Total Posts:50|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Equality is Freedom

FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2010 4:16:00 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
The fight for equality has always been the fight for freedom. How can we be free without being equal? Indeed, to say one is not equal with another IS to say one has more power than the other. When the black is seen as unequal they are in oppression, when woman is seen as unequal she is in oppression, when the homosexual is seen as unequal they are in oppression, when the youth is seen as unequal they are in oppression. I not only speak of these things, but of wealth. For what is wealth, if not power? The man with the wealth is the man who rules, they preside over all those who don't and use their power to keep it that way.

What Libertarians call supposed "economic freedom" is exactly the opposite.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2010 4:27:58 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
equal =/= free

I think you are referring to equal opportunity. People ought to have the freedom to be different. The freedom to go their own way, and not the same way as everyone else (to a degree of course). If being a rapist is the way you want to go, I'm fine with stuffing your "freedom."
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2010 4:28:40 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/23/2010 4:16:00 PM, FREEDO wrote:
The fight for equality has always been the fight for freedom.

Not true. A population can easily be equal in abject servitude.

How can we be free without being equal? Indeed, to say one is not equal with another IS to say one has more power than the other. When the black is seen as unequal they are in oppression, when woman is seen as unequal she is in oppression, when the homosexual is seen as unequal they are in oppression, when the youth is seen as unequal they are in oppression. I not only speak of these things, but of wealth. For what is wealth, if not power? The man with the wealth is the man who rules, they preside over all those who don't and use their power to keep it that way.

1. So, what you're saying is that the fight for equal freedom is a fight for freedom? Doesn't sound like anything revolutionary.

2. Not every person with a lot of wealth is an oppressive would-be dictator. It's just a lot of generalizing and rhetoric on your part.

3. People can be equally free, by the way, without being equal. Not everyone on this site is equally intelligent, equally attractive, etc.

What Libertarians call supposed "economic freedom" is exactly the opposite.

Actually, the libertarian conception of "economic freedom" means that there aren't any coercive barriers in the way of voluntary economic association with other entities. Where political freedom is the absence of initiatory force, economic freedom is the absence of, I suppose, regulatory force.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2010 4:35:27 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/23/2010 4:28:40 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 11/23/2010 4:16:00 PM, FREEDO wrote:
The fight for equality has always been the fight for freedom.

Not true. A population can easily be equal in abject servitude.

But you see, "servitude" requires someone being survived. So, no, you are incorrect. A state of complete equality would be a state of complete freedom.

How can we be free without being equal? Indeed, to say one is not equal with another IS to say one has more power than the other. When the black is seen as unequal they are in oppression, when woman is seen as unequal she is in oppression, when the homosexual is seen as unequal they are in oppression, when the youth is seen as unequal they are in oppression. I not only speak of these things, but of wealth. For what is wealth, if not power? The man with the wealth is the man who rules, they preside over all those who don't and use their power to keep it that way.

1. So, what you're saying is that the fight for equal freedom is a fight for freedom? Doesn't sound like anything revolutionary.


2. Not every person with a lot of wealth is an oppressive would-be dictator. It's just a lot of generalizing and rhetoric on your part.

wealth = power

3. People can be equally free, by the way, without being equal. Not everyone on this site is equally intelligent, equally attractive, etc.

What Libertarians call supposed "economic freedom" is exactly the opposite.

Actually, the libertarian conception of "economic freedom" means that there aren't any coercive barriers in the way of voluntary economic association with other entities. Where political freedom is the absence of initiatory force, economic freedom is the absence of, I suppose, regulatory force.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2010 4:37:53 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/23/2010 4:35:27 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 11/23/2010 4:28:40 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 11/23/2010 4:16:00 PM, FREEDO wrote:
The fight for equality has always been the fight for freedom.

Not true. A population can easily be equal in abject servitude.

But you see, "servitude" requires someone being survived. So, no, you are incorrect. A state of complete equality would be a state of complete freedom.

Affirming the consequent. Also, this: http://en.wikipedia.org...
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2010 4:39:00 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/23/2010 4:35:27 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 11/23/2010 4:28:40 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 11/23/2010 4:16:00 PM, FREEDO wrote:
The fight for equality has always been the fight for freedom.

Not true. A population can easily be equal in abject servitude.

But you see, "servitude" requires someone being survived. So, no, you are incorrect. A state of complete equality would be a state of complete freedom.

Unless, of course, you have a system in which everyone is simultaneously master and slave.

