# Libertarians



## J Ed (Apr 20, 2013)




----------



## weepiper (Apr 20, 2013)




----------



## chilango (Apr 20, 2013)

Always a cheering sight. Ta.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 20, 2013)




----------



## stavros (Apr 20, 2013)

brogdale said:


>


----------



## Yossarian (Apr 20, 2013)

Here they are at the premiere of Atlas Shrugged - Part 2.


----------



## Fez909 (Apr 20, 2013)




----------



## sihhi (Apr 20, 2013)

UKIP youth wing:






UKIP function at conference crawling with them:






Who likes the bow tie:


----------



## J Ed (Apr 20, 2013)




----------



## sihhi (Apr 20, 2013)

Love the use of 'Modern' here


----------



## Favelado (Apr 20, 2013)

I'm not hard at all but I reckon I could beat the living shite out of all the weaklings who have appeared in these photos so far, and all at the same time.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 20, 2013)

Favelado said:


> I'm not hard at all but I reckon I could beat the living shite out of all the weaklings who have appeared in these photos so far, and all at the same time.


 
Shhhhhhhhhhhhhh!


----------



## Yossarian (Apr 20, 2013)

Favelado said:


> I'm not hard at all but I reckon I could beat the living shite out of all the weaklings who have appeared in these photos so far, and all at the same time.


 
Can you give this lot a kicking while you're at it? They look relatively harmless, but if you tangled with them I think the one furthest left would stab you while the one furthest right sat on you.


----------



## sihhi (Apr 20, 2013)

Numbskull Former Ukip youth leader asks: What is wrong with necrophilia?

brought Thatcher delusion to whole new levels


> As the first British Prime Minister – certainly since the war – to realise the need for free markets, she was never going to get everything right. The trailblazers and revolutionaries often do make large errors as they start off down a foreign path, and the nature of politics and politicians means compromise and to some extent centralised thinking (sitting in a room with other people and thinking that you run the country is certainly going to warp you into believing you can control things successfully if you say it enough), but fundamentally Thatcher seemed to get it, that freedom works and that free minds, free men and free markets lead to great and wonderful things. She took Britain down a path that it had not trodden for a long long time. In doing so, in _*moving toward a system that genuinely helps the poorest and the disadvantaged, the weak, the minority and the underdog*_, Mrs T gained the everlasting hate of all those that claim to want these things whilst using the dead hand of the state to slowly choke them off.


"Olly is a former talk radio host at Truth and Lies Radio. Regularly described as 'embarassingly off message' he tweets @ollyneville. He was the former chairman of UKIP's Young Independence and was removed due to being too Libertarian. He is an Anarcho Capitalist."


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Apr 20, 2013)

Favelado said:


> I'm not hard at all but I reckon I could beat the living shite out of all the weaklings who have appeared in these photos so far, and all at the same time.


Yes but UKIP are the wimpy acceptable face of right wing loonspuddery, I'm guessing you would not take on Combat 18.


----------



## sihhi (Apr 20, 2013)

Why always posh hotels?


----------



## Favelado (Apr 20, 2013)

Yossarian said:


> Can you give this lot a kicking while you're at it? They look relatively harmless, but if you tangled with them I think the one furthest left would stab you while the one furthest right sat on you.


 
I could do 3 of them in under a minute. Sparrow boy could be probably be killed with a well-aimed fart. The really thick looking one in the T-shirt that's more apt than he'll ever realise might be a bit of a challenge. I reckon you could swing a paving slab into his bum-chin and he wouldn't so much as blink. He wouldn't know how to fight but he looks like he could resist a slap or two.


----------



## J Ed (Apr 20, 2013)

Yossarian said:


> Can you give this lot a kicking while you're at it? They look relatively harmless, but if you tangled with them I think the one furthest left would stab you while the one furthest right sat on you.


 

I saw the one on the far-right (heh) on coverage of the Thatcher funeral. Cunt


----------



## Favelado (Apr 20, 2013)

SaskiaJayne said:


> Yes but UKIP are the wimpy acceptable face of right wing loonspuddery, I'm guessing you would not take on Combat 18.


 
You've got me there. It's bullying as opposed to fighting that I'm into really.


