So here's what i understand in terms of deciphering ideology. Ideology is might as well be called as a fundamental, yet sophisticated, philosophy to hold on to on a civilized society. This philosophy has 3 distinguished general means to be implemented, which are: social, politics, and economy. I don't know whether or not the definition above is written anywhere but that's more or less what i learned, and it comes in very handy whenever i try to root out bottom lines. The ideas require the whole 3 systems to be totally implemented or else the whole system may collapse, being unideal.
The 3 means are the trinity of the ideology, they might not have similar shapes but they're one. The social order is addressing the specific culture of the ideology. The politics is, traditionally, the consensual means to obtain the fully functioning ideal society by maintaining stability, being the catalyst of the social's ideals. The economy is a mechanism, a medium which has the identical aim as of the politics', but is not necessarily as straightforward.
The social order is the Father, the politics is the Son, the economy is the Holy spirit, and the ideology is substantially the God. I'm very bad at making analogy but that's the best i can do, hope no one got offended, you know people these days.
Now since we're talking about libertarianism, more specifically austrian school, let's get straight to it. Here are some ideal characteristics of the trinity from anarcho libertarianism that i understand:
Social order according to libertarianism: liberty over anything, no restriction from almost anything, though it may depend on many relevant contexts. What everyone needs to understand is the simple notion of "you have rights, but so is everybody." That's where the objective barrier basically stands. Though somehow it's often stretched towards a major flaw of inconsistency (the definition of liberty that was limited to liberty of others'), it's all only a matter of understanding what our rights are and what others' rights are. Take it to the philosophical level if you feel like it, but come on dude we all know the true liberty comes with fucken death, so let's just adapt the pragmatic definition above since that's what libertarianism refers to, to some certain extent.
Political means: has no right to tax, has no right to intervene. Government is merely fulfilling the role of a sound and just referee in the sense of free market. No oppression whatsoever. Maybe, just maybe, state may formulate public policies to take action against misconducts. The policies are of course may not override the basic concept of liberty itself. Well i honestly don't know so many details about how many act government can deal in this specific respect. What i understand from the extreme wing of anarcho libertarian is, democracy is not the precise means to attain libertarianism, that's why they're identified as anarcho. But i don't think the extreme wing represents the whole wing when it comes to government. I don't particularly know how, but i think austrian school have some specific role for state, as long as it doesn't harm liberty. Or perhaps, looking at some events like the 90s, consumerist democracy might sound a bit fit for anarcho libertarianism, since essentially, whenever possible, everything is a market. But of course the people in the 90s were as stupid as they are now, that's why it didn't and will not turn out well.
Economy: private ownership above all, may also be called as neoliberalism. HEIL CAPITALISM! Competition is the only thing that will keep the market healthy and rolling, theoretically. And the free market is the only way that'll bring prosperity and development for mankind.
It's kind of weird isn't it? Basically, in anarcho libertarianism, the market is in a higher stratum than the government. The role of the state is merely to intertwine the social order and the economy means.
So the whole 3 orders are implemented in those distinguished categorizations, but they must hold the very same philosophy, which in this case is anarcho libertarianism. The whole 3 should constitute everything above the basis of libertarianism, or else the whole system will collapse, will become unideal:
Say, if we're having a libertarian society where people understand the concept of rights, the government is being the catalyst of the society's goals, but the economy is built on communism, the previous 2 means are fucking nonsense cause people's rights will be deprived by the economic system. Besides, a societal system where you got libertarian society and libertarian government with a communist economy won't ever fucking work cause the state is essentially must be an authoritarian state.
Or maybe the example above is too stupid cause i took the means from the opposing extreme wings, let's get another one.
Imagine a community where the politics and economy are libertarian, but the society doesn't get the concept of rights of others', therefore they may violate others' liberty. Now, assume that people who don't understand others' rights is the majority, they will also be the ones who do the politics and economy. Since they don't get the concept of social means of libertarianism, will they be doing the libertarian politics and economy? Likely yes, also likely no. In short, the libertarian politics and economy will supposedly be despotic ─ one way or another, according to libertarianism ─ in a non-libertarian social order.
Should i get another example?
Nevermind i believe you got the point.
Now, back to the question in the part 1 that fucked me up "how's privatization gonna work without harming one of the very fundamental principles of libertarianism itself: the liberty? And what does the doctrine propose on how to get out of the current condition?"
Why did i ask that? I asked because: look at the world now. Is there any country that has developed anarcho libertarianism as the philosophy of the society? Through the whole 3 means? No. Mention any country that you think is the most liberal ones, i guarantee that all of them still ban many things, say for instance some certain drugs. I guarantee that all of them still include public taxes as national revenue. I guarantee that all of them still have market regulations, say imported product taxes.
