Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

real libertarians ARE anarchists

<---enemy of the state
ala Murray Rothbard and Samuel Ediwn Konkin III

Socialism is economically impossible as a system of effective resource allocation. The socialist system simply cannot effectively allocate resources like a TRULY free market can (which I might add does nto exist in the United States or anywhere in the west) because it has no pricing structure.

This was proven by Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises in the beginning of the 20th century and conceded to by prominent socialists of his time and now as they scramble to economically reconcile their failed system in some way.

For more information on the socialist calculation problem visit the Mises Institute and search for the socialist calculation problem or calculation problem.

At 12/4/05 02:13 AM, Memorize wrote: I prefer to keep my freedom and money thanks.

I like this guy.

you may find these sites useful/insightful:

GunCite
Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership

At 3/17/08 10:14 AM, DingoTheDog wrote:

At 3/17/08 10:00 AM, Mr-Money wrote: It gives the police a lot of power.

Isnt that a good thing?

certain skateboarders, minorities, and wheel chair bound folk would disagree...

At 3/14/08 05:17 AM, Metallica-man90 wrote: Whats your take on this socialist leder?

Mass murderer?
Great leader?
something else maybe?

both... like hitler

At 3/16/08 09:43 PM, therealsylvos wrote:

At 3/16/08 09:33 PM, Slizor wrote:
I'd prefer not to. See, I prefer to think about things on my own and don't just give in to the opinions of "authorities" on subjects. It's fine pointing to analysis supporting your view, but claiming that it makes you correct is a whole other matter. I mean, there are no doubt countless economists who disagree with the analysis of the two you have pointed out, how are we then to decide who is correct?

That is a fair point.
However the article does not just say "we are economists listen to us."
They cite facts and figures, along with well grounded economic thought.
If you have a specific problem with that, then by all means bring it to the fore.

I would advise you both to check out Mises.org on the subject.

FDR prolonged the depression. Period. (which I might add was caused by monopolistic control and manipulation of the money supply and interests rates through the FED.)

At 3/17/08 10:07 PM, ItBeShannonFoo wrote: WWII saved Americas ecnonomy.

historical fallacy 101

this topic = appeal to authority
argumentum ad verecundiam

At 3/15/08 09:43 PM, Julestar wrote: Deitel and Deitel is the book I'm currently using in college. It provides full explanations along with working examples. Perfect for the OOP newbie and even someone new to programming. If you're familiar with basic concepts such as arrays and function skip to the fun chapters on inheritance, polymorphisms, and composition.

Thanks I will check out that too!

thanks for the help. I will try to find one of those books to start with.

I am looking for a book or instructional to teach myself object oriented programming and/or to generally boost my programming skills beyond where they are. Also if you can recommend a book that teches actionscript 3.0 well... or accomplishes both of these goals...

Any recommendations that translate well to flash?

thanks

At 12/19/07 12:21 PM, bobomajo wrote:

At 12/16/07 01:44 PM, Al6200 wrote:

They are well intended hypothetical policies but when extra funding is intended in one area you usually need to sacrifice funding in another area, or raise taxes but for some reason America seams to be very anti-taxes for some reason.

Because taxes are theft/robbery. It is a gang of men telling you that they are going to rob you but dont worry! its for your own good!

At 12/19/07 01:32 PM, Deragos wrote: I live in a border city, and all my life i have notcied how little by little, illegals are cramping our schools and workplaces. They use our schools as child day-cares while they go off and make some money. At the end of the day, they return to mexico, and use the money they earned HERE over THERE.

what business of your is it where anyone spends or earns their money?

i was christmas (no offense to those who believe in some other religion) shopping the other day, at an already packed mall to see SO MANY mexicans (and those of you who will probably try to point out that i am a racist, stfu, because i happen to be a mexican myself, a LEGAL). What really gets to me is that they dont have to pay taxes; they go to this booth at the entrance and show their reciepts and get their money back.

why should anyone have to pay taxes? sounds like sour grapes to me

i work at a fast food restaurant, and i constantly frustrated by the fact that EVERY sunday morning, so many people come in who CANNOT SPEAK ENGLISH. I have family in mexico, and it is aggravating to know that NOT A SINGLE FORM OVER THERE IS IN ENGLISH, which is a load of (excuse my language) bullshit, since we have VOTING ballets in several languages.

i do not enjoy language barriers either.

i wouldnt go to a foreign country and not speak a single word of their native language (or in the US's case, most USED language), and ask them to speak english.

of course not, thats called courtesy. Noone is aksing you to speak Spanish though.

