The structure of the phalanstère was composed by three parts: a central part and two lateral wings. The central part was designed for quiet activities. It included dining rooms, meeting rooms, libraries and studies. A lateral wing was designed for labour and noisy activities, such as carpentry, hammering and forging. It also hosted children because they were considered noisy while playing. The other wing contained a caravansary, with ballrooms and halls for meetings with outsiders. The outsiders had to pay a fee in order to visit and meet the people of the Phalanx community. This income was thought to sustain the autonomous economy of the phalanstère. The phalanstère also included private apartments and many social halls. A social hall was defined by Fourier as a seristère.I think at one point he (or a follower) worked out the exact number of "ideal people" in any community, something like 2528. That any more or any less than this would begin to undermine the phalanxes. So you had to cast out and replace people as that number was breached.
According to the Spokesman-Review, authorities seized 7 tons of Liberty Dollar coins at the Idaho mint, including "2 tons of freshly minted 'Ron Paul' dollars," coinage stamped with the Texas representative's face.:dead
Can a comrade get a Michael Badnarik lecture outchea?Oh, I can give you something even better:
a good place for anyone with libertarian sensibilities.
The thing is, the U.S. if it would just follow the rule of law - i.e., the document that gives it any authority to exist or do anything at all - would be a good place for anyone with libertarian sensibilities.
a good place for anyone with libertarian sensibilities.
And hell for everybody else.
Yes, I suppose hell for authoritarians is not being able to run roughshod over others.
a good place for anyone with libertarian sensibilities.
And hell for everybody else.
Yes, I suppose hell for authoritarians is not being able to run roughshod over others.
Or for people who don't want to drink poo water.
Of course, I forgot how much the market demands poo water. ::)
If the US Constitution was replaced with Mel Gibson's The Road Warrior, that would be totally sweet.
a good place for anyone with libertarian sensibilities.
And hell for everybody else.
Yes, I suppose hell for authoritarians is not being able to run roughshod over others.
Or for people who don't want to drink poo water.
Of course, I forgot how much the market demands poo water. ::)
freedom preserve
Or for people who don't want to drink poo water.States, cities, etc. could still make laws against drinking the poo-poo, no?
It's not like we have any examples of say, chemical companies ever intentionally poisoning a water supply or anything.And then the state gives them effective immunity via regulatory shield rather than having it torn apart by the injured. Everybody wins!
i hear somalia is nice this time of year.Not anymore, they've got a government trying to impose itself again. Just like with the Communists prior to the good years.
Oh this got unlocked? Class please read the following and have your book reports on my desk tomorrow morning.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/
We do not after all differ with the anarchists on the question of the abolition of the state as the aim. We maintain that, to achieve this aim, we must temporarily make use of the instruments, resources, and methods of state power against the exploiters, just as the temporary dictatorship of the oppressed class is necessary for the abolition of classes. Marx chooses the sharpest and clearest way of stating his case against the anarchists: After overthrowing the yoke of the capitalists, should the workers "lay down their arms", or use them against the capitalists in order to crush their resistance? But what is the systematic use of arms by ne class against another if not a "transient form" of state?I wonder if BA has a synthesis about this.
...
Against, the most remarkable thing in this argument of Engels' is the way he states his case against the anarchists. Social-Democrats, claiming to be disciples of Engels, have argued on this subject against the anarchists millions of times since 1873, but they have not argued as Marxists could and should. The anarchist idea of abolition of the state is muddled and non-revolutionary--that is how Engels put it. It is precisely the revolution in its rise and development, with its specific tasks in relation to violence, authority, power, the state, that the anarchists refuse to see.
The usual criticism of anarchism by present-day Social-Democrats has boiled down to the purest philistine banality: "We recognize the state, whereas the anarchists do not!" Naturally, such banality cannot but repel workers who are at all capable of thinking and revolutionary-minded. What Engels says is different. He stresses that all socialists recognize that the state will disappear as a result of the socialist revolution. He then deals specifically with the question of the revolution - the very question which, as a rule, the Social-Democrats evade out of opportunism, leaving it, so to speak, exclusively for the anarchists "to work out".
If the US Constitution was replaced with Mel Gibson's The Road Warrior, that would be totally sweet.Just walk away.
