Libertarian understands what? How can you claim that a libertarian understands anything about sovereign or ownership of themselves when their whole platform is based on government control? If you believe there is one above you as a master, then you are not sovereign but subject to the master.
No it did NOT. Nowhere since 1789 has it meant other than "free will" or "liberty" derived from it's Latin root. Socialism in any form is just that, socialism, the rule of the mob, collectivism. Being "free" compared to the rule of the mob, socialism or any other collective "isms" are at opposite ends of the spectrum, a slave to something. Socialist argue many different things but none of them hold any meaning other than to rob those than can for the benefit of those that can't. If you have nothing else to offer than to rent yourself to another, then learn to be the business owner, but the point you are missing is it is your free will to rent yourself. You don't like it, either starve or learn to do for yourself.
What a crock of crap, you mix words in a manner that cancels all meaning, just a bunch of "Newspeak", no communication intended, in fact communication blocked. First, I would suggest you find a good dictionary and explain how anarchism has anything to do with anything you spew forth. Kropotkin was but a very confused being of noble birth with this most prophetic line being: Just so much garbage with no real meaning. The one true divide that separates humanity into two distinct types of individuals. The criterion for the divide is whether or not an individual believes in "authority" and therefore believes that there is legitimacy to slavery. Statism , the brilliant idea that we give a small group of people the right to kidnap, imprison, harass, steal from and kill people, so that we can be protected from people who kidnap, harass, steal and kill people. A statist is an individual who erroneously believes that there is such a thing as "authority" vested in certain human beings magically giving them the "right to rule" over other people. This "authority" means that certain people who we call "government", have the "moral right" to issue commands to those whom they rule (those under their "jurisdiction"), and that their "subjects" (slaves) have a "moral obligation" to obey the arbitrary dictates set by their masters. Most simply put, a statist is someone who believes in the legitimacy of slavery. Conversely, an anarchist is the one who knows that there could never be legitimacy to "authority" or "government" because those terms are simply euphemisms for violence and slavery, which are always immoral and in opposition to natural law. Anarchist are always on the opposite side of any fence wherein the other side confers someone that rules.
Why do you not say that? Could it have something to do with the very clouded view you have on these matters? Something along the lines of what you are promoting?
Incorrect, I can tell you don't even know what socialism is. The political spectrum is nonsense, don't ever refer to it. Libertarianism is compatible with certain form of socialism. Socialism, by definition, is socialized ownership of production. That can be state ownership, collective ownership, cooperative ownership, etc. Libertarianism- "Libertarianism (Latin: liber, "free") is a political philosophy that upholds liberty as its principal objective. Libertarians seek to maximize autonomy and freedom of choice, emphasizing political freedom, voluntary association, and the primacy of individual judgment." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism Collective ownership is compatible with libertarianism since everyone owns there own work, instead of a group of shareholders or the government. I guess I am a complete idiot, because I say it is an ideology, and it really IS an ideology. So, I guess that makes the truth a complete idiot as well.
Anarcho-syndicalism is another oxymoronic expression wherein the anarcho would derive from the Greek prefix an: "without; the absence of" and the Greek noun achon: "master; ruler" therefore "without a master or ruler. Syndicalism is but the theft of government and industry by revolutionary seizure. Any theft especially by revolution means leaders, rulers, masters wherein the pheasants remain pheasants but much poorer as the collective demands that the worker must provide so that the leaders can lead them somewhere, to where is never really discussed but the results are everywhere, Hitler, Stalin, Mao... What a crock of crap. What part of no masters do you not understand? Anarchist want nothing of the sort. Why would they want to deny one set of rulers to just end up with another. Again, you do need to get a good dictionary so perhaps you would understand the language, any language. Again the oxymoron, democracy used in the concept of anarchy. Democracy is a practice wherein the mob rules by way of a perceived representative. If you need to be represented, then you are but a ward of another, you have a ruler and leaders. All the little leaders trying to get their little group into the majority so as to screw the others instead of being screwed. Socialism is always a failure on whatever scale and will never be global even though the "new progressive liberals" are so indoctrinated to somehow living at the expense of another is some form of Nirvana. Their world continues until nothing remains but the leeches with nothing to bleed except themselves in their death throes.
