the neoliberal vision of the future

[molo]

YOU think that NOT helping someone who despises you and actively works to enslave you is sociopathy

So.. What would YOU call this then?

 

[Jeff Robinson]

You made the class war personal when your idealogues informed my government. If you aren't angry you aren't paying attention.

And Don't wave your Buddhism like a get-out-of-cunt free card. All life is suffering eh? for someone else.
Christ save me from these people.

I have a deep and profound love for you DotCommunist. You deliver the goods at every frickin turn bro. Also "Love onar. Worship onar. Three bags of shit full onar." - inspired.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

"Don't wave your Buddhism like a get-out-of-cunt free card" - too much, I can't even handle it.

 

[molo]

Why are some people rich and others poor?

Also, if you ever have children, will you bring them up to believe that selfishness is good and altruism is bad?

What kind of people do you think those children will grow up to be?

Must love your questions. And I do.

 

[8ball]

I used to read this thread before it went batshit mental.
It's way better now.

 

[molo]

The thing that makes me cautious about the Lekki-project is that it is mainly a Chinese project, and China does in general not promote liberty, but rather national interests.

It's Hong Kong you keep mentioning as a beacon of light in the bleak (and/or dark) world of socialism, isn't it?

 

[Jeff Robinson]

double viking

 

[Jeff Robinson]

I used to read this thread before it went batshit mental.
It's way better now.

It's been invaded by a load of these guys:

 

[8ball]

It's been invaded by a load of these guys:

Excellent - rape, pillage and then a bit of a moan about the rate of tax on the proceeds...

 

[invisibleplanet]

It's Hong Kong you keep mentioning as a beacon of light in the bleak (and/or dark) world of socialism, isn't it?

I thought he had mentioned Singapore. That makes me laugh very much. I might say why if asked

 

[Kizmet]

At the moment there is no startup capital pledged to the Free State Initiative. That will come at a later stage. Good governance does not include any such guarantees you mention. However, loads of research confirm and quantify the effect of good vs bad governance. Any business with a hint of experience with bad governments knows the value of good governance and cherishes it. This to them is more important than low taxes.

To be fair it doesn't take much research to work out that 'good' is generally better than 'bad'...

Good governance may not include guarantees and estimates, but good business does. It's clear that this is no 'Free State' PLC. You're going to need some measure of altruistic investment, aren't you?

So what are you promising potential investors in lieu of returns? As well as avoiding fiscal responsibility does good governance also leave to investors the responsibility of protecting their investment?

 

[SpineyNorman]

I'm no expert on political studies as an academic discipline (no shit I hear you say ) but I've recently been doing a course on conceptual analysis. It appears that Onarchy has been indulging in a very extreme form of conceptual stretching. (I knew I'd eventually be able to use that in something resembling conversation).

 

[invisibleplanet]

What is 'conceptual stretching' ?

 

[camouflage]

What is 'conceptual stretching' ?

I found this...

Conceptual transfer refers to the process by which a concept or term is taken from its original context and applied to a new situation without appreciable loss of definition or meaning. Conceptual stretching refers to the distortion of the original concept in order to apply it to a different situation or context. The first is a legitimate argumentative exercise; the second is intellectually dishonest or (most often) lazy.

Let me offer some examples. “Socialism” is a 19th century concept that refers to an economy in which the direct producers of wealth in a society appropriate the common surplus generated by their labours and distribute it according to egalitarian principles rooted in commonly accepted notions of need. Decisions on distribution take into account the need to reproduce the economic form via savings and reinvestment, so current individual allocations are balanced against the common interest in future allocations. This concept can be taken out of its 19th century context and applied, without loss of definition, to 1970s Israeli Kibbutzim, Spanish agricultural cooperatives in the 1990s or post 2002 Argentine worker-owned factories. In all of these instances, the concept was transfered to the new situation without distorting its initial meaning; in each instance workers make democratic allocation decisions about the surpluses they generate. On the other hand, calling the Obama administration’s fiscal stimulus package or progressive tax policy “socialist,” or referring to Labour’s macreconomic policies as “socialism,” betrays either profound ignorance of the concept or bad intent on the part of those who make such claims. In the latter cases, the concept has been so badly stretched so has to render it meaningless other than as some type of pejorative.