(http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/157/234/99124221did_not_read.gif)Or for people who don't want to drink poo water.States, cities, etc. could still make laws against drinking the poo-poo, no?It's not like we have any examples of say, chemical companies ever intentionally poisoning a water supply or anything.And then the state gives them effective immunity via regulatory shield rather than having it torn apart by the injured. Everybody wins!i hear somalia is nice this time of year.Not anymore, they've got a government trying to impose itself again. Just like with the Communists prior to the good years.Oh this got unlocked? Class please read the following and have your book reports on my desk tomorrow morning.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/QuoteWe do not after all differ with the anarchists on the question of the abolition of the state as the aim. We maintain that, to achieve this aim, we must temporarily make use of the instruments, resources, and methods of state power against the exploiters, just as the temporary dictatorship of the oppressed class is necessary for the abolition of classes. Marx chooses the sharpest and clearest way of stating his case against the anarchists: After overthrowing the yoke of the capitalists, should the workers "lay down their arms", or use them against the capitalists in order to crush their resistance? But what is the systematic use of arms by ne class against another if not a "transient form" of state?I wonder if BA has a synthesis about this.
...
Against, the most remarkable thing in this argument of Engels' is the way he states his case against the anarchists. Social-Democrats, claiming to be disciples of Engels, have argued on this subject against the anarchists millions of times since 1873, but they have not argued as Marxists could and should. The anarchist idea of abolition of the state is muddled and non-revolutionary--that is how Engels put it. It is precisely the revolution in its rise and development, with its specific tasks in relation to violence, authority, power, the state, that the anarchists refuse to see.
The usual criticism of anarchism by present-day Social-Democrats has boiled down to the purest philistine banality: "We recognize the state, whereas the anarchists do not!" Naturally, such banality cannot but repel workers who are at all capable of thinking and revolutionary-minded. What Engels says is different. He stresses that all socialists recognize that the state will disappear as a result of the socialist revolution. He then deals specifically with the question of the revolution - the very question which, as a rule, the Social-Democrats evade out of opportunism, leaving it, so to speak, exclusively for the anarchists "to work out".If the US Constitution was replaced with Mel Gibson's The Road Warrior, that would be totally sweet.Just walk away.
Stop and think about this for a minute: These are people who actually call themselves libertarians — advocates of human liberty — and who presumably want to spread these ideas in society at large and attract new adherents to them. Hoppe’s prerequisite for a “libertarian society,” if you want to call it that, is for the minority of rich property-owning paterfamiliases who have appropriated all the land in a society to round up all the people with beliefs or lifestyles they disagree with, and forcibly evict them. North would add stoning to the list of sanctions. “We can only have a totally free society after I’ve expelled all the people who do things I disapprove of!”
They don’t favor liberty because it promotes the widest possible flourishing and self-actualization of human beings. They favor it because it gives local patriarchs and lords of manors a free hand to dominate those under their thumbs, without a nasty state stepping in to interfere. For them, “libertarianism” — a term they pollute every time they utter it with their tongues — is simply a way of constructing the world of Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale by contractual means. And Block, who shares beliefs with Men’s Rights Advocate creepos and “Race Realists,” is apparently ready to pack up his bags and leave libertarianism for the neo-reactionary movement at a moment’s notice.
...
A certain kind of libertarian, disproportionately represented in the mainstream of the movement, takes a similar view of women, queers and people of color who invade their stronghold and try to put social justice concerns on the table. These people are used to seeing libertarianism as the final refuge for rational white middle-class males like themselves, where they can hide in the catacombs and read “Isaiah’s Job” to each other while the outside world goes mad under the onslaught of statist racial minorities and welfare moms demanding handouts from the government. And here a girl has the nerve to show up in the clubhouse and suggest that issues like racism, sexism and homophobia (or anything else besides Bitcoin, vaping, Uber and the capital gains tax) should be taken seriously by libertarians.
In both cases, the reaction is one of outrage — taking the form of trolling, abuse, insults and threats — at the affront to their sense of entitlement.
A libertarian movement with this demographic as its core base is doomed to extinction. The reason is that these people, for the most part, aren’t interested in winning hearts and minds among the general public. They’re not interested in recognizing the concerns of poor and working people, women, LGBT people or people of color as legitimate, and showing ways that an ideology of human freedom can address those concerns in a meaningful way. They’re interested in being superior, in being the last tiny remnant of rational people who’ve not bowed their knees to the collectivist Baal.
They’re interested in convincing themselves that, contrary to common sense perceptions, white guys in $3,000 suits, investment bankers and venture capitalists are the state’s true victims, and the enormously powerful constituency of black welfare mothers are its main beneficiaries.
