News & Analysis
The Conversation of Freedom Is Not Jewish
The "Catholic" Wing of Libertarianism ...The Jesuits were never true Catholics. Jesuits are part of a long-term Illuminati Jewish plot to infiltrate and subvert Catholicism from within, even though most Jesuits are probably not aware of it. Indeed, Lew Rockwell is right: the Salamancan Jesuits, AKA the Illuminati, were behind modern Libertarianism. In a reply to Proof Libertarianism is an Illuminati ploy, in which Anthony Migchels pointed to the Jewish money behind Austrian Economics, the Daily Bell noted that many prominent current Libertarians were Catholics, including Lew Rockwell, Pat Buchanan, Thomas Woods, and Justin Raimondo. That may be true, but it does not refute the dominant Jewish character of Libertarianism. Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard, and Ayn Rand were Jewish. Professor Martha Steffy Browne, a member of Mises' private seminar on economics in Vienna, noted that 23 out of 29 attendees were of Jewish descent. – HenryMakow
Dominant Social Theme: Freedom is a Jewish plot.
Free-Market Analysis: Memehunter and Anthony Migchels have again confronted libertarianism (and DB) at a well-read alternative news website. But by introducing a historical perspective (Memehunter is the actual author), they're actually challenging the roots of a conversation that goes back millennia.
The article begins by describing the "dominant Jewish character of Libertarianism" and calls libertarianism an Illuminist/communist ploy. But even formal Libertarianism has numerous definitions so it is not clear what is being attacked. Here's a Wikipedia definition that gives a flavor of the broad spectrum of thought behind modern "libertarianism."
Libertarianism is variously defined by sources. It is generally used to describe political philosophies which emphasize freedom, individual liberty, and voluntary association. Libertarians generally advocate a society with small or no government power.
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines libertarianism as the moral view that agents initially fully own themselves and have certain moral powers to acquire property rights in external things.
Historian George Woodcock defines libertarianism as a critical individualist social philosophy, aimed at transforming society by reform or revolution, that fundamentally doubts authority.
Philosopher Roderick T. Long defines libertarianism as "any political position that advocates a radical redistribution of power from the coercive state to voluntary associations of free individuals", whether "voluntary association" takes the form of the free market or of communal co-operatives.
According to the U.S. Libertarian Party, libertarianism is the advocacy of a government that is funded voluntarily and limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence.
Can someone who believes in freedom and personal responsibility disagree with this statement? Libertarianism is many things to many people. Having apparently mis-stated what libertarianism is, the article compounds the problem by stating the following: "Libertarianism emphasizes individual freedom, but fails to recognize that humans are social beings, not isolated individuals. Self-interest reigns supreme for libertarians, but there is no room for social justice."
Dear reader, we don't believe this to be true. At the Daily Bell, we call our approach libertarian (small "L" to differentiate ourselves from the formal Libertarian Party), but we certainly can't be accused of the simplistic notion that we haven't recognized humans are "social beings." Not so long ago, in an article entitled "Bush Used as Trojan Horse for Global Justice," we wrote the following:
What the world needs, in our humble view, is "decentralized justice." We've called for a return to tribal and clan justice ... In private justice, people avenge their own via duels, feuds and the like. Justice-seeking can be extended "unto the seventh generation" and people are likely going to be more polite and careful when any individual can avenge an "insult to honor" or other offense on his own. In a private justice paradigm, people control their own justice and are apt not to act rashly because the consequences can be deadly.
Does this sound like a group of elves that fails to recognize that "humans are social beings"? Of course not. And we're not alone. As a group, libertarians – certainly libertarian commentators – tend to be literate and careful individuals. The idea that libertarians are black-and-white linear thinkers is nonsense.
It's sad. What's even sadder about this sort of commentary is that proponents of the modern Libertarian/Rothbardian movement have made it quite clear that the ABSENCE of state control actually CREATES closer and more cohesive societies, certainly at the local level (where we think most societies should be).
Absent state power, minarchist societies tend to organize around various forms of private theology and are often (fortunately or not) more "morally" rigid than statist ones. This is because human beings are orderly animals and seek "social glue." Religion, morality, social interactions of various sorts provide it.
Such arguments as regards the "libertarian point of view" (whatever that is) that explain libertarians are merely Rand-ite robots mechanically pursuing their "self-interest" ignore the richly hued canvas painted by Austrian free-market proponents and free-market thinking generally.
The authors of the article have arrived at a paradigm in which they are convinced (for whatever reason) that libertarianism (which they have seemingly defined incorrectly) is merely the polar opposite of Illuminism (whatever that is) or communism.
