What % of the so-called alt-right were just plain ol' libertarians before?

[Razer]

On 11/21/2016 07:35 PM, jim bell wrote:
>
>
> *From:* Razer <rayzer at riseup.net>
>
> On 11/21/2016 12:49 PM, Steve Kinney wrote:
>
> THIS!
> "Libertarians see absolutely nothing wrong with the very rich "gaming
> the system" for personal advantage in every way that having a lot of
> money to spend makes possible. "
> WRONG! This libertarian, and I suspect most libertarians, object to
> the EXISTENCE of a "game-able" system, one that employs something
> called a "government", to take "personal advantage" over others.

In my experience with LIbertarians IRL that is ABSOLUTELY NOT what I'm
seeing. Maybe you should consider the moniker's been usurped like
"Marxist" and "Socialist" have been and borged into the belief system
and demands of the existent US society.

Rr


> The existing gameable system was not constructed by libertarians. It
> was constructed, in America, by Republicans and Democrats.
> Libertarians, in America, have to operate within the existing system.
> "This leaves everyone else on the losing end of every deal that was
> supposed to be "fair and honest" under rule of law."
> The existing system, to whatever extent you believe it was "supposed
> to be fair and honest", is NOT that, and never was. Not libertarians'
> fault.
> "Perhaps this explains why the Libertarian Party was co-opted by well
> funded right wing extremists around the turn of the century and has
> been working under their direction ever since.
> Be much more specific. Which "right-wing extremists"? And "extremist",
> how?
> "What may have been a disruptive influence on national politics is now
> only a propaganda platform, pushing political discourse to the Right"
> I have to laugh! Gary Johnson got 4 percent of the vote this year, far
> more than the 1% which libertarians have had to settle for in previous
> years. For a "propaganda platform", they did pretty well!!
> "as far as it is able. If you are too smart for the RNC, the
> Libertarians have a better idea - and the same domestic economic
> agenda, both functional and fictional."
> Provide a little evidence for your fictional allegations.
> Jim Bell
>
>
>>
>>
>> On 11/21/2016 01:11 PM, jim bell wrote:
>>
>> >> In the United States, 500
>> > billionaires presently own about 1/2 of the capital assets;
>>
>> > Did they obtain them legally or illegally?  If illegally, enforce
>> > the law.  If legally, change the laws if necessary.
>>
>> Under the jurisdiction of State institutions created for the benefit
>> of the very rich, anything they agree among themselves to permit is
>> "perfectly legal."  That includes running a rigged house game
>> supported by massive deception and economic coercion, and assuring
>> that theirs are the only games in town.
>>
>> >> to retain
>> > control of those assets they need a legal system that defines
>> > their rights of ownership and enforces them,
>>
>> > I thought that personal property is to be considered a "right",
>> > rather than a "privilege".  I guess you have a different opinion.
>>
>> Libertarian ideology relies heavily on false context.  When people
>> hear "personal property" the think "physical objects under my control,
>> and the fruits of my personal labors."  This context is not comparable
>> to possession and trading of legal instruments defining ownership over
>> geographically dispersed industries, vast tracts of land, anticipated
>> profits from as yet unexploited resources, etc., in locations occupied
>> and facilities operated by what the commies call "wage slaves."
>>
>> In the U.S., most people's personal property is actually a collection
>> of legal instruments specifying the rent they pay on a finance
>> company's car, a mortage company's house, etc.  Low wages plus
>> expensive Real Estate creates forced dependency on land lords for the
>> majority of Americans.
>>
>> >> civil Courts to arbitrate their
>> > internal disputes and legitimize abuses of power against
>> > outsiders,
>>
>> > Again, if there are genuine problems, fix them.
>>
>> How?  By litigating against offenders whose ability to pay attorneys,
>> expert witnesses, etc. exceeds one's own by five or more orders of
>> magnitude?  By lobbying for changes in the law, in competition with
>> these same offenders, their massive financial resources, and their