Your lack of understanding history outside the concept so indoctrinated in today's progressive learning centers can really be said to be without knowledge. So how can you claim a knowledge of something wherein you seem to be having a problem with the meaning of the words? Are you that gullible? Never mind the last, it seems pretty obvious.
I think this part best describes that whole affair: I think the author should have just stopped with "...it was able to survive." The excuses where just that "excuses".
So what, psychopaths, sociopaths and criminals don't last long in a free society. Trespass upon another is a serious offense.
Libertarianism is not about sovereignty but based on the concept of a smaller subset of masters but masters still the same. - - - Updated - - - Government is poverty and unemployment.
Try Google!!! I would say that it is disingenuous of you to try and claim that the definitions of the words such as libertarianism somehow can be manipulated to somehow apply an understanding unwarranted by association with a word of opposite meaning. Socialism, communism, fascism, and even libertarianism are all the same to varying degrees. The isms are but an excuse to steal from one for the benefit of another.
I would say that question, "...are we really better off for it..." is redundant. Anyone that can actually see cannot deny that the picture is not very pretty.
The complete quote: Taken out of context, it is one thing but when seen in the light of the whole thought, then it is entirely different. Here is Jay, preaching to an ignorant bunch of people, starting with an outright lie as the Articles of Confederation had indeed grouped together those thirteen little fiefdoms, the original grants of states by the now defunct king. It was those state governments that approved the constitution, not the people. And remember, the tenth amendment made sure they had second place power to rob the people.
So you are claiming that others should remain as slaves because you are afraid to accept responsibility using others as an excuse. That would leave you no better than them. Self-Loathing is the underlying psychological condition that causes people to attempt to abdicate their own personal responsibility to exercise conscience, and fall into patterns of order-following and justification. Just as it is not possible for an order-follower to truly be exercising conscience, it is not possible for an order-follower to truly love themselves. - - - Updated - - - Amen!!!
What are you talking about? There is nothing in the Libertarian platform that is based on government control. Libertarian principals are first and foremost on non aggression in which the use of force is never justified unless it is in self defense. Government by definition is the unreasonable use of force. Government and Libertarianism is incompatible and Libertarians believe first and foremost that because of that, Government must be kept to a bare minimum.
Absolutely wrong. You cannot own something as and individual and also own it as a member of a collective. Libertarianism believes in individual ownership of your person and the fruits of your labor. It is Liberalism which believes in the collective. The difference is plainly understandable by the issue of property rights. Libertarians believe the property rights of the individual are the basis of all freedom. Liberals believe that communal rights are superior to individual rights and therefore the two ideologies are at opposite ends of the political spectrum. This is plain for anyone to see.
Unfortunately, psychopathy often results in success, and the most powerful people on this planet are psychopaths. Washington DC is full of them as is Wall St. and Military industrial complex. Because men are imperfect, some laws are necessary, and therefore some government is necessary to enforce the laws. The government however must be one of a Constitutional Republic where the main law is always that the rights of the individual are superior to all other laws.
As I said before, in all practicality, men are imperfect. The strong will always seek to impose their will over the weak by force, and some law must exist to protect the rights of the weak and to make them equal to those of the strong. Government at its best is the people's crooked agent that must be watched and mistrusted and never given more power than is absolutely necessary to protect the rights of the people.
Collective ownership is owning your labor. Capitalism is where the capitalist owns your labor since you work under them and they pay you what they want. In collective/common ownership, all workers own the means of production, not everyone owning each others personal items(there is a difference). Classic Liberals and conservatives accept capitalism and private property as the basis of freedom, not libertarianism(though many libertarians do). Liberalism doesn't advocate communal rights either. Your way of defining it is not that simple. Liberty does not need capitalism, and communal is a main part of communism, not liberalism. As for the political spectrum, if your speaking about left-right politics, there is right-libertarianism and left-libertarianism(with bot holding liberty as its principal objective, but with different goals). There are also different varieties of liberalism.
It is not out of context at all. The People ratified State Constitutions. Socialism starts with a social Contract. It is up to the electorate to hold our representatives to government accountable.