The accusations – and purported debunking – are further complicated by the "anti-Jew" nature of these attacks on freedom philosophy. In fact, we've argued the real reason for the attack on free-market economics may be because it stands in the way of those who want to blame everything (for some reason) on "Jews."
Human beings as a species are apparently something like 100,000 years old. Are we to believe the conversation over freedom (or it's most "extreme" versions) is a "Jewish" one? In fact, there is emerging evidence (long suppressed by the elites) that human beings built a decentralized global (coastal) civilization over 10,000 or even 15,000 years ago, and that these ancient civilizations were drowned by flooding when glaciers melted. (One doesn't even need to invent aliens to acknowledge such potential human genius, by the way.)
Were these civilizations, if they existed, Jewish? Are we to assume so? Dwarka, too? Was Krishna a crypto-Jew? In fact, dear reader, it's debatable! Here's an excerpt from Prithi Raj who spent 25 years in India tracing the roots of ancient civilizations that he finally determined had had their beginnings in the arctic some 19,000 years ago:
You must have already heard about the claim that Jews are Yadavas of India, the tribe in which Krishna, the Godly figure of Indians, was born. The very name Hebrew is derived from Abhirah, a tribe associated with Krishna in Indian epic Mahabharat. The word Yadavas was derived from the term "Yah Devas," meaning Devas of Yah. Those days, people living in India were called Devas. And when these external people migrated into India from an external region called Yah, the local people called them the Devas of Yah or Yah Devas, which went on to become Yadavas.
Can you spot the connection between the term "Yah Devas" and the name Yahweh, the single most important name of the God of Jews, and of all Abrahamic religions? A large number of Jewish names and concepts can be traced back to Krishna and Yadavas of India, and the Indian religion, through some simple linguistic analysis. I have given some important comparisons in the following chart, taken from the book. You can make a judgement for yourself. Please click on the chart below to expand it ...
You see how deep the rabbit hole goes? According to some modern Jewish conspiracy theorists, Jewish tribes may have solidified around the Babylonian Talmud, which is held up as a terrible and malevolent work. But now perhaps the timeline will have to be revised!
The anti-Jew/anti-libertarianism crowd now claims that modern libertarianism is an outgrowth of crypto-Jew Spanish Jesuits. The argument ignores, however, the ACTUAL IDEAS that were being enunciated at the time – and before and after. It is the IDEAS that are of the most significance in our view. This is the reason we were attracted to Austrian economics in the first place. Here's an excerpt from an article we found at Mises.org on the Spaniard Juan de Mariana and "The Influence of the Spanish Scholastics (1536-1624)."
The prehistory of the Austrian School of economics can be found in the works of the Spanish scholastics written in what is known as the "Spanish Golden Century," which ran from the mid- sixteenth century through the seventeenth century. Who were these Spanish intellectual forerunners of the Austrian School of economics? Most of them were scholastics teaching morals and theology at the University of Salamanca, in the medieval Spanish city located 150 miles northwest of Madrid, close to the border of Spain with Portugal.
These scholastics, mainly Dominicans and Jesuits, articulated the subjectivist, dynamic, and libertarian tradition on which, two-hundred-and-fifty years later, Carl Menger and his followers would place so much importance. Perhaps the most libertarian of all the scholastics, particularly in his later works, was the Jesuit Father Juan de Mariana.
Although Father Mariana wrote many books, the first one with a libertarian content was De rege et regis institutione (On the king and the royal institution), published in 1598, in which he set forth his famous defense of tyrannicide. According to Mariana, any individual citizen can justly assassinate a king who imposes taxes without the consent of the people, seizes the property of individuals and squanders it, or prevents a meeting of a democratic parliament.3 The doctrines contained in this book were apparently used to justify the assassination of the French tyrant kings Henry III and Henry IV, and the book was burned in Paris by the executioner as a result of a decree issued by the Parliament of Paris on July 4, 1610.4
In Spain, although the authorities were not enthusiastic about it, the book was respected. In fact, all Mariana did was to take an idea that natural law is morally superior to the might of the state to its logical conclusion. This idea had previously been developed in detail by the great founder of international law, the Dominican Francisco de Vitoria (1485 1546), who began the Spanish scholastic tradition of denouncing the conquest and particularly the enslavement of the Indians by the Spaniards in the New World.
But perhaps Mariana's most important book was the work published in 1605 with the title De monetae mutatione (On the alteration of money).5 In this book, Mariana began to question whether the king was the owner of the private property of his vassals or citizens and reached the clear conclusion that he was not. The author then applied his distinction between a king and a tyrant and concluded that "the tyrant is he who tramples everything underfoot and believes everything to belong to him; the king restricts or limits his covetousness within the terms of reason and justice."