At 10/30/07 07:34 PM, LordJaric wrote:

well, if you wern't racist why would you have a confederate flag?

or being a supporter of secession and resistant to government

At 10/30/07 08:58 PM, TheUnknownVoice wrote: I love these kind of Posts. These are the most fun. The Confederate Flag does not stand for slavery or even the South. It stands for a Belief and that beleif no one even knows abouts but yet it's simple. The South thought they were better than the North and that slavery should not be abolished. They have a right to believe this and they did and The North didn't fight them because of the Slavery thing. It was because the succeded from the Union and they Threated to Fight them before they went back to the UNION Yes people Died for the wrong reasons but you can't Changes another persons thought and so on and yes they should get over this incident. This is like a Queen Saying she doesn't want a American Flag in her country because it represents FREEDOM and to some it does and to others it's a DREAM that have or they want. But flags should notreflect a persons Thoughts or Actions

the flag stands for secession and resistance to centralization. It is for self government. It is also the symbol for the northern virginia confederate army. Slavery was not popular among many in the nation as it was increasingly seen as immoral in western civilization. Measures and fights about it were taken and had in bth north and south.. and for the millionth time... the war was NOT about slavery.

At 12/14/07 04:33 PM, Humbucker740 wrote:

At 12/14/07 01:44 AM, iiREDii wrote:

At 11/28/07 04:14 PM, Humbucker740 wrote: Actually Keynsian economics is much more 'real world' orientated. Classical economics consist of what would happen in a perfect world.

You obviously know jack crap about Keynesian economics. It was pretty much debunked by Mises and Hayek long ago. The Austrian school predicted the outcome of Keynesian policies and they were absolutely correct.

Debunked by two people. IT MUST BE WRONG. Or its actually still an acceptable economic theory.

informal logical fallacy - Argumentum ad populum

Which is entirely beside the point. I think what I said was that Keynsian economics was geared towards the real world. For example, in classical economics, wages change instantly along with the economy, whereas in keynsian economics 'sticky wages' take place and, like the real world, there is a delayed reaction to economic chages.

what you fail to realize is that they are all geared towards the real world. well they are supposed to be. Economics is not the study of making systsems of eocnomic policy, it is and began as the mens to study and anaylze and explain the principles of economics that EXIST. ECONOMIC TRUTHS. OBJECTIVE REALITY. Which only the Austrian school stays true to.

Umm.. State lovers want less central government (less government in general). Retard.

umm... wrong. People who love the state want ever mroe centralizatoin and action ont he federal or global level. What planet do you live on?

That makes absolutely no sense. As the American government formed the Anti-Federalists (what later became todays republicans, pro-state rights people) it was pretty clear that they wanted a confederacy over a federal, centralized government. Thus the STATE lovers over the federal government.

Actually the direct line party of the radical liberals in the democrats. ut obviously they are only mild civil liberals now.

You are using state in the wrong (American) sense of the word. I was referring to states in the proper use. As a synonym for government. Hnce my misinterpretation of your statement

At 12/14/07 10:15 AM, BlueMax wrote:

At 12/14/07 02:17 AM, iiREDii wrote:

At 12/14/07 01:52 AM, public-enemy1 wrote:

At 12/14/07 01:50 AM, iiREDii wrote: I see someone has absolutely no background in history... Look up Lincoln, Teddy, Wilson, FDR... fascists and slaughterers of man. Civil rights violators and Constitution smashers. Free speech enemies and warmongerers.

You're crazy.

All four of those men could be considered top ten best Presidents. Three of them could be top five.

No. I am
the list goes on

A lot of this I know to be true--this isn't a fabrication.
Federal Troops did intervene throughout the Border States, definitely violating the election processes of those countries. Missouri's legislature moved to secede, but Unionist forces hand-picked the new constitution writers, who aborted the procedure.