How can we be free without being equal? Indeed, to say one is not equal with another IS to say one has more power than the other. When the black is seen as unequal they are in oppression, when woman is seen as unequal she is in oppression, when the homosexual is seen as unequal they are in oppression, when the youth is seen as unequal they are in oppression. I not only speak of these things, but of wealth. For what is wealth, if not power? The man with the wealth is the man who rules, they preside over all those who don't and use their power to keep it that way.

1. So, what you're saying is that the fight for equal freedom is a fight for freedom? Doesn't sound like anything revolutionary.


2. Not every person with a lot of wealth is an oppressive would-be dictator. It's just a lot of generalizing and rhetoric on your part.

wealth = power

Purchasing power, maybe.

3. People can be equally free, by the way, without being equal. Not everyone on this site is equally intelligent, equally attractive, etc.

What Libertarians call supposed "economic freedom" is exactly the opposite.

Actually, the libertarian conception of "economic freedom" means that there aren't any coercive barriers in the way of voluntary economic association with other entities. Where political freedom is the absence of initiatory force, economic freedom is the absence of, I suppose, regulatory force.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2010 4:43:02 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/23/2010 4:39:00 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 11/23/2010 4:35:27 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 11/23/2010 4:28:40 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 11/23/2010 4:16:00 PM, FREEDO wrote:
The fight for equality has always been the fight for freedom.

Not true. A population can easily be equal in abject servitude.

But you see, "servitude" requires someone being survived. So, no, you are incorrect. A state of complete equality would be a state of complete freedom.

Unless, of course, you have a system in which everyone is simultaneously master and slave.

A circular hierarchy? How would take work?
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2010 4:44:22 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/23/2010 4:43:02 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 11/23/2010 4:39:00 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 11/23/2010 4:35:27 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 11/23/2010 4:28:40 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 11/23/2010 4:16:00 PM, FREEDO wrote:
The fight for equality has always been the fight for freedom.

Not true. A population can easily be equal in abject servitude.

But you see, "servitude" requires someone being survived. So, no, you are incorrect. A state of complete equality would be a state of complete freedom.

Unless, of course, you have a system in which everyone is simultaneously master and slave.

A circular hierarchy? How would take work?

It doesn't. That's the point.
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2010 4:46:52 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/23/2010 4:16:00 PM, FREEDO wrote:
The fight for equality has always been the fight for freedom. How can we be free without being equal? Indeed, to say one is not equal with another IS to say one has more power than the other. When the black is seen as unequal they are in oppression, when woman is seen as unequal she is in oppression, when the homosexual is seen as unequal they are in oppression, when the youth is seen as unequal they are in oppression. I not only speak of these things, but of wealth. For what is wealth, if not power? The man with the wealth is the man who rules, they preside over all those who don't and use their power to keep it that way.


Libertarians believe in the nonaggression axiom. Any attempt to exercise "power" over another is coercive aggression and would be rejected and punished.

Also, discrimination would not exist because non-discriminating firms would succeed over discriminating firms since non-discriminating firms would have a wider customer base and a highly qualified and underutilized field of job applicants.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2010 4:49:43 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/23/2010 4:16:00 PM, FREEDO wrote:
The man with the wealth is the man who rules, they preside over all those who don't and use their power to keep it that way.

Hence capitalism = government. I always post that and then leave the thread never to return, because I don't feel like reading all of the trite robotic posts (or Rothbard quotes) that follow haha. But I want to debate something like this soon, probably with an anarcho-capitalist considering I see their position as entirely hypocritical. I've asked Sieben but I just remembered he brings along his anarchist voting bloc from Mises when he debates sooo I might challenge someone else, or just rant about it in the forums sometime I'm bored. Now is not that moment :P
President of DDO
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2010 4:57:13 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/23/2010 4:49:43 PM, theLwerd wrote:
At 11/23/2010 4:16:00 PM, FREEDO wrote:
The man with the wealth is the man who rules, they preside over all those who don't and use their power to keep it that way.

Hence capitalism = government. I always post that and then leave the thread never to return, because I don't feel like reading all of the trite robotic posts (or Rothbard quotes) that follow haha. But I want to debate something like this soon, probably with an anarcho-capitalist considering I see their position as entirely hypocritical. I've asked Sieben but I just remembered he brings along his anarchist voting bloc from Mises when he debates sooo I might challenge someone else, or just rant about it in the forums sometime I'm bored. Now is not that moment :P

I'd be willing to debate you but I agree.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2010 4:58:47 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/23/2010 4:57:13 PM, Reasoning wrote:
I'd be willing to debate you but I agree.