Does this sound like an elaborate Jewish plot to you? Or does it sound like part of a conversation about FREEDOM and free markets? Is Juan de Mariana a Jew ... or a Catholic crypto Jew? Is it the important thing ... or even the MOST important thing. Must we focus entirely on conspiratorial history?
More than almost any other thinkers (20 years ago anyway) Lew Rockwell and his mentor, Murray Rothbard, were enunciating a history of free-market thought. To characterize this extensive "great conversation" that goes back not 500 years, not 5,000 years but maybe 15,000 years (or even 50,000 years) as a Jewish strategy of world domination is just, well ... sad. Among other things.
Yes, the MODERN free-market "great conversation," according to Rockwell, may have begun some 500 years ago. But it didn't begin with crypto-Jews in Spain, it didn't begin with the Romans or the Greeks, or even the Egyptians or Minoans, and it won't end in our lifetimes.
(Now that we have mentioned it, we expect that the author [or authors] of this article may jump on the idea that the Jewish religion is actually 19,000 years old and has been sowing mischief and malevolence for nearly that long, starting in the Arctic and then India!)
But, all this is beside the point ... We're big fans of the concept of directed history, but the intricate study of the conspiratorial narrative is less satisfying to us than understanding humanity's larger interactions within the context of free-market thinking.
Do those who study conspiratorial history ever find definitive truth? So much is hidden currently and there is much that shall never be known in our view. Worse, such history – especially when focused on the "Jews" – soon seems to devolve into conversations about whether the Rockefellers are crypto-Jews and (now) whether the Jesuits are a Jewish sect, burrowing into the underbelly of Catholicism like a tapeworm.
This is also why we've argued that to call what's going on today "Zionism" is merely confusing. A crime syndicate runs the West – and is trying to rule the earth. It is partially a "Jewish" cabal, historically anyway, and "hires on" Jews.
It IS a criminal conspiracy. It draws its increasing numbers from Western corporations, from the military, from the Vatican and elsewhere. It uses Illumism and "dark magik" as tools to inspire fear. But we don't believe that the people at the top believe in it, anymore than we believe they're credulous Satanists.
There is ample evidence, in our view, that they merely manipulate these concepts as they do many others. They are adept at the use of symbols. It's their stock-in-trade.
Simply to maintain it is "Jewish" is to miss the point of what is going on, in our view. In fact, this group, this cabal, has cleverly planted the meme of anti-Semitism. Claim that this group is merely Jewish (incorrect anyway) and one is immediately marginalized. The leaders of this cabal have spent decades ensuring that the average Jew suffered immensely to create this meme.
These people, these elites that control most of the world's wealth via central banks, don't care a fig about the average Jew any more than they care about the larger starving masses populating the planet. They consider most of us as expendable. We're a "plague," as an "eminence" once put it.
Explain that what's taking place today is a Zionist plot and people will at least look at you blankly and perhaps assume the worst. Explain that a criminal conspiracy – an extended Crime Family – has set up shop in the halls of power and many people will understand and agree.
That's why we've explained on numerous occasions that to characterize the actors in the current New World Order as "Zionist" is not only misleading, but it's confusing as well. What's taking place today is, well ... evil. Wipe out every "Jew" and we suggest you will not eradicate even an atom of the evil you wish to remove.
The argument is made as well that the texts of the Jewish religion are repugnant, especially the Babylonian Talmud. But the texts of many religions contain repugnant passages. Such texts only become dangerous if they are activated by STATE involvement.
Leveraged by the power and force of the state, religious texts take on the force of law and can become dangerous. Such states are called theocracies. US founding fathers specifically wanted to avoid creating a theocracy.
What is a "Jew" anyway? Is it a race? A species? A culture? Now we have to decide if Jewish roots are planted in India and go back 19,000 years. And once we're done with that we have to figure out if the Jesuits are actually crypto-Jews. Is the Pope a Jew as well? We have no doubt that some would say so.
There are other issues brought up in the article that we could respond to at length, but we have in the past and anyone who wishes to examine the argumentation is free to look. One such thread can be seen here: The Anti-Freedom Movement States Its (Worst) Case? ... Austrians Vs. the Illuminati. We catalogue a number of errors, some of which are contained in the current article. Economist Gary North has responded as well.
The Austrian, free-market conversation is one of IDEAS. The article in question attempts to undermine Austrian "libertarian" economics by claiming that it is part of a dialectic with Illuminism and communism – and that these ideas are secondary to a malevolent Jewish strategy.
But the ideas of modern Austrian economics (the Rothbardian school, especially) involve the conversation of freedom and free markets, and ideas such as the business cycle and human action developed or expanded upon by Ludwig von MIses and later Rothbard.