Frankly, I’m sick of libertarian outreach being sabotaged by the need to apologize for people like this. I’m sick of trying to challenge the perception of libertarianism as the movement of entitled 20-something middle-class white males who think “big business is the last oppressed minority,” and the world is going to hell in a hand-basket because of women and racial minorities — and then going to Mises.org, Lew Rockwell, Cato and Reason and seeing a bottomless cesspool of people saying that very thing.
If the US Constitution was replaced with Mel Gibson's The Road Warrior, that would be totally sweet.JUST WALK AWAY.
I feel like I should set a goal to post garbage on it more often than every three to six months. Then I can tell my therapist about a goal I've met. Though I can't let him ever see the tumblr for its clearly insane content.
I made a PDF of this thread so when Green Shinobi inevitably open fires at his employer, I can show this thread as proof that the mentality has been simmering for some time.
Every couple of years, mainstream media hacks pretend to have just discovered libertarianism as some sort of radical, new and dynamic force in American politics. It’s a rehash that goes back decades, and hacks love it because it’s easy to write, and because it’s such a non-threatening “radical” politics (unlike radical left politics, which threatens the rich). The latest version involves a summer-long pundit debate in the pages of the New York Times, Reason magazine and elsewhere over so-called “libertarian populism.” It doesn’t really matter whose arguments prevail, so long as no one questions where libertarianism came from or why we’re defining libertarianism as anything but a big business public relations campaign, the winner in this debate is Libertarianism.
Pull up libertarianism’s floorboards, look beneath the surface into the big business PR campaign’s early years, and there you’ll start to get a sense of its purpose, its funders, and the PR hucksters who brought the peculiar political strain of American libertarianism into being — beginning with the libertarian movement’s founding father, Milton Friedman. Back in 1950, the House of Representatives held hearings on illegal lobbying activities and exposed both Friedman and the earliest libertarian think-tank outfit as a front for business lobbyists. Those hearings have been largely forgotten, in part because we’re too busy arguing over the finer points of “libertarian populism.”
benji have you read James C. Scott (http://www.amazon.com/James-C.-Scott/e/B001H9W1D2/ref=sr_ntt_srch_lnk_1?qid=1425137720&sr=1-1)? I've heard Seeing Like a State is pretty convincingNo, I haven't, I'll have to look into it. I have heard of it before. I do have his book Two Cheers for Anarchism which I had come across and mentioned in the book thread, but I haven't read it yet. I still think Michael Huemer's book Problems of Political Authority is the ultimate because of its synthesis and presentation.
The particular occasion of this lecture, combined with the chief practical problem which economists have to face today, have made the choice of its topic almost inevitable. On the one hand the still recent establishment of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Science marks a significant step in the process by which, in the opinion of the general public, economics has been conceded some of the dignity and prestige of the physical sciences. On the other hand, the economists are at this moment called upon to say how to extricate the free world from the serious threat of accelerating inflation which, it must be admitted, has been brought about by policies which the majority of economists recommended and even urged governments to pursue. We have indeed at the moment little cause for pride: as a profession we have made a mess of things.
It seems to me that this failure of the economists to guide policy more successfully is closely connected with their propensity to imitate as closely as possible the procedures of the brilliantly successful physical sciences - an attempt which in our field may lead to outright error. It is an approach which has come to be described as the "scientistic" attitude - an attitude which, as I defined it some thirty years ago, "is decidedly unscientific in the true sense of the word, since it involves a mechanical and uncritical application of habits of thought to fields different from those in which they have been formed."1 I want today to begin by explaining how some of the gravest errors of recent economic policy are a direct consequence of this scientistic error.