>> long standing alliances with dominant political and Deep State factions?
>>
>> >> civil infrastructure built and maintained at public expense to
>> >> support
>> > the productivity of their capital assets
>>
>> > Numbskull Obama said, "You didn't build that!".  A factory-owner
>> > may have a road in front of his factory for transportation.  But
>> > the government didn't pay for that road:  The people who paid
>> > gasoline taxes (including the factory-owner) paid for that road.
>> > Ascribing all this infrastructure to "the government" misleads.
>>
>> Ah so:  Taxation is payment for services rendered when that supports a
>> Libertarian argument, otherwise not.  :D
>>
>> >> , and a propaganda regimen to
>> > persuade the rest of us that this is all for the best.
>>
>> > Blame the MSM.  I do.
>>
>> I blame full saturation propaganda operations paid for by the ruling
>> class who also happen to own the "mainstream media," working hand in
>> hand with State propaganda assets and of course, the organized efforts
>> of our DemoPublican Party which itself represents the interests of our
>> ruling class.  Political controversies in the mainstream occasionally
>> reflecting differences of opinion among dominant factions with regard
>> to whose commercial interests should be favored at the expense of
>> other commercial interests; but maintaining the integrity of ruling
>> class control and expanding same is a goal shared by the DemoPublican
>> Party as a whole, as is locking out participation by competing Parties.
>>
>> > From:
>> > http://taxfoundation.org/article/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-dat
>> a
>> > × // //
>>
>> > "The Top 50 Percent of All Taxpayers Paid 97 Percent of All Income
>> > Taxes; the Top 5 Percent Paid 57 Percent of All Income Taxes; and
>> > the Top 1 Percent Paid 35 Percent of All Income Taxes in 2011"
>>
>> > I consider this to be evidence of a very serious problem.
>> > Actually, a big set of problems.  You won't see it, however.
>>
>> Libertarian ideology relies heavily on cognitive bias and false
>> assumptions.  The argument presented above is persuasive - as long as
>> a "normative" distribution of assets and incomes is assumed.  But in
>> reality, a fraction of 1% of the population dominates in both income
>> and assets.  The models presented above does not have sufficient
>> resolution to accurately describe the subject matter addressed.
>>
>> Check this high resolution model out:
>> http://www.lcurve.org/
>>
>> Note also that "income tax" applies to personal income, not capital
>> gains.  Personal income as understood by John and Jane Q. Public is
>> only a small fraction of what members of our ruling class "make" in
>> the course of a successful year.
>>
>> >> instead they pay accountants and attorneys to advise them
>> > on how to avoid taxation.
>>
>> > I see absolutely nothing wrong with this.  If a person lost,
>> > regularly, 30% of his income to burglary and theft, he'd see
>> > nothing wrong with hiring some form of protection to see it reduced
>> > or stopped. Naturally, people who don't think it's theft would
>> > disagree, and would resent the fact he was trying to reduce that
>> > theft.  Even more naturally, a person who actually benefits from
>> > that theft would really, really hate the fact that the person
>> > paying the taxes would even THINK about seeing them reduced, in any
>> > way.
>>
>> Libertarians see absolutely nothing wrong with the very rich "gaming
>> the system" for personal advantage in every way that having a lot of
>> money to spend makes possible.  This leaves everyone else on the
>> losing end of every deal that was supposed to be "fair and honest"
>> under rule of law.  Perhaps this explains why the Libertarian Party
>> was co-opted by well funded right wing extremists around the turn of
>> the century and has been working under their direction ever since.
>> What may have been a disruptive influence on national politics is now
>> only a propaganda platform, pushing political discourse to the Right
>> as far as it is able.  If you are too smart for the RNC, the
>> Libertarians have a better idea - and the same domestic economic
>> agenda, both functional and fictional.
>>
>> >> Political activists are presently running a "Fight For Fifteen"
>> > campaign in the U.S., asking for a de facto 40% pay cut relative