One cannot portray these ideas as "Jewish" any more than one can maintain that the main purpose of Austrian (Rothbardian) economics is mainly to subvert the world via totalitarian globalism. If Austrian economics IS such a plot, it's a pretty lousy one. It's added greatly to people's understanding of freedom and free markets. Of course, the article and its author doesn't see it that way. He concludes:
Libertarianism and Communism are the two poles of a 500-year old Illuminati dialectic, with extreme individualism, exemplified by Rand's "virtuous selfishness", at one end, and extreme collectivism, encapsulated by Marx's "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs", at the other end. The Illuminati dialectic leaves no room for a middle ground, for a balance between individualism and collectivism, between anarchy and totalitarianism. This is the trap that they have set up for us.
Oh, come on! There is no "one" definition for (small "L") libertarianism and free-market thinking both recognizes and respects human beings within cultural and social contexts. How can we trust the conclusion when the initial suppositions are flawed?
It is certainly possible, as this article has done, to make linkages between prominent free-market thinkers and the power-elites of the day. But these seem to us to be facile and even misleading. The true measure of Austrian economics (and its success) is that it has provided us with more tools to advance our understanding of freedom and free markets.
To attack Austrian economics as some sort of Jewish/Illuminati plot has other consequences. It marks the further coarsening of the larger alternative media dialogue, and thus erodes the ability of participants to attract a wider audience.
Here at the Daily Bell we're now accused (recently) in at least one prominent feedback thread of being a "Jewish" publication. Of course, we're not. We're a publication analyzing the memes of the power elite. We've been careful to point out in the past that some of our writers have Jewish antecedents, but many of those who participate in this modest effort, including various advisors, are not Jewish. (Whatever a Jew may be.)
We've been criticized on occassion for using the term Anglosphere to describe the broadest spectrum of the one-world conspiracy. The term Anglosphere emerged among us after a three-year period spent researching the book that became High Alert (you can download a copy at our site).
It is simply a fact that much of the initial modern conspiracy is rooted in the City of London with various additional elements in Washington DC, the Vatican, Europe and Tel Aviv. Many of these elements involve "Jews." But many may not. We decided it was simplistic and even confusing to refer to this wide-ranging conspiracy, which may include China as well, as "Zionist." For many people, the term means nothing, or even has connations negative to the user.
Will such attacks continue? They are only recent in nature; yet, we will not assume they are triggered by current participants. Still, the larger issue is an important one. Such an approach inevitably involves accusations over whether one has Jewish blood or is a "Zionist tool."
The author(s) of the article we've been commenting on mention usury, deflation and social justice. We've dealt with these issues in the past by pointing out that in a free society, ideally people should have the freedom to do what they want with their money and businesses. If they want to lend with interest and can find someone to borrow at interest, that's their business.
What really concerns us about this article is the blaming of Jews, crypto Jews and even converted Jews for the increasing one-world horror that is unfolding around us. What is taking place is NOT merely a Jewish phenomenon. It is a HUMAN phenomenon and to try to cast it as the fault of one single culture or group is simplistic.
There is a power elite. It has long roots ... roots that can be characterized as Jewish (whatever that means). But in the larger scheme of things, neither the current one-world conspiracy nor the ancient human conversation of freedom and free markets belongs to one particular sect, race or entity.
Conclusion: No, it's not a "dialectic." The human quest is a search for meaning. And Austrian economics has contributed to that search.
Ed Note: Another reason to be concerned about this strand of argumentation, which is growing more popular as we predicted long ago when writing about Ellen Brown, is that it is essentially making a case for "government," albiet limited government. We, too, have argued for limited government, especially government within the context of devolution. But we certainly don't wish to make a CASE for government, as Western governance (as it is construed today) is force, merely force. Why people in the alternative media wish to make a case for any kind of authoritarianism is a mystery to us, especially when there is a millennia-old conversation providing us with an alternative view. The argument will then be made that Money Power itself flourishes outside of government, but this is in our view an impossible argument to support. Absent government, the mercantilist strategies of Money Power would likely founder and fail.
Edited on date of publication.
Posted by Dilence Sogwood on 02/24/12 04:36 PM
Your quoted passage:
"Libertarianism and Communism are the two poles of a 500-year old Illuminati dialectic"
reminds me of the mind-bending contradictions of my Ivy League (mis)education.
Posted by TPaine on 02/24/12 04:13 PM
Only childish frauds like rockwell and friends could claim to be anarchists and pro-catholic, considering that the catholic church is the oldest, biggest and most corrupt state on earth.
Posted by memehunter on 02/24/12 11:48 AM
DB: The Catholic Conspiracy? The Rockwell MAFIA? Hoo boy ... The rabbit hole becomes deeper still ...
I do not wish to comment on TPaine's post, but I would like to note that the piece to which this DB article refers was indeed, to a large extent, about a "Jesuit a.k.a Illuminati" conspiracy.