In some fields, particularly where problems of a similar kind arise in the physical sciences, the difficulties can be overcome by using, instead of specific information about the individual elements, data about the relative frequency, or the probability, of the occurrence of the various distinctive properties of the elements. But this is true only where we have to deal with what has been called by Dr. Warren Weaver (formerly of the Rockefeller Foundation), with a distinction which ought to be much more widely understood, "phenomena of unorganized complexity," in contrast to those "phenomena of organized complexity" with which we have to deal in the social sciences.2 Organized complexity here means that the character of the structures showing it depends not only on the properties of the individual elements of which they are composed, and the relative frequency with which they occur, but also on the manner in which the individual elements are connected with each other. In the explanation of the working of such structures we can for this reason not replace the information about the individual elements by statistical information, but require full information about each element if from our theory we are to derive specific predictions about individual events. Without such specific information about the individual elements we shall be confined to what on another occasion I have called mere pattern predictions - predictions of some of the general attributes of the structures that will form themselves, but not containing specific statements about the individual elements of which the structures will be made up
Of course, compared with the precise predictions we have learnt to expect in the physical sciences, this sort of mere pattern predictions is a second best with which one does not like to have to be content. Yet the danger of which I want to warn is precisely the belief that in order to have a claim to be accepted as scientific it is necessary to achieve more. This way lies charlatanism and worse. To act on the belief that we possess the knowledge and the power which enable us to shape the processes of society entirely to our liking, knowledge which in fact we do not possess, is likely to make us do much harm. In the physical sciences there may be little objection to trying to do the impossible; one might even feel that one ought not to discourage the over-confident because their experiments may after all produce some new insights. But in the social field the erroneous belief that the exercise of some power would have beneficial consequences is likely to lead to a new power to coerce other men being conferred on some authority. Even if such power is not in itself bad, its exercise is likely to impede the functioning of those spontaneous ordering forces by which, without understanding them, man is in fact so largely assisted in the pursuit of his aims. We are only beginning to understand on how subtle a communication system the functioning of an advanced industrial society is based - a communications system which we call the market and which turns out to be a more efficient mechanism for digesting dispersed information than any that man has deliberately designed.They give him an award and he basically comes in and shits all over everybody there and their goals. Even says if asked he thought a Nobel Prize in Economics was a silly idea. :lol
http://www.alternet.org/visions/true-history-libertarianism-america-phony-ideology-promote-corporate-agenda-0And of course it's Mark Ames. I think he's written this same article a hundred times now. I love that he thinks that an ideological family that half goes back to at least the individualist anarchist movement of the late 1800's and the other half is steeped in American classical liberalism was invented in the 1950's by FEE as a front for businesses' secret plot to...never win any elections*. And that Milton was the founder considering how he gets treated, especially if anyone brings up tax withholding or his monetary beliefs. (Not that he hasn't contributed, but others got there first.)
:dead
The datasets often used in political science research are like, it's just no...I know your regression says this but you're using five total variables from eleven countries. All of which use different definitions for their officially recorded numbers. My NBA stats file is more useful than this. For political science researchYeah, this is what it ultimately boils down to; if you're dealing with voluntary action, your data probably aren't gonna be justified. My favorite batshit formula application is Richard Carrier proving God's existence from Bayes' Theorem (https://rjosephhoffmann.wordpress.com/2012/05/29/proving-what/).
- The probability of God’s existence is one in two (since God either exists or doesn’t exist).
- The probability that God became incarnate is also one in two (since it either happened or it didn’t).
- The evidence for God’s existence is an argument for the resurrection.
- The chance of Christ’s resurrection not being reported by the gospels has a probability of one in 10.
- Considering all these factors together, there is a one in 1,000 chance that the resurrection is not true.
Yeah, this is what it ultimately boils down to; if you're dealing with voluntary action, your data probably aren't gonna be justified. My favorite batshit formula application is Richard Carrier proving God's existence from Bayes' Theorem (https://rjosephhoffmann.wordpress.com/2012/05/29/proving-what/).The one I liked recently that got regular mainstream attention (instead of just academic circles) was the "study by researchers proving" if McDonalds raised their minimum wage to $15 it would add like 17 cents to the price of their food. When it was an undergraduate students' (who was passing himself off as a professor) paper and he didn't take into account like half the employees at McDonald's corporate and even worse didn't count franchisees which are like 80% of their restaurants. (And he told reporters that he had.) And he also had the profits of McDonald's off by ten times the actual amount.
Did we ever find out if the state was legitimate or not? I'm not reading through this whole thread.Yes, but only after the Franchise Wars end.
I made a PDF of this thread so when Green Shinobi inevitably open fires at his employer, I can show this thread as proof that the mentality has been simmering for some time.
Jesus, dude just asked a question and was inviting answers. Chill the fuck out.
What gave you the weird chill? Was it the bit about freedom preserves?It was the tone of solitude in the OP, where there’s a supposition that one’s own participation in a society with which one does not agree would necessitate emigration, perhaps even to unclaimed land.
The McDonalds one is false?
What about the study where Walmart could give all employees a $1/hr raise by adding like 2 cents to each customer's bill?