I also guarantee that the market, literally anywhere in this fucking whole world, is not truly competitive. The corporations with more capital always win the market, they always do.
Given example: the competition of creative productions which requires innovations to survive in the market > like manufacturing goods: for instance the rivalry between say Nike and Adidas shoes with a bit of interference from a third-party brand. Do people actually pay attention to the feature of the shoes? To some extent, no, not particularly. So instead, in this specific case, what do people pay attention to? Mostly, the design, the price, or in worse cases (yet it does happen, in massive scale) do celebrities wear it as well, no matter how much they try to deny that fact. So what about the shoes with the very same function, with a relatively good design, and with a lot cheaper price from the third-party brand? People won't buy it cause the only 'cool' is either Nike or Adidas. How could such thing occur in this sort of "capitalistic" market? First of all, people nowadays are astonishingly stupid, they're driven by unconscious desires, they most of the time are being irrational consumers, therefore it's very easy to manipulate them to buy things they don't need often at a stupidly expensive price. When consumers can't distinguish between the needs and the desires, the competition system is very much distorted, it tends to rely on advertising strategy. And the ultimate conclusion regarding this thing is, what's more effective in manipulating people than money? Money can buy you a lot, money can buy a world full of stupid walking shits not willing to buy the very same things both Nike and Adidas sell even if it's cheaper. Money can buy you even more money. With this sort of indoctrinated consumers, a single phrase can summarize the whole market condition: competition my ass.
So the most recent market condition is certainly not the one that any wing of libertarian has been advocating for.
The conclusion is, in the case of most liberal nations, vast part of the population might understand the social idea of liberty and rights, but the government and the economic system themselves are not the ones of libertarianism.
If we look at the most recent condition of the world's, where does the most basic problem in implementing the ideology as the fundamental philosophy for the society lie at? Well of course it's in the social order, that's the root of everything. Such totalitarian orders both in politics and economy could only be possible to happen since there are/were people who don't give a fuck about others' liberty and rights, and in this world's case, those fucking people are THE MAJORITY.
So here's the case. Private ownership is one of the most exclusive features from libertarianism, and libertarianism is also one of the few ideologies which advocate capitalism. But, looking the world now, it's often got misinterpreted. I hate the world i do.
Libertarianism is a very noble ideology, it's also very visionary. This world now? No it's all bullshit, the private ownership is an ordeal to the most part of the population, the capitalism is crap. Like i've written above, this thing could occur cause the elites don't care about playing fair, they don't care about the beauty of the competition doctrine. They only care about their well-beings, their self-interests, their profits. "Poor people? Fuck that shit, none of my business," has more or less become the new value. But what's more fucked up is, these elites always build their own arguments in accordance to the rhetorics of 'free market' and 'competition' while what the arguments really mean were "whatever i do to gain profit is never wrong. Giving low wages is not wrong, tricking consumers is not wrong, lobbying politicians is not wrong, making cartels is not wrong, that's the ticket to more profit." Those motherfuckers, those greedy motherfuckers are the ones who bring capitalism fallacy to life, and the fallacy echoes among the younger generations.
What i'm trying to point out here is, you all need to know that this is not how free market and competition really ought to work. This world now, it's not the real capitalism. Those politicians and business elites who shout out about competition and free market? They're just indoctrinating us, they just want us to shut the fuck up while we're getting sodomized. And we all really need to know this, for our own well-beings.
So how does the real capitalism work? God dammit the bottom line is competition. But once again, this world now, there are corporate tyrannies, hence it's not competitive, hence it's violating liberty or the rights to get involve. Actually, the system of the market is a bit freer now than before, it's freer from states, which ─ according to austrian school ─ associates which socialism, where there's essentially no liberty and people have no rights. But the market now is not very free from oppression from the powerful few. And i suddenly remember that i've written about this at part 1.
Where i'm trying to go is capitalism won't get us anywhere better when the consumers, us, are as good as today's. This is a problem.
Now let's repeat the question: "how's privatization gonna work without harming one of the very fundamental principles of libertarianism itself: the liberty? And what does the doctrine propose on how to get out of the current condition?"
The only answer i conceived from the sources in order to answer that question is: by having an educated society. Well of course that's the only answer, cause the very core idea of liberalism and its prototype is the formula of: liberty - literacy = chaos. Well yea of course this is the only provided answer, this is the only solution. This is the only solution where everything might work well. This is the only way, waking up the public is the only way.
BUT this is where this shit is getting even more complicated, this level of simple philosophy.