While I do not wish to engage in another long debate with the DB, I repeat that it was a bit misleading to present our article as referring only to a "Jewish conspiracy". It is encouraging to see that some feedbackers caught on the Jesuit/"Catholic" angle.
Posted by Summer on 02/24/12 05:50 AM
DB: But beyond that, we have areas of commonality with critics of the current reality; especially as regards the "nature" of the problem. in fact, we are trying to build our "own" perspective within the larger alternative media paradigm.
DB: Thus we agree entirely with your prescription, even if you may not always agree with our positions. We are sure many here value the information you provide from your unique perspective. We value a wide range of inputs and believe we've proven that over the past several years.
I have always respected many of your views especially your emphasis on justice viz., Empire... One of the reasons I spend time at the DB is that you and your feed backers are much more tolerant and open-minded (and this must be a complement to free-market thinking) than so many other people.
"We value a wide range of inputs and believe we've proven that over the past several years." Very true. You have been gracious and generous in entertaining my views and it's much appreciated.
Reply from The Daily Bell
Thank you, Summer.
Posted by Abu Aardvark on 02/24/12 05:48 AM
DB: "The Catholic Conspiracy? The Rockwell MAFIA? Hoo boy ... The rabbit hole becomes deeper still ... "
Concerning the "stir": A couple of threads ago I wrote this already ... and have nothing to change really:
In aggregate, given your page impressions, your articles being featured on Infowars, Lew Rockwell, etc., and translated into more languages - in the context of an unprecedented mass "awakening" - it would seem that maybe you're having more of an impact than some people are willing to suffer anymore ... motionless. Hence, perhaps, "The Attack Of The Greenbackers" ...
And thanks to dave jr., NAPpy, rossbcan, Bluebird, Bionic Mosquito, et al., and the elves, of course. It's a pleasure and an honor to witness and share your contributions - to the case for freedom, that is - in this unique place at this point in time.
Reply from The Daily Bell
Kind words. In fact, we are regularly humbled by the many tolerant and well-READ feedbackers that have taken the time and energy to contribute to this modest effort. We thank them, and you, for substantive contributions.
Posted by TPaine on 02/24/12 02:00 AM
By the way,
It seems to me that the people who run this site are part of the rockwell mafia and are members of the catholic conspiracy.
It's pretty funny that people who are constantly talking about conspiracy are actually conspirators themselves.
Reply from The Daily Bell
The Catholic Conspiracy? The Rockwell MAFIA? Hoo boy ... The rabbit hole becomes deeper still ...
Posted by TPaine on 02/24/12 01:57 AM
rockwell, woods, and the rest of catholic nutcases are not libertarian
same thing for the other nutcase kkkristians and jews associated with the rockwell cult
these people are anarcho-conservatives, or just plain theocrats, but not libertarians.
Posted by jlax23 on 02/23/12 11:05 PM
Posted by johnblenkins on 02/23/12 10:06 PM
memehunter: or is it mememaker?
Posted by Luis Magno on 02/23/12 08:17 PM
The freedom conversation is human. That includes ethnoculturally-sovereign Judean Americans and Iberian Americans, and includes linguoculturally sovereign Hispanic (Spanish-speaking) Americans. The money issue is the core central issue. We propose sharing the Money Power in proportion to our respective ethnoracial numbers.
Luis Magno (nomme d'plume)
European American, United American Patriot
P.S. Someone else will have to speak for the African and Asian Americans, for the Native Americans, for the White Nationalists, for the mixed breeds and mestizos and for the disfunctional multicultural elites. ~lm
Posted by Luis Magno on 02/23/12 07:54 PM
The freedom conversation is human. That includes ethnoculturally-sovereign Judean Americans and Iberian Americans. The money issue is the core central issue. We propose sharing the Money Power in proportion to our respective ethnoracial numbers.
Luis Magno (nomme d'plume)
Posted by rossbcan on 02/23/12 07:37 PM
"If I had a dime for every time I hear--"what about the roads?, what about poor people?"
share your frustration. Those who ask the "what about X" question are really stating "until you propose a solution that solves every little issue that can be dreamed up, and appeases everyone, you are full of crap", meaning "only preplanned, everybody does things the same way and no potential problems, solutions with absolutely no dissent nor room for change to be tolerated"
These idiots are REALLY demanding "no change, no diversity", an end to intelligent evolution equals total control, predictability, DEATH for mankind.
The answer to "what about X" is that if someone wants it, someone will provide it, in hope that others will value it enough to "voluntariliy" pay for it, providing a square deal and honest trade for the providers, consumers and general peace and prosperity for those willing to contribute and, effectively deal with predators whom are not willing to contribute.