Take another example: “fascism.” Fascism was a particular inter-war political phenomena. It emerged in response to the Great Depression among the so-called “weak links” of the imperialist chain, former great powers or empires that were being eclipsed by emerging powers. Fascism was characterised by an industrial state capitalist economic project directed by a one party mobilizational authoritarian regime dominated by a charismatic leadership that used inclusionary state corporatist vehicles for mass participation in grand nationalist projects that included the military reassertion of empire. In all cases fascism was a “passive revolution” in that it sought to stave off perceived Marxist-Leninist advances in the countries in which it emerged. European fascism had three variants: Austro-Germanic, in which the core constituency of the national socialist regimes was the lower bourgeoisie; the Italian version, in which the core constituency was the urban working class (Mussolini’s black shirts); and the Spanish version, which grouped monarchists, the agrarian oligarchy and rural peasantry against the urban middle and working classes. In the first two variants, efforts to re-assert their imperial status ended in military defeat. In the Spanish version, the self-recognized inability to re-assert imperial dominance allowed the Franco regime to survive until 1972. As for the Japanese, their version of fascism was an amalgam that had the most cross-class bases of support for monarchism, militarism and imperialism, but without the party mobilizational apparatus used by the European variants.

The point of this extended discussion of the concept of “fascism” is that it was a political form specific to a particular historical moment in the early 20th century, one that can not be replicated simply because the material and political conditions of existence are no longer those that gave it life. The closest parallel to fascism–Latin American populism of the 1940s and 1950s–emulated some but not all of the political features of European fascism and did not have the same economic base. All other recent forms of authoritarianism evidence differences far to great to even remotely call them “fascist.” And yet people do, repeatedly. General Pincohet’s regime in Chile was and is still said to be “fascist” even though his political project was demobilizational and his economic project neoliberal. Commodore Frank Bainarama is called a fascist because he led a coup and rules by fiat in Fiji. Mugabe is a fascist because, well, he is. What is true is that all of these individuals were and are authoritarians, as are many others, civilian and military alike. But that does not make them “fascist.” To label them as such is to undercut any argument for their removal.

In extending the term “fascist” to other forms of authoritarianism that do not share its structural or political features, the term has been stretched to the point of insignificance. It is now just an insult without intellectual justification. It is, in other words, argumentatively useless.

 

[SpineyNorman]

What is 'conceptual stretching' ?

It's what Onar has been doing, you stretch the definition of a word to fit cases it shouldn't apply to.

More here if you're interested(PDF)

 

[poetrixx]

You are an idiot Idris...u haven't understood much of what is going on in the world and how to deal with it, have u?

 

[poetrixx]

''- Talking about ideas is almost always interesting. Talking about people as "nobody" or "loons" does not help me understand your ideas. It does make me think that you are people who have closed your minds to other ideas.''

Its very obvious that most people here belong to a narrow minded and manipulative sect ... with a dangerous political ideology intent on enslaving and imprisoning humanity...this ideology is called socialism... believing in socialism after all the crimes it has commited against human kind through history
is not much better than being a nazi after Hitler

 

[poetrixx]

''You made the class war personal when your idealogues informed my government. If you aren't angry you aren't paying attention.''

Class war??? What the hell are u talking about? There are no classes, only in school there are classes...so go back to school and do your homework all over again ... in society there are only different groups...and in a healthy and advanced society there are and should always be MANY different groups...

 

[ymu]

Oh and by the way, let me repeat myself just a tad:

Basics.

You know, the simple stuff you never explain because... And so on.

He's not refusing to explain - he's using a technique called guided questioning. I use it all the time for teaching - because if people work something out for themselves, they are much more likely to get it than if you just throw a bunch of words at them.

If you want to know what he's getting at, think about the questions he's asking.

There are plenty of posts on this thread which go into great detail, and links for even more information.

