as other owners? And if "right of passage" is enforced, what would this mean for road owners when people sue them for car-pollution related illnesses? (The right of those injured by pollution to sue polluters is the main way "anarcho"-capitalists propose to protect the environment -- see section E.4). It is unlikely that those wishing to bring suit could find, never mind sue, the millions of individual car owners who could have potentially caused their illness. Hence the road-owners would be sued for letting polluting (or unsafe) cars onto "their" roads. The road-owners would therefore desire to restrict pollution levels by restricting the right to use their property, and so would resist the "right of passage" as an "attack" on their "absolute" property rights. If the road-owners got their way (which would be highly likely given the need for "absolute" property rights and is suggested by the variable pricing way to avoid traffic jams mentioned above) and were able to control who used their property, freedom to travel would be very restricted and limited to those whom the owner considered "desirable." Indeed, Murray Rothbard supports such a regime ("In the free [sic!] society, they [travellers] would, in the first instance, have the right to travel only on those streets whose owners agree to have them there." [The Ethics of Liberty, p. 119]). The threat to liberty in such a system is obvious -- to all but Rothbard and other right-"libertarians", of course.

To take another example, let us consider the privatisation of parks, streets and other public areas. Currently, individuals can use these areas to hold political demonstrations, hand out leaflets, picket and so on. However, under "anarcho"-capitalism the owners of such property can restrict such liberties if they desire, calling such activities "initiation of force" (although they cannot explain how speaking your mind is an example of "force"). Therefore, freedom of speech, assembly and a host of other liberties we take for granted would be eliminated under a right-"libertarian" regime. Or, taking the case of pickets and other forms of social struggle, its clear that privatising "the commons" would only benefit the bosses. Strikers or political activists picketing or handing out leaflets in shopping centres are quickly ejected by private security even today. Think about how much worse it would become under "anarcho"-capitalism when the whole world becomes a series of malls -- it would be impossible to hold a picket when the owner of the pavement objects (as Rothbard himself gleefully argued. [Op. Cit., p. 132]). If the owner of the pavement also happens to be the boss being picketed, which Rothbard himself considered most likely, then workers' rights would be zero. Perhaps we could also see capitalists suing working class organisations for littering their property if they do hand out leaflets (so placing even greater stress on limited resources).

The I.W.W. went down in history for its rigorous defence of freedom of speech because of its rightly famous "free speech" fights in numerous American cities and towns. The city bosses worried by the wobblies' open air public meetings simply made them illegal. The I.W.W. used direct action and carried on holding them. Violence was inflicted upon wobblies who joined the struggle by "private citizens," but in the end the I.W.W. won (for Emma Goldman's account of the San Diego struggle and the terrible repression inflicted on the libertarians by the "patriotic" vigilantes see Living My Life [vol. 1, pp. 494-503]). Consider the case under "anarcho"-capitalism. The wobblies would have been "criminal aggressors" as the owners of the streets have refused to allow "subversives" to use them to argue their case. If they refused to acknowledge the decree of the property owners, private cops would have taken them away. Given that those who controlled city government in the historical example were the wealthiest citizens in town, its likely that the same people would have been involved in the fictional ("anarcho"-capitalist) account. Is it a good thing that in the real account the wobblies are hailed as heroes of freedom but in the fictional one they are "criminal aggressors"? Does converting public spaces into private property really stop restrictions on free speech being a bad thing?

Of course, Rothbard (and other right-"libertarians") are aware that privatisation will not remove restrictions on freedom of speech, association and so on (while, at the same time, trying to portray themselves as supporters of such liberties!). However, for them such restrictions are of no consequence. As Rothbard argues, any "prohibitions would not be state imposed, but would simply be requirements for residence or for use of some person's or community's land area." [Nations by Consent, p. 85] Thus we yet again see the blindness of right-"libertarians" to the commonality between private property and the state we first noted in section F.1. The state also maintains that submitting to its authority is the requirement for taking up residence in its territory. As Tucker noted, the state can be defined as (in part) "the assumption of sole authority over a given area and all within it." [The Individualist Anarchists, p. 24] If the property owners can determine "prohibitions" (i.e. laws and rules) for those who use the property then they are the "sole authority over a given area and all within it," i.e. a state. Thus privatising "the commons" means subjecting the non-property owners to the rules and laws of the property owners -- in effect, privatising the state and turning the world into a series of monarchies and oligarchies without the pretence of democracy and democratic rights.