Well, I doubt we agree too much. I basically want to debate the merits of anarchocapitalism. I'm against the concept, but considering your Rothbardian worship I'm sure we're not on the same side :p
President of DDO
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2010 5:00:45 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/23/2010 4:58:47 PM, theLwerd wrote:
At 11/23/2010 4:57:13 PM, Reasoning wrote:
I'd be willing to debate you but I agree.

Well, I doubt we agree too much. I basically want to debate the merits of anarchocapitalism. I'm against the concept, but considering your Rothbardian worship I'm sure we're not on the same side :p

We could debate free market anarchism, if you'd like. I promise not to post a link on Mises. :p
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2010 5:00:50 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
By against I mean don't think it can/should exist -- or rather I think the terms and conditions of anarchism and capitalism are not compatible. But you're an anarchocapitalist, amirite? Maybe I'll debate you considering I've already debated Sieben and I don't think we've ever debated... I was thinking sometime over winter break (December).
President of DDO
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2010 5:02:03 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/23/2010 5:00:50 PM, theLwerd wrote:
By against I mean don't think it can/should exist -- or rather I think the terms and conditions of anarchism and capitalism are not compatible. But you're an anarchocapitalist, amirite? Maybe I'll debate you considering I've already debated Sieben and I don't think we've ever debated... I was thinking sometime over winter break (December).

I am a free market anarchist. I stopped calling myself a capitalist a number of months ago.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2010 5:03:07 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Hehe you can post a link there, I don't mind :P This won't be a debate I expect to win but rather feel compelled to argue just for the sake of defending my POV specifically because I disagree with pretty much everyone here who are libertarian and/or anarcho-cap... except for Caramel, I think. And Vi.
President of DDO
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2010 5:05:39 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/23/2010 5:03:07 PM, theLwerd wrote:
Hehe you can post a link there, I don't mind :P This won't be a debate I expect to win but rather feel compelled to argue just for the sake of defending my POV specifically because I disagree with pretty much everyone here who are libertarian and/or anarcho-cap... except for Caramel, I think. And Vi.

Isn't Caramel a Marxist?
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2010 5:05:57 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/23/2010 5:02:03 PM, Reasoning wrote:
I am a free market anarchist. I stopped calling myself a capitalist a number of months ago.

o0o riiight I remember that debate you did with wjm. Well, libertarians are capitalists lol even if you're not one :P I'm interested in frivolous debating until Winter Break. I can have a case written by then; I can brief you on it and if we disagree you can take up the debate. I'm assuming you don't plan to argue the merit of a profit-based system but rather accept free market trade as a traditional standard of living? Mehhh we'll see... so far it doesn't seem like we disagree on too much but I assure you I reject pretty much anything Rothbard has to say (that I've read thus far) so this should be interesting ;P
President of DDO
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2010 5:06:28 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/23/2010 5:03:07 PM, theLwerd wrote:
Hehe you can post a link there, I don't mind :P This won't be a debate I expect to win but rather feel compelled to argue just for the sake of defending my POV specifically because I disagree with pretty much everyone here who are libertarian and/or anarcho-cap... except for Caramel, I think. And Vi.

Interestingly, I'm actually examining an economic paradigm which is probably the polar opposite of capitalism.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2010 5:06:36 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/23/2010 5:05:39 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 11/23/2010 5:03:07 PM, theLwerd wrote:
Hehe you can post a link there, I don't mind :P This won't be a debate I expect to win but rather feel compelled to argue just for the sake of defending my POV specifically because I disagree with pretty much everyone here who are libertarian and/or anarcho-cap... except for Caramel, I think. And Vi.

Isn't Caramel a Marxist?

I thought he was a non-capitalist anarchist but I have no idea...
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2010 5:10:24 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/23/2010 5:06:28 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Interestingly, I'm actually examining an economic paradigm which is probably the polar opposite of capitalism.

That is very interesting. I was a huge Randian soldier a few years ago -- it's a fantastic philosophy she's got there, but I consider capitalism a phase we all go through; a rite of passage of sorts. It's deliciously logical so the young philosopher's dream, in my opinion... but with a little digging the problems and contradictions become apparent. I consider myself a moderate simply because I acknowledge the way things should be in the system we live in now, but ideally things would be different... capitalism is f*cked up lol. But I accept it as a necessary evil just like government ;)
President of DDO
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2010 5:11:02 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/23/2010 4:16:00 PM, FREEDO wrote:
The fight for equality has always been the fight for freedom.

No, it's been a fight for equal rights that they believe they deserve.