No CHOICE equals NO SURVIVAL for any, including predators:
Click to view link
That is the general answer to the "what about X" question, especially if X is "government", a self terminating problem, by definition.
Posted by Bobby7 on 02/23/12 05:35 PM
"DB: All Jews, Bobby7?"
If you heard a German quoting Mein Kampf & said he based his belief system on it, I am sure you would call him a Nazi and a demonic, evil person!
THE TEACHING OF THE JEWISH SAGES
Sex with a 'Minor' Permitted
What exactly did these sages say?
The Pharisees justified child rape by explaining that a boy of nine years was not a 'man' Thus they exempted him from God's Mosaic Law:
'You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination' (Leviticus. 18:22)
One passage in the Talmud gives permission for a woman who molested her young son to marry a high priest. It concludes,
'All agree that the connection of a boy aged nine years and a day is a real connection; whilst that of one less than eight years is not." 5
Because a boy under 9 is sexually immature, he can't "throw guilt" on the active offender, morally or legally. 6
A woman could molest a young boy without questions of morality even being raised:
"…the intercourse of a small boy is not regarded as a sexual act." 7
The Talmud also says,
"A male aged nine years and a day who cohabits with his deceased brother's wife acquires her (as wife)."
8 Clearly, the Talmud teaches that a woman is permitted to marry and have sex with a nine year old boy.
5 Sanhedrin 69b.
6 Sanhedrin 55a.
7 Footnote 1 to Kethuboth 11b.
8 Sanhedrin 55b.
Any Jew who identifies with his rabbinical religion, the Babylonian Talmud & its teachings, is on par with Nazis!
Posted by NAPpy on 02/23/12 05:26 PM
"F... you, I'm rich".
That's an analysis of "potential problems" with libertarianism?
What responses to these issues have been made by Mises / Rothbard / Hoppe / Kinsella / Murphy / Boettke (and others) to these "potential problems"? Are you asserting that in your genius you're the first to ask these questions? If I had a dime for every time I hear--"what about the roads?, what about poor people?, Well go to Somalia!, People are evil so we need to put evil people in charge!", I'd be a rich man. These questions were answered to my satisfaction by libertarian authors, in varying ways, over decades, even centuries. Normally I'm happy to link sources, if the person is willing to follow them and attack the premises and conclusion of the argument.
You've shown no interest in following links and doing your homework when supplied them by people on this site back when people still thought you were legitimately interested in learning. Conversations with you always devolve to Yes, it is. No, it isn't. How does one resolve a debate with you? You seek the system of truth, without having a system. You reference "theories" of other people, which would imply that they are your theories, but then blame problems pointed out in those theories on the original author. What's your epistemology? What's your metaphysics? When do you feel forced to change your mind? I once had a long discussion with Bischoff, and while I disagree with him on some things, I know where are common ground is. He actually outlined his epistemology in a huge post.
I've tried that with you, and thought I had common ground once. Then you went right back to previous terminology and it was hours wasted.
You hypocrite! Doesn't apologizing to me (and other libertarians) about using the word evil imply that you did something wrong? Of course this is personal. I've spent years revising and refining my beliefs, with no small help from good samaritans on the net providing me links and elaborations. When I had questions, they answered it. I didn't waste their time by saying, "What about poor people?" when the answers to that were in the links they provided.
If you don't want this to get personal, stop making it personal.
Posted by Agent Weebley on 02/23/12 04:27 PM
Do you think robots are chasing you? I believe it.
Click to view link
What a larf.
Posted by Agent Weebley on 02/23/12 03:52 PM
"Would those dependents think they aren't doing their best?
My 3rd-party observation with respect to . . . let's say: "Ontario Works," which is NuSpeak for "Ontario DontWorks" is that depression sets in when you become entrenched. There is no light at the end of the tunnel . . . just a tunnel . . . or a pipe.
One has to imagine there is still light . . . a beacon of hope . . . then one must Work toward it.
Ontario DontWorks: Click to view link
Reality as an OOPs? That would be object oriented programming? Sure. Fine. I agree. If I show you mine, will you show me yours? What if you like mine better than yours? . . . will you replace yours, or merely insert mine to yours? Methinks: insert.
BTW, I have already inserted yours into mine. It looks better than before. Thanks!
"Replace" means you are merely a re-programmable robot; another cold start when a new download comes down the pipes.
I like warm starts with new algorithms, myself.
Click to view link
Let's put the Primary Key on the table, shall we?
Click to view link
Posted by memehunter on 02/23/12 03:35 PM
Let's not digress from the topic of the conversation.
""I don't have to abandon anyone, and I doubt if many will be abandoned. Someone can file my mail in exchange for food. Someone else can clean my house."