These examples can hardly be said to be increasing liberty for society as a whole, although "anarcho"-capitalists seem to think they would. So far from increasing liberty for all, then, privatising the commons would only increase it for the ruling elite, by giving them yet another monopoly from which to collect income and exercise their power over. It would reduce freedom for everyone else. Ironically, therefore, Rothbard ideology provides more than enough evidence to confirm the anarchist argument that private property and liberty are fundamentally in conflict. "It goes without saying that th[e] absolute freedom of thought, speech, and action" anarchists support "is incompatible with the maintenance of institutions that restrict free thought, rigidify speech in the form of a final and irrevocable vow, and even dictate that the worker fold his arms and die of hunger at the owners' command." [Elisee Reclus, quoted by John P. Clark and Camille Martin (eds.), Anarchy, Geography, Modernity, p. 159] As Peter Marshall notes, "n the name of freedom, the anarcho-capitalists would like to turn public spaces into private property, but freedom does not flourish behind high fences protected by private companies but expands in the open air when it is enjoyed by all." [Demanding the Impossible, p. 564]
 neondove
Joined: 12/6/2007
Msg: 5 (view)
 
Libertarianism: Right and Left
Posted: 2/3/2008 9:10:07 PM
Your answer relies on later re-definitions of the words that occurred long after the terms "libertarian socialist" came into use. With the traditional meanings, the ones used when the terms were coined, the terms are not oxymorons. With the later re-definitions, they look like oxymorons, but those who still use these terms also still use the traditional meanings of the words.

It would take a great deal of space to explain this fully, as it also involves the re-definition of other terms (capitalism, monopoly, etc.) as well as all four of the words in these two compound terms. I'll try to do so briefly. Please note that I here describe the traditional meanings of the following terms, assuming knowledge of the later re-definitions.

Capitalism refers to the ownership and control of the means of production (capital) by an elite class (known as capitalists). This elite class uses its monopolization of the means of production to (indirectly) force the works to work for them, and thus to extract a portion of the product that the workers produce.

Socialism refers to the ownership and control of the means of production by the workers themselves, whether as individuals, cooperatives, collectives, communes, or the state. (Note that some socialists, such as mutualists like Proudhon and anarcho-individualists like Warren, Spooner, and Tucker, advocate an anti-capitalist free-market system.)

Communism refers to a form of socialism in which people have free access to the means of production and free access to their products.

Anarchism refers to the rejection of illegitimate authority and hierarchy, specifically to the state and capitalism; anarchists do not reject all organization, they reject forced, hierarchical organization in favor of voluntary, non-hierarchical self-organization.

Libertarian is a traditional synonym for anarchist in the traditional sense.

With these traditional meanings, the compound terms are clearly not oxymorons. But all of these words have, as I stated before, suffered later re-definition, and using the later re-definitions instead of the original meanings does create oxymorons of them.

"An Anarchist FAQ" gives a fairly comprehensive description of traditionalist anarchist views and their difference from modern capitalist libertarianism:
http://www.anarchistfaq.org/
 neondove
Joined: 12/6/2007
Msg: 4 (view)
 
Libertarianism: Right and Left
Posted: 2/3/2008 8:37:26 PM
Libertarian socialists, despite opposing virtually everything the classical liberals supported, try to claim they are the linear descendents of this school of thought.


First of all, people really need to abandon the idea that everything is dualistic. This over simplification screams of mass borderline personality disorder.

Libertarianism is not inherently capitalist. Libertarianism is a political philosophy, derived from classical liberalism, maintaining that all persons are the absolute owners of their own lives, and should be free to do whatever they wish, provided they allow others the same liberty.