The Ohio Congressman was not a run of the mill person--his name was Clarance Vallandigham, and he definitely wasn't innocent himself--he did instigate and provoke violence. His Deportation to Canada is an act of mercy, when one considers that his actions were TREASON and CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT MURDER.

Treason is not a crime. If we have the right of self government, governemtn chosen by the people then we have the right to secede.

Conscription happened on both sides of the Civil War--indeed, it happened in every war up until Vietnam. It's not a particular problem--and Union didn't move to conscription until 1863 in the war.

conscription is evil no matter who does it. It is slavery

Blaming Lincoln for Damages and Wartime destruction misses the point. The South was hot to secede, and in the process of seceding, it fired on a Union Garrison and seized Federal Property. Lincoln might have reacted harshly--but bear in mind that this is a reaction to a legitimate grievance.

it fired upon that garrison in fort sumter after lincoln had resupplied it. They had sent representatives to him in DC in order to buy the fort and other infrastruture from them at all costs. It was LINCOLN who was hot for war when he refused to even speak to them. It was he who was hot for war wheen he consistantly lobbied congress to declare war.

Lincoln didn't raise taxes UNTIL the south Seceded. He needed the money that taxes and bonds provided to fight the war. He must certainly didn't provoke the South--the South seceded because their commitment to Federal Democracy was conditional--they only stayed in the Union as long as they had power over the rest of the country. Lincoln, for the first time in 50 years, was not heavily favorable to Southern Interests. Of course, Lincoln's own views against the expansion of Slavery meant that President Lincoln would head towards emancipation, not oversee it himself (All Lincoln intended to do, was keep slavery out of new territories)

Congress during his time DID raise taxes and these taxes unfairly targetde the south in majority. Taxes were major cause for secession. Lincoln was opposed to blacks remainng here whatsoever.

As for abusing Presidential Power, in times of War the presidents power increases--its part of his powers of Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the UNited States. IN a situation where one third of the country is open revolt and another sixth is very fragile, the US Army becomes a critical element of control. Lincoln was fighting a war on his own soil. It was not always an offensive war, either: Confederate Forces moved throughout Kentucky and Maryland; Gettysburg is in Pennsylvania. Did Lincoln get more power; yes he did. Is this abusive? No--Lincoln might not to have followed his exact methods, but civil liberties are expected to take a hit in a war.

then you must at once excuse the same actions of Mr.Bush. If war against your own people is excuse to expand your power without cause or authority to do so, then what limits ARE upon government? none. Civil liberties are never up for grabs because some war mongering president decides they are getting in his way. MEN have rights, STATES do not.

The point, I suppose, is that Lincoln did what he had to preserve the Union and uphold the constitution. The Constitution is a DEAD LETTER if the South can devise their own monkey Constitution which formalizes slavery. One of the basic elements of democracy is that the winners get their outcome, and the losers accept the outcome. The Confederate attitude is that of a sore loser--I didn't win, so now I'm going to quit.

"No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed [by Congress]" This does not sanction it, only refuse to outlaw it at the time. Importation of slaves was banned from all parts of the south. And VA and NC in particular was attempting to outlaw slavery within its own borders. Slavery was on its way out all over the western world as people came to see it (as i do the government and its supporters) as a morally corrupt institution. The constitution has no authority to bind the states to it. It has no power or clause to support such a claim. As a matter of fact, TEXAS and NEW YORK signed it into existance under the EXPRESSED NOTION that they may LEAVE the union at any time they damn well please.

The only way one can really call Lincoln a bad leader is with the idea that the South should have been allowed to Secede--but how does that make things better for anyone?

because we have a right to decide who our government is or if we have one at all

:Far from enjoying incredible economic growth after the Civil War, the North and the South are going to have to point guns at each other. Slavery might have continued in the South until 1914!

It may have, but far less blood would have been spilt, a empire would not have been established, the governemtn would have less pwoer over the people, and many jim crow laws and resentment for blacks would not have been created. Indee the KKK woudl never have formed!

:The South Seceding invariably leads to a rematch--
only if the damn yanks cant stop themselves from invading... which they have been shown to be ready to do for decades...

:the USA abolishes Slavery, even if it loses the war--and then slaves need only make it to Kentucky or Maryland to Escape.