I feel like i'm a cheap baiting troll crap but really i'm still on it, it's not done yet, been 2 weeks. Don't bother to wait cause it's stupid anyway. Next week maybe. Bye.
The 3 means are the trinity of the ideology, they might not have similar shapes but they're one. The social order is addressing the specific culture of the ideology. The politics is, traditionally, the consensual means to obtain the fully functioning ideal society by maintaining stability, being the catalyst of the social's ideals. The economy is a mechanism, a medium which has the identical aim as of the politics', but is not necessarily as straightforward.
The social order is the Father, the politics is the Son, the economy is the Holy spirit, and the ideology is substantially the God. I'm very bad at making analogy but that's the best i can do, hope no one got offended, you know people these days.
Now since we're talking about libertarianism, more specifically austrian school, let's get straight to it. Here are some ideal characteristics of the trinity from anarcho libertarianism that i understand:
Social order according to libertarianism: liberty over anything, no restriction from almost anything, though it may depend on many relevant contexts. What everyone needs to understand is the simple notion of "you have rights, but so is everybody." That's where the objective barrier basically stands. Though somehow it's often stretched towards a major flaw of inconsistency (the definition of liberty that was limited to liberty of others'), it's all only a matter of understanding what our rights are and what others' rights are. Take it to the philosophical level if you feel like it, but come on dude we all know the true liberty comes with fucken death, so let's just adapt the pragmatic definition above since that's what libertarianism refers to, to some certain extent.
Political means: has no right to tax, has no right to intervene. Government is merely fulfilling the role of a sound and just referee in the sense of free market. No oppression whatsoever. Maybe, just maybe, state may formulate public policies to take action against misconducts. The policies are of course may not override the basic concept of liberty itself. Well i honestly don't know so many details about how many act government can deal in this specific respect. What i understand from the extreme wing of anarcho libertarian is, democracy is not the precise means to attain libertarianism, that's why they're identified as anarcho. But i don't think the extreme wing represents the whole wing when it comes to government. I don't particularly know how, but i think austrian school have some specific role for state, as long as it doesn't harm liberty. Or perhaps, looking at some events like the 90s, consumerist democracy might sound a bit fit for anarcho libertarianism, since essentially, whenever possible, everything is a market. But of course the people in the 90s were as stupid as they are now, that's why it didn't and will not turn out well.
Economy: private ownership above all, may also be called as neoliberalism. HEIL CAPITALISM! Competition is the only thing that will keep the market healthy and rolling, theoretically. And the free market is the only way that'll bring prosperity and development for mankind.
It's kind of weird isn't it? Basically, in anarcho libertarianism, the market is in a higher stratum than the government. The role of the state is merely to intertwine the social order and the economy means.
So the whole 3 orders are implemented in those distinguished categorizations, but they must hold the very same philosophy, which in this case is anarcho libertarianism. The whole 3 should constitute everything above the basis of libertarianism, or else the whole system will collapse, will become unideal:
Say, if we're having a libertarian society where people understand the concept of rights, the government is being the catalyst of the society's goals, but the economy is built on communism, the previous 2 means are fucking nonsense cause people's rights will be deprived by the economic system. Besides, a societal system where you got libertarian society and libertarian government with a communist economy won't ever fucking work cause the state is essentially must be an authoritarian state.
Or maybe the example above is too stupid cause i took the means from the opposing extreme wings, let's get another one.
Imagine a community where the politics and economy are libertarian, but the society doesn't get the concept of rights of others', therefore they may violate others' liberty. Now, assume that people who don't understand others' rights is the majority, they will also be the ones who do the politics and economy. Since they don't get the concept of social means of libertarianism, will they be doing the libertarian politics and economy? Likely yes, also likely no. In short, the libertarian politics and economy will supposedly be despotic ─ one way or another, according to libertarianism ─ in a non-libertarian social order.
Should i get another example?
Nevermind i believe you got the point.
Now, back to the question in the part 1 that fucked me up "how's privatization gonna work without harming one of the very fundamental principles of libertarianism itself: the liberty? And what does the doctrine propose on how to get out of the current condition?"
Why did i ask that? I asked because: look at the world now. Is there any country that has developed anarcho libertarianism as the philosophy of the society? Through the whole 3 means? No. Mention any country that you think is the most liberal ones, i guarantee that all of them still ban many things, say for instance some certain drugs. I guarantee that all of them still include public taxes as national revenue. I guarantee that all of them still have market regulations, say imported product taxes.
I also guarantee that the market, literally anywhere in this fucking whole world, is not truly competitive. The corporations with more capital always win the market, they always do.