Socialism is not inherently Marxist. Socialism refers to a broad array of doctrines or political movements that envisage a socio-economic system in which the means of production and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community.

Marxism is not inherently dictatorial. The totalitarian nature of the states that call themselves Marxist is a result of Leninist ideas such as the vanguard party (which is the belief that the proletariat needs to be led by a party of professional revolutionaries) and democratic centralism.

Misconceptions arise out of the belief that there is only one political axis in an all-encompassing political spectrum and that EVERYTHING is either one or the other, black or white. In reality, the single axis political spectrum is so over-simplified that it is more or less incorrect.

The Eysenck two-axis approach (which is used for the political compass) is very much more accurate and intelligent. The Economic (Left-Right) axis measures one's opinion of how the economy should be run: "The Left" is defined as the view that the economy should be run by a cooperative collective agency (which can mean the state, but can also mean a network of communes), while "the Right" is defined as the view that the economy should be left to the devices of competing individuals and organizations. The other axis (Authoritarian-Libertarian) measures one's political opinions in a "Social" sense, regarding a view of the appropriate amount of "personal freedom": "Libertarianism" is defined as the belief that personal freedom should be maximized, while "Authoritarianism" is defined as the belief that authority and tradition should be obeyed.

A libertarian socialist is thus a person who believes that there should be a socialist economic structure with a minimalist political structure. If you're not ignorant, they're not incompatible.
 neondove
Joined: 12/6/2007
Msg: 1 (view)
 
Libertarianism: Right and Left
Posted: 2/1/2008 10:12:27 PM

Libertarianism: Right and Left

The libertarianism of the right has a view of power that does not keep to its own self-consistency. It views political power as potentially dangerous, having the great potential to be abused, and therefore needing to be kept in close check. But it does not recognize economic power as a power in society, which is an oversight that is hard to fathom, such power being so plainly obvious. Because libertarians of the right tend not to recognize economic power as a form of power in society, they are unconcerned with its concentrations even when concentrations of economic power become staggeringly large, as they have over the past twenty or thirty years. This is an oversight that is frankly dangerous, if not delusional.

Libertarians of the left share the skepticism of highly concentrated political power, but, naturally, recognize the potential for harm and abuse from excessive concentrations of economic power. Thus, in the present order of things, corporate power is to be addressed equally, along side state or governmental power. To do otherwise is to contradict oneself, and worse, to leave the door open to fascism, to serious and extreme abuse of power, due to the lack of fore-sight to correct and put in check all forms of great concentrations of power in society.

Right libertarianism questions, challenges, and repudiates high levels of concentration of political power in society - and rightfully so, I believe - yet it is, or at least has been until recently, unwilling to question the role and nature of high levels of concentrations of economic power.

This is frankly a gross oversight, and one that makes right libertarianism a contradiction in terms: you cannot advocate limitations on powers that unduly constrict human freedom and pose threats of tyranny in a self-consistent, coherent or even reasonable manner if you are only willing to look at one form of power in society. Economic power is every bit as real as political power, some would say more so.

The 500 biggest corporations on earth now have combined revenues that total three times the GDP of the world's biggest national economy - that of the United States. If this does not constitute power in society, I'm not sure what would.

OK, well, corporations have immense power, but that does not mean it translates into political power - does it? They are competing with one another. Yes, they are competing with one another, and they also share common interests: drive labour costs and wages down, eliminate or circumvent labour and environmental standards, find the cheapest source of labour and resources and move there, then dominate them, open borders to free flow of capital, but not to labour.....The commonalities are pretty clear.

And do they meet, discuss common interests, work together cooperatively? Of course. Wouldn't you if you were in their position?

Do teachers join together to pursue common interests, such as decent pay, pension plans, etc.? Do janitors get together to pursue common goals of better pay and working conditions?

It is, or should be, obvious that there are common group - or, heaven forbid we use the term - class interests, that bring otherwise competing parties together to pursue common goals. The corporate elite are no different. This is not a conspiracy, but simply common sense.