----------



## Favelado (Apr 20, 2013)

J Ed said:


> I saw the one on the far-right (heh) on coverage of the Thatcher funeral. Cunt


 
Children of the 1980s will recognise him as Sad Sack from the Raggy Dolls.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 20, 2013)

Yossarian said:


> Can you give this lot a kicking while you're at it? They look relatively harmless, but if you tangled with them I think the one furthest left would stab you while the one furthest right sat on you.


 
On the brightside you just know none of these cunts has ever had a shag


----------



## Favelado (Apr 20, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> On the brightside you just know none of these cunts has ever had a shag


 
Bollocks. The fagging system has guaranteed it for every single one of them.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 20, 2013)

Favelado said:


> Children of the 1980s will recognise him as Sad Sack from the Raggy Dolls.


 
The blond one is Stupid Head off Wurzel Gummidge crossed with that little freak that pretended to be able to have an eye for expensive antiques


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 20, 2013)

Favelado said:


> Bollocks. The fagging system has guaranteed it for every single one of them.


 
nah even public school boys wouldn't perform sexual acts with them


----------



## shifting gears (Apr 20, 2013)

Yossarian said:


> Can you give this lot a kicking while you're at it? They look relatively harmless, but if you tangled with them I think the one furthest left would stab you while the one furthest right sat on you.



One on far left has a certain Brother Mouzon quality about him - he'd neatly fold his copy of the spectator before calmly blowing you away


----------



## Left (Apr 20, 2013)

Libertarianism is a left wing ideology - I really hope the sep bastardisation of the word isn't taking hold over here


----------



## treelover (Apr 20, 2013)

The one in the anti-commie t shirt was hosting a pro thatcher social which got some tv coverage, lots of ukip there as well..


----------



## treelover (Apr 20, 2013)

btw, I think you will find the non ugly ones have plenty of sex, they have multiple partners,. etc read about Staines..


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 20, 2013)

There was a particularly amusing one on here a couple of years back. A norwegian blogger called Onar Am.

Utterly woofbark donkey - has to be seen to be believed. You can find him imparting his peace loving wisdom and urbanites ungratefully mocking him here if you so wish.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 20, 2013)

treelover said:


> btw, I think you will find the non ugly ones have plenty of sex, they have multiple partners,. etc read about Staines..


 
I was talking about the four freaks in the photo you thick twat


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Apr 20, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I was talking about the four freaks in the photo you thick twat


 
So was treelover.


----------



## nino_savatte (Apr 21, 2013)

http://uklibertyleague.org/about/people/


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 21, 2013)

cynicaleconomy said:


> So was treelover.


 
which ones are the non ugly ones?


----------



## stethoscope (Apr 21, 2013)

In just over a month on twitter, I've discovered that a lot of them are really fucking shit at defending their political/economic positions when you start to pull them apart.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 21, 2013)

steph said:


> In just over a month on twitter, I've discovered that a lot of them are really fucking shit at defending their political/economic positions when you really start to pull them apart.


 
yep.


----------



## sihhi (Apr 21, 2013)

steph said:


> In just over a month on twitter, I've discovered that a lot of them are really fucking shit at defending their political/economic positions when you start to pull them apart.


 
Indefensible opinions are indefensible shock! 
Only worthwhile to steer the conversation onto immigration, abortion, maternity rights, ireland and partition, free markets for second kidneys, the right to sell your children if you are poor to childless couples - why should you wait 3 years for the state to take them into care without paying you, the great oak tree sell off - every open oak tree in Britain needs property rights to be properly cared off, trimmed and nourished, competitive tendering and advertising on the battlefield machine gun firms should sponsor divisions and regiments with their own uniforms, why should the state pay for coastal rescue - subscribers only competing services, end all planning control - the poor should be able to build billboards over their windows to monetise their eye space more effectively, the importance for the freedom of children to choose whether they work or not... try and foster divisions within them.