The federal governemtn you worship so much, I might add, returned slaves who escaped. Prolonging and supporting the slave trade. Without the governemtn protecting it on local and especially federal levels, it would have been TOTALLY economically inviable.

:The USA and CSA never resolved issues of territory in the west. The USA/CSA polarization gets added into the maze of world diplomacy, guaranteeing a rematch at latest of the first world war. The CSA doesn't really win, either--with the Confederate Constitution locking slavery into the system, they are stuck with a system that aggravates the world and the working man. The entire slave system worked nicely when the CSA could export cotton at high prices throughout the world--but the cotton boom is fading in the 1870s, and the Confederate working-man finds himself in competition with slave labor to his great detriment.

Lincoln broke the laws; but he had just cause.

murder on a massive scale is not a just cause.
destroying freedom in the name of liberation is not just cause.
invasion in the name of democracy is not just cause.
governemtn building/forcing governemnts on others is not just cause

are you a fan of the iraq war by chance?

At 12/18/07 03:50 PM, Kev-o wrote:

At 12/17/07 04:52 PM, K-RadPie wrote: Kev-o, what is your definition of freedom?

My definition of freedom is doing as you please, without treading on others, without a government ruling over every aspect of your life. Capitalism is a system built off of exploitation, of the Earth, and of your fellow man. It creates a society in which we have buissness owners, workers; rich and poor. It creates a class division, inequality. To achieve an ideal anarchist society, all men and women must be equal. Capitalism creates a higherarchy of people ruling over others, the rich ruling over the poor. It creates oppression through a "free market". A divided society cannot stand.

Capitalism is not what I support. Capitalism is often what people associate with the states socialized/cartelized protection of state sanctioned and approved business... its coercion.. its mercantilism. I support free markets free from aggressive use of force. All men freely able to trade the products of their labor as they see fit.

Free markets, truly free and voluntary association, does not force any association upon anyone. It does not seek to destroy and tar down in the name of equality nor murder in the name of fairness. It is benign and neglectful of you and yours. It does not spread "union" through blood spilling and does not force people into communal societies they do not wish to be apart of. In short. It is peaceful.

I would encourage you to read Lysander Spooner, Thoreau, Voltairine De Cleyre, And especially Murray Rothbard as his economic and individual rights analysis is vital.

We are not enemies if you truly disprove of violence to achieve your goals.

At 12/17/07 04:00 PM, Kev-o wrote:

At 12/15/07 10:15 PM, animehater wrote:

At 12/15/07 09:57 PM, Kev-o wrote: Too bad anarcho-capitalists aren't really anarchists at all...

Because they are not anti capitalist? Now you're creating your own definition of anarchy?

Anarcho-capitalists support private property, which goes against the ideas of traditional anarchists such as William Godwin, and Pierre-Joseph Proudhon. Not too mention anarcho-capitalism supports the idea of police officers, which therefore means it's not anarchism, as there's someone in control. However, they argue since there's no state, it's anarchism, but they still believe in laws. It also creates class division, and a divided society is one that will not work. The answer is self-evident, and also explains why most "anarcho"-capitalists are libretarian conservatives.

They act like there's no freedom in things like anarcho-syndicalism, anarcho-communism, anarcho-collectivism, etc., however capitalism leads to exploitation.

Whether they believe it or not, there is a present government.

There is a strong tradition of property rights within anarchism. You do not have a monopoly upon the term. Prodhoun and Spooner and many individualist and mutualist and volunteerist anarchists. The Anarchists without adjectives movement was started to unite the two schools of thought under one roof against the common enemy, the coercive state.

Your answer is not self evident by any means. We do not support laws, that just shows your own ignorance. And your failure to see how class is not always enforced or how democracy creates class divide between the majority and the minority shows your shallow level of analysis.

I would revolt if enough other people would to abolish government in its entirety.

At 12/14/07 04:27 PM, Humbucker740 wrote:

At 1/4/07 09:19 AM, SomeNick wrote:

At 11/3/06 12:16 PM, iiREDii wrote: I just wanted to see if there was some interest in making a Libertarian oriented flash movie for myspace...

Learn to make flash, instead of getting a Posse to help you stand up.