I linked to a video that shows potential problems with the Libertarian position with respect to the issue you mentioned (quote above). I apologize for the four-letter words in the video, but I think it makes some valid points.
I note that you have not even begun to address the points mentioned in the video, instead you try, not so transparently, to turn it into a personal issue.
Posted by Seen on 02/23/12 03:17 PM
Click to view link
1). Free-markets incur competition. Competition dictates competitors can manufacture/produce and otherwise sell better and for less.
2). In regards to the example used in the video:
A). Wages are used to the benefit of business via production and labor to help determine the market price in addition to inflation and deflation.
B). Wages also incurs a methodology enabling to allow government to install income/other taxes that as people climb the class ladder transitions from withholdings refunded later to an inherent cost.
C). The next issue is that through taxation and inflation; the class ladder is greatly sealed as well as essentially encourages more predatory behaviors within the market place.
3). Using the videos own example, it utterly overlooks that government commissions said rich like Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, and etc for many of the items attained through social welfare safety nets. This is a multi-billion dollar industry for these institutions.
4). By allowing and encouraging government to:
Delegate the powers of the purse to the Federal Reserve through fiat or otherwise credit system, the Keynesian model argues deficit spending is good, war is good, and it even came to light last year or so many believe without debt that there would be no currency. Additionally, the system encourages governmental fiefdoms in which effectively closes the market from competition as well as seals the class ladder. In effec by encouraging said system, pro-Collective Central Planning advocates actually support slavery by governmental decree. In other words, you'll do what the government tells you that also favors its Big Industries fiefdoms and labor fiefdoms.
"there is another important facet. MACHINES do most of the work. At it's most basic use, social credit would supply food. You must be familiar with the huge food enterprises of the Mormons."
1). Machines replaced human labor being argued for a good is much like how globalization was also promoted. It decreases the number of human labor in which helps profits that in turn effects labor participation as well as helps provide the case for overpopulation rather than simple overcrowding of people seeking opportunities in a rather flooded market in lieu to the absence of competition and governmental interventionism.
2). Credit is credit; it is in essence a bond used to create an illusion of voluntary participation. The problem is if the market is flooded, and you're simply one of the people forced to consume more than produce renders you a useless eater in lieu to the vision of the Neo-Malthusian Fabian Hegelian-Marxist Dialectic. In essence, the system advocates Collectivist Communitarian central planning and governmental interventionism.
"Many tractors, cultivators and implements are GPS guided. A great number of machines are CNC controlled. AI is being implemented for elder-care robots.
AI will take over more and more niches."
The GPS is a way to monitor and track that helps increase the central plannings policy's effiency. Bare in mind in advocates for sustainable development, people are nothing more than resources to be exploited by governmental ambitions.
"NO free-market scheme is going to create jobs for everybody. There just isn't that much need for people. Social credit could be used to provide basic sustenance."
1). While others have pointed out, free-markets are not a scheme; I'd point out that central planning scheme is largely at the core of the present situation and path trend. I trust pro-Collective Central Planning advocates are as sympathetic to other populaces as the Keynesian Deficit spending mostly held together and holding hyperinflation at bay through the US Dollar's world's reserve currency status, which is being unround by the east who predominantly possesses the global balance of power, and the US and West are either forced to engage in a major war (World War) to sustain its power and shift the balance of power back towards the West. The alternative is the US loses its world's reserve currency status and the final obstacle of hyperinflation. Based on the present infrastructure condition of the US, it'll lose.
2). Then, automation and human labor needs to be better balanced then shouldn't it?
3). Doubtful. Social credit remains credit, and the present path trend makes it plain that it'll be cashless, but it still won't protect against hyperinflation. It's also a superb measure for Central Planning and governmental: Public-Private Partnership to seal and firmly consolidate it's power ontop of monitoring for people who consume more than produce.
It's ultimately amazing the Hegelian-Marxist Dialectic trojan horse is effectively ignored.
Posted by NAPpy on 02/23/12 03:10 PM
"If people are given the things they need and want on a constant basis, they have no reason to do their best."
Agreed. Would those dependents think they aren't doing their best?
Stipulation. Truth: a human convention designed to label the correspondence of truth propositions with reality.
And, so you don't have to ask:
Stipulation. Reality: an object which is such as it is suggested to be or an object which is what it purports to be. A reality or a real object is one which is made upon of elements or attributes which coalesce into unity; that is, into one object. To put it more accurately and concretely, a reality is an object which is such and such and such, etc.
From a little know rationalist philosopher that I found on the Mises website.
Great quote. If reality evolves, does the mapping of truth change, or merely get added to?