The world's corporate elite gather, among other places, at Davos Switzerland every year for the World Economic Forum, and there seek to push governments to their will, to advance common interests among the elite global investment class, to the extent that they are able - and that is a considerable length.

It is impossible to deny the very real power of corporations in society without digressing into ideological fundamentalism and willful blindness. Refusing to challenge economic concentrations of power while espousing a libertarian philosophy is self-contradictory: right libertarianism is an oxymoron.

Should a laissez-fair, free-market capitalist who supports only limited government - a libertarian as it is known on the right - be considered an oxymoron or a self-contradiction if he was also a slave owner? Of course.

It is not very different if a libertarian advocates checks and balances on political power, yet does not question the giant corporate monopolies and oligopolies that now wield more power than democratically elected governments.

Right libertarianism is truly a contradiction in terms, unless by that you mean a conservative libertarian who also questions and challenges excessive concentrations of corporate power, and not only state or governmental power. U.S. Congressman and 2008 Presidential candidate Ron Paul, for example, I would describe as a conservative libertarian in this sense. He has his head on his shoulders when it comes to corporate powers, as far as I can tell. He is not stuck in ideological dogmatisms.

The left is equated - wrongly - with heavy-handed, bureaucratic, if not totalitarian government: at least this is the view of the left we get from the right; however, there are broadly speaking two wings or schools of thought within what has been called the left, and only one of the two fits the above description.

In the socialist movement of the 1800's there was a definite rift and fierce debate between the two kinds of what is loosely described as left political views. Marx led the wing we are familiar with, Bakunin the other. Bakunin and the libertarian socialists were ousted, lost the battle, and were to some considerable degree eclipsed from history. Bakunin warned Marxist ideas would lead to a new form of tyranny, and of course he was right.

Now, with the Marxist-Leninist school of thought being in full disgrace within the left as well as the broader community world-wide, the alternative is becoming clear to many. I would say it deserves attention, and merits respectful consideration. That alternative is libertarian socialism, a libertarianism of the left. And, I would add, it is much closer to the ideals of Jeffersonian democracy than anything currently present or offered in any of the capitals of the Western world. It should be, in Thomas Paine’s words, "common sense." Perhaps soon it will be so.


I've been digging the Libertarian Literature lately and I thought I would post this just to show the distinction been the different forms of Libertarianism.
 neondove
Joined: 12/6/2007
Msg: 12 (view)
 
Where Are 9-11 Giuliani and I'm Not Dead Fred?
Posted: 1/17/2008 2:25:51 PM
Maybe people are sick of scare tactics.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hyy5LURWTlw&feature=related
 neondove
Joined: 12/6/2007
Msg: 38 (view)
 
The little girl inside your woman
Posted: 1/12/2008 11:24:07 AM

The last time i tried to find “the little girl” inside a woman i was greeted by
a camera crew and the Sheriff.


Yeah I ended up on Dateline: To Catch a Predator too...That guys an ***hole , I stop by because she said she had a Xbox.
 neondove
Joined: 12/6/2007
Msg: 36 (view)
 
Would you marry a slut?
Posted: 1/9/2008 12:10:42 PM

I'm sure women understate and men overstate...but it is NOT a mathematical impossibility that men sleep around more. Men in general are more promiscuous, but if some women are EXTREMELY promiscuous and sleep with many, many men then that allows a good number of women to be below the average number of partners.


http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article77126.ece
 neondove
Joined: 12/6/2007
Msg: 7 (view)
 
Would you marry a slut?
Posted: 1/6/2008 12:47:58 PM
Who would want to be with someone who had 30+**** up inside her , I view "sluts" as women with low self esteem.
 neondove
Joined: 12/6/2007
Msg: 16 (view)
 
Lyrics That Move You and Why
Posted: 1/6/2008 11:01:57 AM
Very sad song

You're Missing by Bruce Springsteen

Shirts in the closet, shoes in the hall
Mama's in the kitchen, baby and all
Everything is everything
Everything is everything
But you're missing

Coffee cups on the counter, jackets on the chair
Papers on the doorstep, but you're not there
Everything is everything
Everything is everything
But you're missing

Pictures on the nightstand, TV's on in the den
Your house is waiting, your house is waiting
For you to walk in, for you to walk in
But you're missing, when I shut out the lights
You're missing, when I close my eyes
You're missing, when I see the sun rise
You're missing

Children are asking if it's alright
Will you be in our arms tonight?