I think hes proposing an idea, not trying to get people to do his work. Hes contributing with mental thoughts. Maybe he just sucks at flash and doesn't want to get better, I suck at flash and don't plan on getting better.

I didnt get any replies the first time SO i went back and found it and bumped it again. I am pretty good with flash and a good illustrator I believe. I am nto trying to get someone to do my work for me, only to collaborate with and maybe start a sting of libertarian flash pieces.

What one should keep in mind here is that when I say Libertarian, I mean a REAL libertarian. In other words, a individualist/market anarchist. Agorist. Volunteerist. I would like to note that I am not opposed to libertarian socialists or other forms of collective anarchism so long as they remain voluntary, non coercive, and non aggressive.

If anyoen is interested in collaborating hit me on AIM at Odin248, or email me at thorsmitersaw(at)gmail.com

please put something like "Flash collab" in the subject or soemthing.

being forced into any action is slavery. Conscription says to a man that the state owns him, that he is not sovereign over his own self but is subject to the whims of a democratic mobs decree. The draft is slavery.

At 12/14/07 02:44 AM, fahrenheit wrote:

At 12/14/07 02:17 AM, iiREDii wrote: Lincoln for example:

funny thing is, he was hated during his presidency. atleast most of it, and now hes regarded as a national hero. if history repeats itself then maybe in 100 years people will look back and say bush was a good/great president.

excellent point.

the list goes on

i guess your list of un-sourced wild claims totally backs up your non-sense argument.

ha. well I was not asked to either. Nor is it typically expected on such informal forums of discusssion like newgronds. However two books I can provide right off the top of my head: War Crimes Against Southern Civilians, and The real Lincoln. ANy writings by Thomas DiLorenzo are excellent and a certain man who is pro Lincoln (whose name escapes me at the moment but I can find it if you want). The pro Lincoln guy is a good source becuase he spent the entire book outlining all thse terrible things and then he concludes the book on a chapter feabily defending it as neccesary to 'preserve the union'. Its rather disgusting.

I often compare the civil war to the iraw war, and going with that... the pro lincoln guys book is like describing all the deaths Bush has caused and the devestation to that nation and the woes of the iraqi people and then saying it was to 'protect democracy'.

At 12/14/07 07:39 AM, Nevarine wrote:

At 12/14/07 02:26 AM, iiREDii wrote: The EU is going to cripple Europe economically. The central planinng of economies, protectionism, Keynesian horseshit... has predictable and disastrous consequences.

And last time I checked the Euro wasn't doing to shoddy in the world Economics. Besides America has a general planned Economics and it has kept us from anything too heinous thus far (knocks on wood). And yes America's economy looks really shaky but that is in part due to an experiment the committee is trying out - lessening the value of the dollar to decrease the debt. It is basic (Macro)economics.

LOL. "Lessening the dollar" will create debt not reduce it retard. What Keynesian dumbasses fail to realize is that money is a development of the free market, a commodity like any other. And controling and manipulating that commodity only hurts the people who rely upon it for trade.

Central planning of the economy destroys the proper allocation of resources developed in a free market through pricing and demand structures. EU has already banned certain items and driven up the costs of certain others within thier borders.

At 12/8/07 10:23 AM, SmilezRoyale wrote: That depends on the war.

WWII scenario, sure, i don't want to be invaded.

Spanish American war? No, i would be very displeased. But never the less, Drafts aren't suitable for modern military.

Hitler could never have invaded AMerica. This is a historical myth/lie that has been propegated by the governemtns schools for ages now. It needs to stop. He couldn't get 15 miles across the Channel and was making no headway by the time FDR decieved the nation into the war anyway for god sake...

But anywho... I will NOT be enslaved. I will NOT leave.
I refuse to flee from my enemies and will not submit to being forced into ANYONES service.

depends on the subject but overall I would say it is not. Little decent is permitted and over 25 posts by myself to shed critical light upon obviously biased and misinformed entries has resulted in ACTUAL threats and deletion of all 25 of my posts and additions.

The EU is going to cripple Europe economically. The central planinng of economies, protectionism, Keynesian horseshit... has predictable and disastrous consequences.

What if I am not pro or anti? What if I think the government ought to mind its own fucking business and quit supplying both sides with murder money?