Posted by speedygonzales on 02/23/12 03:02 PM
Henry Makow and Alex Jones were once mavericks of uncovering how world affairs runs.With my deep respect. But what I see they got trapped in their own circles. They pulled themselfs to the extremeson the edge. Mr Jones sees everywhere commies,socialists,marxists and Mr Makow jews.
My view is: Who cares who build the house? Do we care about chain of nameles folx who planted trees,make lumber,worx in quarries,brickyards and construction workers? In some cases we know ARCHITECTS. And we know for sure who owns the house. The owner sparked all chain reaction where the end is house. What owner wants is for minimum possible price get maximum. How this can be achieved? Slave forced labour, low wages, fraud, counterfeiting,corruption,falsified accounting or rating, deregulations.
To commit those unethical immoral goals, I do believe that not all houses and businesses runs like that, one needs to find someone who is willing to participate. To make crusade there must soldiers, slaves needs opressors who force them to work to death. And the persons above created immunity for their servants. Police,soldiers,white collar crimes. Plus there must be enviroment when all this is accepted.
So first there must goal. House. Architects draw plans how to build house. General contractor contact traders and discus time table. And it starts: propaganda-free Jesus's grave,brin' freedom and democracy to folx who do not even want it-Afganistan. Military-industrial complex makes guns,poor uneducated folx on the edge of starvation are willing to do whatever just to survive.
@ the end of the story there is military expedition. But someone must pay for that. Most likelly conquered nation. Crusaders simply roberized holly land. There is still missing about 200 horse carriages of valuable things from Napoleon's mission in Russia. After bolshevik revolution bilions of dollars were stolen from Russia. From gold,thru copper,iron,factories to tsar's collection of stamps which is believed sits in vault on Manhattan. Gold was poured out of South America on big scale. Chinese got paid for their goods by opium.
Military expedition is archaic primitive form to achieve good living. Judaism even did not exist when Alexander The great conquered Persia or Ceasar was assassinated. In reality, biblical jews are palestinians. And they were conquered by Rome with bloody consequences which leads to Bar Kochba rebelion and 580 000 jews had been murdered. Not because they crucified Jesus. But because they were refusing pay super high taxes to the empire.
Simultaneously with military conquer they created very sofisticated form of conquer: by money. But still they need architects and servants and so on.
Besides those lines of bankers we need to check owners of house. If there is some problems bankers would end up as templars did friday 13 or Putin with Khodorovsky. What rullers realized they can do the same things as templars did so they hired them and created class now know as banksters with shield of limited liability.
As in religion highest principle is god, then in this game highest principle is untouchtable. Who and why created limited limited liability? Limited liability is status of feudal aristocratic rullers.
Who is behind anglosphere? Aristocratic dynasty of Orange-Hanover-Hohenzollern-Coburg/Gotha-Windsor.
Look at world wars. WW1: We have guys from dynasty: british throne, german kaiser and chancelor, and US president. So who won the war?
WW2: After all this mess who transfered war profit to Netherland and USA? Prince Bernhardt of Hanover, dad of current queen of Netherland, and Prescot Bush who is conected to all aristocratic dynasties in Europe. So who won the war? Who has the money. War is all about money. War is not footbal game where 2 teams compete. War is fought behind courtain.
Lec loox at so called jews. Jews from Spain are Khazarian origins. Their hatres toward Russia originated there since 980 they had been conquered by Kyjevan Russia ruller. They had been pressed convert to Christianity but refused. And here starts their odyssey. Since enemy of my enemy is my friend
the best thing is to support them.
Ignatius Loyola: Youngest son of Don Beltrán Yañez de Oñez y Loyola and Marina Saenz de Lieona y Balda.Born in 1491 at the castle of Loyola above Azpeitia in Guipuscoa; died at Rome, 31 July, 1556. The family arms are: per pale, or, seven bends gules (?vert) for Oñez; argent, pot and chain sable between two grey wolves rampant, for Loyola. The saint was baptized Iñigo, after St. Enecus (Innicus), Abbot of Oña: the name Ignatius was assumed in later years, while he was residing in Rome.
Fact is that some templars,khazars and cathars once setled in Spain and they were active in reconquista. Since they change names it is hard to track them like FedEx box. Lot easier is to track arictocratic families and then servants who goes with 'em. William of Orange-Bank of England...
We can not judge history but we can learn from it. Jewsish conspiracy,marxism,stalinism,commieism and so just draw attention away from important issues and as Mr Jones and Mr Makow proove it never ends. Unfortunatelly for both guys, with respect, they do not offer almost any solution.
Mr Jones made jokes from occupy movement. He called them colectivists. When those collectivists turned against corporate personhood and actually limited liability which is step forward: to recognize roots,set diagnose and then we can start healing proces. In reality this is direct hit to feudal privileges of The Dynasty, owners of the house.