>> > to 1968's more or less "living" minimum wage.  How fucked up is
>> > that?
>>
>> > I guess you're confused.  After WWII, America became the de-facto
>> > manufacturer to the world.  Little competition.  Wages were
>> > (relatively) high.  The rest of the world was, relatively, poor.
>> > Most families got by with only one breadwinner, usually the man.
>> > This continued through most of the 1960s, and even the 1970's.
>> > Then Europe and Japan turned on as manufacturers.  Then Taiwan,
>> > South Korea, Mexico, now China and India.  America has a great deal
>> > of competition.  America's wages needed to be reduced to compete,
>> > or at least they couldn't rise as much as they ultimately might
>> > have done.  That is simple economics.
>>
>> I guess your definition of Libertarian embraces both NeoLiberal and
>> NeoConservative agendas and policies.  That makes sense, as the
>> synthesis of NeoLiberal and NeoConservative policy is Fascism - the
>> foundation of Libertarian economic ideology.
>>
>> Europe and Japan became industrial powerhouses in the 1950s due to the
>> aging industrial infrastructure destroyed in WWII being replaced with
>> the latest and best facilities and equipment, with assistance from the
>> Marshall Plan.  Military and economic alliances including NATO and the
>> Trilateral Commission participants were firmed up at that time, as
>> were strong trans-national alliances among the ruling classes of the
>> nations involved.
>>
>> The collapse of the manufacturing sector in the United States was
>> engineered by that alliance, by removing "protectionist" regulatory
>> and tax policies to permit dumping on U.S. markets.  The principal
>> objective was to break U.S. labor unions.  Exploitation of the
>> resulting political power vacuum to facilitate a hard "Right turn" in
>> U.S. domestic policy was also a major goal.  This program was
>> successful, and income inequality began growing exponentially as the
>> U.S. ruling class began looting the assets of the U.S. middle class, a
>> process that is still ongoing today.
>>
>> The new manufacturing bases in Europe /created/ new middle class
>> income brackets in those nations.  Looting of the asset base this
>> post-WWII middle class started a couple of decades ago.  I hear it's
>> going really well, and Fascism is now on the rise in Europe.
>>
>> > So, when you say,  "asking for a de facto 40% pay cut relative to
>> > 1968's more or less "living" minimum wage", you are really railing
>> > against the fact that America has had to begin to compete with the
>> > rest of the world in manufacturing.   But either you don'[t realize
>> > that, or you are pretending not to.  The world has changed, and not
>> > for the worse. But if anything, this rise in manufacturing, outside
>> > America, has actually resulted in a large increase in the standard
>> > of living of the rest of the world.  What's wrong with that?  If
>> > anything, it reduces "income inequality", measured on the entire
>> > world.
>>
>> The world has changed, not for the worse but for the worst:  The
>> enlightened stewardship of our economic ruling class, unchecked by any
>> meaningful feedback from those ruled over, has driven exponential
>> growth of toxic and resource-depleting industrialism worldwide.  We
>> are now well past the point of no return and a global economic and
>> population crash can not be avoided.  Our rulers are well aware of
>> this, and their response to date has not included any but token
>> efforts at mitigation, far more than counterbalanced by a mad dash to
>> make more money faster and concentrate it into fewer hands before the
>> game ends.  The rulers of today's world fully intend to rule the
>> post-collapse world unchallenged, and for all time.
>>
>> If this means making the population crash happen sooner, massively
>> increasing the early body count and destroying the means for recovery
>> in presently habitable regions, so be it:  From a Libertarian
>> ideological stance, one might say that the world is their property and
>> they have a natural right to do with it as they please.  If you don't
>> like it, sue them.  In their Courts, before Judges who appointed by
>> their club.
>>
>> :o/
>>
>>
>
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/html
Size: 34772 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20161121/4b037077/attachment.txt>