Equality =/= freedom

How can we be free without being equal?

One can be equal to others will NOT being free. And one can be free without being equal.

For example, slaves are equal to each other (same rights, same treatment, etc.) and yet they are not free.

For example, if I'm alone on an island, the concept of "equal" is quite meaningless but I'm still "free".

Indeed, to say one is not equal with another IS to say one has more power than the other.

No. My little sister is not equal to me. I'm older, smarter and stronger. However, I have the same rights as she does and no more power than she does. I cannot control her, even as her older sister unless she's in my care. The same can be said for my older brother. He's older and stronger. But he has no more power than I do - no matter what he says.

When the black is seen as unequal they are in oppression, when woman is seen as unequal she is in oppression, when the homosexual is seen as unequal they are in oppression, when the youth is seen as unequal they are in oppression.

Oppressed? Yes. But really, this is the Tyranny of the Majority.

I not only speak of these things, but of wealth. For what is wealth, if not power? The man with the wealth is the man who rules, they preside over all those who don't and use their power to keep it that way.

I agree with you there. Wealth = power

What Libertarians call supposed "economic freedom" is exactly the opposite.

I'm not Libertarian nor do I have any extensive knowledge of their economic freedom. However, the ideas of "equal" and "freedom" are weak anyways.
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2010 5:17:46 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/23/2010 5:10:24 PM, theLwerd wrote:
At 11/23/2010 5:06:28 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Interestingly, I'm actually examining an economic paradigm which is probably the polar opposite of capitalism.

That is very interesting. I was a huge Randian soldier a few years ago -- it's a fantastic philosophy she's got there, but I consider capitalism a phase we all go through; a rite of passage of sorts. It's deliciously logical so the young philosopher's dream, in my opinion... but with a little digging the problems and contradictions become apparent. I consider myself a moderate simply because I acknowledge the way things should be in the system we live in now, but ideally things would be different... capitalism is f*cked up lol. But I accept it as a necessary evil just like government ;)

If everyone was an honest capitalist, things would be alright. But, with the kind of society we have today, I'm not sure that it would function optimally. Ausrian theory is brilliant, much like Rand's philosophy; however, both make some fundamental assumptions--assumptions which must be true for capitalism to function--which aren't exactly true in the real world. The problem of certain externalities--specifically, environmental externalities--is something which capitalists don't adequately address. Of course, there are also many hypothetical situations one could bring up that capitalism doesn't resolve well. One that I can think of is having competition between utilities. How do water companies compete? What replaces public sewer systems? There are a lot of thoughts swirling around in my head--in addition to the fact that a guy I know is an Econ major who, when he was younger, studied in China for a few months with some brilliant professor from Oxford--that are causing me to rethink this whole business.
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2010 5:18:38 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/23/2010 5:10:24 PM, theLwerd wrote:
At 11/23/2010 5:06:28 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Interestingly, I'm actually examining an economic paradigm which is probably the polar opposite of capitalism.

That is very interesting. I was a huge Randian soldier a few years ago -- it's a fantastic philosophy she's got there, but I consider capitalism a phase we all go through; a rite of passage of sorts. It's deliciously logical so the young philosopher's dream, in my opinion... but with a little digging the problems and contradictions become apparent. I consider myself a moderate simply because I acknowledge the way things should be in the system we live in now, but ideally things would be different... capitalism is f*cked up lol. But I accept it as a necessary evil just like government ;)

Well, even if you're a moderate it would be important to examine to what extent you agree with libertarians in examining what amount of government you consider to be the ideal amount.

imo, we need to do everything the deficit reduction committee says, starting with the cutting the bloated Pentagon budget and decreasing overseas bases by one third.

Do you agree with minarchism? (a libertarian political ideology which maintains that the state's only legitimate function is the protection of individuals from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud.)
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2010 7:58:21 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/23/2010 4:16:00 PM, FREEDO wrote:
The fight for equality has always been the fight for freedom. How can we be free without being equal?

Indeed this is something that many libertarians do not seem to grasp. This is why we must be anarchists, as to make a few men rulers of all the others is to destroy equality.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2010 8:23:46 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/24/2010 7:58:21 AM, Reasoning wrote:
At 11/23/2010 4:16:00 PM, FREEDO wrote:
The fight for equality has always been the fight for freedom. How can we be free without being equal?

Indeed this is something that many libertarians do not seem to grasp. This is why we must be anarchists, as to make a few men rulers of all the others is to destroy equality.