Given example: the competition of creative productions which requires innovations to survive in the market > like manufacturing goods: for instance the rivalry between say Nike and Adidas shoes with a bit of interference from a third-party brand. Do people actually pay attention to the feature of the shoes? To some extent, no, not particularly. So instead, in this specific case, what do people pay attention to? Mostly, the design, the price, or in worse cases (yet it does happen, in massive scale) do celebrities wear it as well, no matter how much they try to deny that fact. So what about the shoes with the very same function, with a relatively good design, and with a lot cheaper price from the third-party brand? People won't buy it cause the only 'cool' is either Nike or Adidas. How could such thing occur in this sort of "capitalistic" market? First of all, people nowadays are astonishingly stupid, they're driven by unconscious desires, they most of the time are being irrational consumers, therefore it's very easy to manipulate them to buy things they don't need often at a stupidly expensive price. When consumers can't distinguish between the needs and the desires, the competition system is very much distorted, it tends to rely on advertising strategy. And the ultimate conclusion regarding this thing is, what's more effective in manipulating people than money? Money can buy you a lot, money can buy a world full of stupid walking shits not willing to buy the very same things both Nike and Adidas sell even if it's cheaper. Money can buy you even more money. With this sort of indoctrinated consumers, a single phrase can summarize the whole market condition: competition my ass.
So the most recent market condition is certainly not the one that any wing of libertarian has been advocating for.
The conclusion is, in the case of most liberal nations, vast part of the population might understand the social idea of liberty and rights, but the government and the economic system themselves are not the ones of libertarianism.
If we look at the most recent condition of the world's, where does the most basic problem in implementing the ideology as the fundamental philosophy for the society lie at? Well of course it's in the social order, that's the root of everything. Such totalitarian orders both in politics and economy could only be possible to happen since there are/were people who don't give a fuck about others' liberty and rights, and in this world's case, those fucking people are THE MAJORITY.
So here's the case. Private ownership is one of the most exclusive features from libertarianism, and libertarianism is also one of the few ideologies which advocate capitalism. But, looking the world now, it's often got misinterpreted. I hate the world i do.
Libertarianism is a very noble ideology, it's also very visionary. This world now? No it's all bullshit, the private ownership is an ordeal to the most part of the population, the capitalism is crap. Like i've written above, this thing could occur cause the elites don't care about playing fair, they don't care about the beauty of the competition doctrine. They only care about their well-beings, their self-interests, their profits. "Poor people? Fuck that shit, none of my business," has more or less become the new value. But what's more fucked up is, these elites always build their own arguments in accordance to the rhetorics of 'free market' and 'competition' while what the arguments really mean were "whatever i do to gain profit is never wrong. Giving low wages is not wrong, tricking consumers is not wrong, lobbying politicians is not wrong, making cartels is not wrong, that's the ticket to more profit." Those motherfuckers, those greedy motherfuckers are the ones who bring capitalism fallacy to life, and the fallacy echoes among the younger generations.
What i'm trying to point out here is, you all need to know that this is not how free market and competition really ought to work. This world now, it's not the real capitalism. Those politicians and business elites who shout out about competition and free market? They're just indoctrinating us, they just want us to shut the fuck up while we're getting sodomized. And we all really need to know this, for our own well-beings.
So how does the real capitalism work? God dammit the bottom line is competition. But once again, this world now, there are corporate tyrannies, hence it's not competitive, hence it's violating liberty or the rights to get involve. Actually, the system of the market is a bit freer now than before, it's freer from states, which ─ according to austrian school ─ associates which socialism, where there's essentially no liberty and people have no rights. But the market now is not very free from oppression from the powerful few. And i suddenly remember that i've written about this at part 1.
Where i'm trying to go is capitalism won't get us anywhere better when the consumers, us, are as good as today's. This is a problem.
Now let's repeat the question: "how's privatization gonna work without harming one of the very fundamental principles of libertarianism itself: the liberty? And what does the doctrine propose on how to get out of the current condition?"
The only answer i conceived from the sources in order to answer that question is: by having an educated society. Well of course that's the only answer, cause the very core idea of liberalism and its prototype is the formula of: liberty - literacy = chaos. Well yea of course this is the only provided answer, this is the only solution. This is the only solution where everything might work well. This is the only way, waking up the public is the only way.
BUT this is where this shit is getting even more complicated, this level of simple philosophy.
I feel like i'm a cheap baiting troll crap but really i'm still on it, it's not done yet, been 2 weeks. Don't bother to wait cause it's stupid anyway. Next week maybe. Bye.
0 comment(s):
Post a Comment