 

[SpineyNorman]

''You made the class war personal when your idealogues informed my government. If you aren't angry you aren't paying attention.''

Class war??? What the hell are u talking about? There are no classes, only in school there are classes...so go back to school and do your homework all over again ... in society there are only different groups...and in a healthy and advanced society there are and should always be MANY different groups...

You're getting boring, can't you go back to the comedy Islamophobe routine?

 

[stethoscope]

Haven't we banned this poetrixx twat yet?

 

[poetrixx]

hahahahah how cowardly pathetic...u BAN people u disagree with???? OK go ahead and baN ME AND SEE IF i CARE...MOST OF U ARE OBVIOUSLY only a bunch of boring brainwashed morons anyway...go to hell and fuck U!

 

[Idris2002]

Hello,

i am new to this forum, and probably won't be reading it again so i won't see any replies. I am a regular reader of Onar's blog, call myself a libertarian, and am also a buddhist (i mention this because it means i believe in among other things, freedom and the value of life). He linked to this thread in one of his posts, and I have read through most of the posts in this thread to see if what he was saying about the level of discussion here was true. I am aware that most people wouldn't behave like they do on the internet if they were actually conversing face to face, but I still have a few comments i'd like to share.

- There is an awful lot of profanity and name-calling here. As an observer, i'd like to point out that calling someone names or swearing to someone doesn't actually tell me anything about that someone.
It does, however, tell me alot about the state of mind of the person doing the swearing. Ad hominem attacks merely tells an intelligent observer that you are out of ideas, angry, manipulative etc. If you want to be taken seriously, the first thing to do is to stop the name-calling and swearing.
Scoring cheap points with your peer group might seem funny to you, but not to everyone.

- Pointing out spelling errors or complaining about the english (or french) skills of someone who has a different mother tongue is only really valid if it has anything to do with the arguement. If not, it simply comes across as petty and infantile. Quibbling about minor details is usually detrimental to any discussion.

- Onar is known here in Norway among alot of liberals and libertarians. Unfortunately (for me anyway), Norway is a socialist corporativist state like most others in Europe, and the ideas of individual freedom are limited here. Most of whom call themselves liberals identify with right-wing socialists. Onar is working to change that, and i applaud his work, honesty and integrity.

- Talking about ideas is almost always interesting. Talking about people as "nobody" or "loons" does not help me understand your ideas. It does make me think that you are people who have closed your minds to other ideas.

- Keeping a level of emotional detachment can be very helpful. Don't take everything personally, as only you can make yourself feel bad. If someone says/types something that makes you feel angry, it is not that someone's fault. You choose to be angry or not. You choose how you respond. It isn't always easy, but it is still a choice. Sorry about that last one, it's the buddhist in me who wants people to be free from their anger

I wish you all the best, and hope that you realize that we all want the same thing even if we differ on the belief of the best path to take towards that goal; To be happy and free.

Fuck off.

 

[Idris2002]

I have a deep and profound love for you DotCommunist. You deliver the goods at every frickin turn bro. Also "Love onar. Worship onar. Three bags of shit full onar." - inspired.

I'm Salvador Allende, and I approved this message.

 

[Captain Hurrah]

Fuck off.

Oh my.

 

[stethoscope]

hahahahah how cowardly pathetic...u BAN people u disagree with???? OK go ahead and baN ME AND SEE IF i CARE...MOST OF U ARE OBVIOUSLY only a bunch of boring brainwashed morons anyway...go to hell and fuck U!

I was thinking a ban more on the basis of you being an incoherent loon.

 

[JimW]

Buddhism is a philosophy that explicitly and as its foundation denies the very existence of a self and seeks to eliminate attachment to all illusions of the same. How you manage to marry that to the puffed-up egoist cobblers of libertarianism is anyone's guess.*

*For the love of Avalokitesvara, don't take this as an invitation to explain.

 

[poetrixx]

and fuck ur sister in law as well::

 

[poetrixx]

Suck on baby!

 

[poetrixx]

But u guys better prepare for new times...the western uprising is already in its beginning...soon we're gonna wipe out all the suckers who want to destroy us...u fucking wait...