It's because freedom and equality are incompatible. We are not inherently equal, and any attempt to change that means an infringement on freedom.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2010 10:07:58 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/23/2010 5:17:46 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:

Ausrian theory is brilliant, much like Rand's philosophy; however, both make some fundamental assumptions--assumptions which must be true for capitalism to function--which aren't exactly true in the real world.
So what if they only function 90% of the time? The contest is not between free markets and the ideal society, its between the likely outcome of free markets versus the likely outcome of government alternatives.

The problem of certain externalities--specifically, environmental externalities--is something which capitalists don't adequately address.
You MUST have heard that pollution is a violation of property rights. If you really need the source I can go get it, but back during the industrial revolution, if a factory opened next door to you and started smogging up your air, you could go file an injunction against them, forcing them to fix it or move out. This trend was overturned in the 30's because government began siding more and more with big business. This is no surprise to market anarchists... we think the government does a terrible job protecting property rights.

Of course, there are also many hypothetical situations one could bring up that capitalism doesn't resolve well. One that I can think of is having competition between utilities. How do water companies compete? What replaces public sewer systems?
Yeah I'm not aware of any case studies showing this is a problem. Even in the worst case scenario where you only get regional competition, its STILL competition, and it still serves as a check on companies.

En France, the government lets different companies bid on contracts to provide utilities. Best service/lowest price wins (supposedly). Under capitalism, French bureaucrats would be replaced with representatives of estates. Owners of apartment complexes, neighborhood associations, etc. So often people conceive capitalism as a system of individual choices, when in reality, intermediaries are in a much better position to manage things. So they do :) My apartment complex just recently changed water companies... much cheaper now.

But even if you don't buy AAANNY of that, you still have to compare likely market failures to likely government failures. Statists seem to find comfort in the government because they think it will do what they want. "The State" is presented to intellectuals as an exercise in design. In reality, it is just a group of men with license to kill, steal, and kidnap. Saying "the state should do X" is no more useful than saying "serial killers should stop killing". Statism is just a red herring. Incentives never stop mattering.

There are a lot of thoughts swirling around in my head--in addition to the fact that a guy I know is an Econ major who, when he was younger, studied in China for a few months with some brilliant professor from Oxford--that are causing me to rethink this whole business.

If you think Austrian theory is so cogent, you could head over to the mises.org forums. There are a lot of really smart people there too.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2010 12:40:17 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/24/2010 8:23:46 AM, innomen wrote:
At 11/24/2010 7:58:21 AM, Reasoning wrote:
At 11/23/2010 4:16:00 PM, FREEDO wrote:
The fight for equality has always been the fight for freedom. How can we be free without being equal?

Indeed this is something that many libertarians do not seem to grasp. This is why we must be anarchists, as to make a few men rulers of all the others is to destroy equality.

It's because freedom and equality are incompatible. We are not inherently equal, and any attempt to change that means an infringement on freedom.

Everybody keeps bringing up equality of ability. That's silly and you know I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about equality of power.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2010 12:43:32 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/24/2010 12:40:17 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 11/24/2010 8:23:46 AM, innomen wrote:
At 11/24/2010 7:58:21 AM, Reasoning wrote:
At 11/23/2010 4:16:00 PM, FREEDO wrote:
The fight for equality has always been the fight for freedom. How can we be free without being equal?

Indeed this is something that many libertarians do not seem to grasp. This is why we must be anarchists, as to make a few men rulers of all the others is to destroy equality.

It's because freedom and equality are incompatible. We are not inherently equal, and any attempt to change that means an infringement on freedom.

Everybody keeps bringing up equality of ability. That's silly and you know I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about equality of power.

Well, from the wording of the OP, you can't really blame us for assuming you meant equality of ability. Now, if you really meant equality of power, than I wholeheartedly agree with you.
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2010 12:45:09 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/24/2010 12:40:17 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 11/24/2010 8:23:46 AM, innomen wrote:
At 11/24/2010 7:58:21 AM, Reasoning wrote:
At 11/23/2010 4:16:00 PM, FREEDO wrote:
The fight for equality has always been the fight for freedom. How can we be free without being equal?

Indeed this is something that many libertarians do not seem to grasp. This is why we must be anarchists, as to make a few men rulers of all the others is to destroy equality.

It's because freedom and equality are incompatible. We are not inherently equal, and any attempt to change that means an infringement on freedom.

Everybody keeps bringing up equality of ability. That's silly and you know I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about equality of power.

That's fine, it too is incompatible. The reason why the French revolution was a bust and ended up in a dictatorship was they had to competing values of equality and liberty.