Morning is morning, the evening falls I got
Too much room in my bed, to many phone calls
How's everything, everything?
Everything, everything
You're missing, you're missing

God's drifting in heaven, devil's in the mailbox
I got dust on my shoes, nothing but teardrops
 neondove
Joined: 12/6/2007
Msg: 7 (view)
 
Groups, Morality, Self
Posted: 12/21/2007 5:56:01 PM
You guys do know that some Anarchists believe in keeping the state , but in a limited role , a Night Watchmen State.
 Neondove
Joined: 12/6/2007
Msg: 2 (view)
 
Groups, Morality, Self
Posted: 12/20/2007 6:45:07 PM
It sounds like Anarcho-capitalism argument , I'm I correct ?
 Neondove
Joined: 12/6/2007
Msg: 157 (view)
 
Why Do We Women Continuously Put Down Men?
Posted: 12/15/2007 3:52:19 AM
stop drinking the funny kool-aid
 Neondove
Joined: 12/6/2007
Msg: 11 (view)
 
Lyrics That Move You and Why
Posted: 12/13/2007 7:07:28 PM
I've been involved with a couple fake women.

She's a bad actress- but hey
You give her the big lines anyway
Though her eyes are big as Canada
And the hips are South Australia
And the shoulder blade is Africa
Looking out on South America
I'm out here on the sea
And her heart ain't where it oughta be
She's a bad actress- but hey
She's got a big part in your play
Now my apartment lies awake at night
It tosses every time she sighs
Tries to take it easy on her eyes
But I can feel it giving up the fight
My whole building's on its last floors
Her heart's not in it anymore
She said she gave her heart to you
If it was precious why'd you lose it
But if it was golden it'd shine
If it's big it won't be hard to find
If it's real it stains your hands like wine
You can look but there is no use trying
Cause no matter what she said the truth
Is that she never gave her heart to you
She's a bad actress
Bad actress
 Neondove
Joined: 12/6/2007
Msg: 132 (view)
 
Why Do We Women Continuously Put Down Men?
Posted: 12/12/2007 11:50:48 PM

Umm.. they'd still withhold sex?



'self propagating' and battling for resources devoid of innate mutual attraction
 Neondove
Joined: 12/6/2007
Msg: 131 (view)
 
Why Do We Women Continuously Put Down Men?
Posted: 12/12/2007 11:43:23 PM

SECOND OF ALL-and more importantly men are clearly the inferior sex


Just for fun , If we were to replay evolution from a hypothetical insular perspective whereby both genders were 'self propagating' and battling for resources devoid of innate mutual attraction, invariably we'd see just how inferior women were without the cooperation of men. We men would survive because nature dictates it , the weak get destroyed and the strong survive. Women wouldn't have made it much beyond single-cell amoebas beyond the primordial soup. Ok, if they had made it into prehistoric times, they would have been directly conflicting with men for survival. Guess the outcome?
 neondove
Joined: 12/6/2007
Msg: 14 (view)
 
Personal hygiene
Posted: 12/10/2007 9:17:43 PM

Wow... do you do the same before presenting yours?


Oh InteractiveJohn your slaying me!!!
 neondove
Joined: 12/6/2007
Msg: 113 (view)
 
Why Do We Women Continuously Put Down Men?
Posted: 12/9/2007 6:43:48 PM
Why do women continuously put down men ?

Simple...

They hate us...
 neondove
Joined: 12/6/2007
Msg: 6 (view)
 
social standing/class/education does it really matter?
Posted: 12/9/2007 2:50:54 PM
I don't shy away from women like that
 
Show ALL Forums