The problem is they are essentially well-funded argument blurrers - this is what their Southampton uni branch were _giving away_ - whole goodie bags - if people joined up to listen to a lecture or two a term:






Nice populist headline - Parliament isn't working 

sweets if you talk to them a whole conversation without insulting them


----------



## nino_savatte (Apr 21, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Indefensible opinions are indefensible shock!
> Only worthwhile to steer the conversation onto immigration, abortion, maternity rights, ireland and partition, free markets for second kidneys, the right to sell your children if you are poor to childless couples - why should you wait 3 years for the state to take them into care without paying you, the great oak tree sell off - every open oak tree in Britain needs property rights to be properly cared off, trimmed and nourished, competitive tendering and advertising on the battlefield machine gun firms should sponsor divisions and regiments with their own uniforms, why should the state pay for coastal rescue - subscribers only competing services, end all planning control - the poor should be able to build billboards over their windows to monetise their eye space more effectively, the importance for the freedom of children to choose whether they work or not... try and foster divisions within them.
> 
> The problem is they are essentially well-funded argument blurrers - this is what their Southampton uni branch were _giving away_ - whole goodie bags - if people joined up to listen to a lecture or two a term:
> ...


All goodies (including the T-Shirts) provided by the freedom-loving Freedom Association.

Southampton Uni branch's Facebook page tells us that they have 111 members.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/123757877652020/

Here's a choice post



> *John King*
> *Today Southampton University Freedom Society mourns the death of the greatest force British Politics has ever seen. 11 years of Margret Thatcher's premiership turned this country around from economic ruin to prosperity that lasted decades after her departure. On behalf of this society: thank you, Lady Thatcher. Thank you for advancing and safeguarding freedom; thank you for a life devoted to the greatness of this country.*


----------



## sihhi (Apr 21, 2013)

nino_savatte said:


> Here's a choice post


 
Here's a worse one




> Luke Smallwood
> Hello. I'm Luke, the social secretary for the Labour club in southampton. We (the soceity) are planning on running another political sports day similar to last year. The date is shortly being comfirmed.
> If we could have Freedom Socs involvement it would be great and it should be a fun day where we can enjoy ourselves and maybe even blow off some political steam.


 
Labour student people socialise with these people and end up imagining they represent anyone other than agonised middle-class or upper-class business interests.


----------



## nino_savatte (Apr 21, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Here's a worse one
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Holy fuck.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 21, 2013)

Those tactics haven't helped the SWP build a successful or enduring mass organisation so I'm not too worried about it being any easier for the Freedom Association and chums even if they have any more money.

Southampton Uni has always been a rightwing campus, it used to the Conservative Students, now it's these.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 21, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Here's a worse one
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
University student unions are nursery bubbles that help prepare the leaders of the future for the grown up bubble


----------



## nino_savatte (Apr 21, 2013)

Student politics are notoriously fluid too, with people sliding from one party to another in the space of a term/semester.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 21, 2013)

nino_savatte said:


> Student politics are notoriously fluid too, with people sliding from one party to another in the space of a term/semester.


 
Where's the easiest place to get a drink or shag?


----------



## nino_savatte (Apr 21, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Where's the easiest place to get a drink or shag?


Exactly. How many times have you heard someone say "I only joined the SWP because I wanted to get laid"?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 21, 2013)

Favelado said:


> I could do 3 of them in under a minute. Sparrow boy could be probably be killed with a well-aimed fart. The really thick looking one in the T-shirt that's more apt than he'll ever realise might be a bit of a challenge. I reckon you could swing a paving slab into his bum-chin and he wouldn't so much as blink. He wouldn't know how to fight but he looks like he could resist a slap or two.


 
Mark Wallace?  Has a history of *talking* a good fight, but he's just as likely as the rest to leg it if faced with a bit of the old free market in violence.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 21, 2013)

salt mines for the lot of them


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 21, 2013)

J Ed said:


> I saw the one on the far-right (heh) on coverage of the Thatcher funeral. Cunt


 
Looking on the bright side, the creepy fuck has made his self-satisfied face well-known enough that come the day the Peoples' Community Security wardens are re-allocating housing, he'll be allocated a worker's terrace in Cumbria, right next to the colliery he'll be working in.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 21, 2013)

nino_savatte said:


> Exactly. How many times have you heard someone say "I only joined the SWP because I wanted to get laid"?


 
last time I spoke to Martin Smith


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 21, 2013)

J Ed said:


>


 
Weird giraffe-necked libertarian motherfuckers!


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 21, 2013)

is Firky a crypto-libertarian?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 21, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> On the brightside you just know none of these cunts has ever had a shag


 
The bloke on the left of the picture looks so like a teacher at my secondary school who got sent down for some serious paedophile behaviour, it's uncanny. *Almost* the same surname too!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 21, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> is Firky a crypto-libertarian?


 
Good question, comrade Spanky!!!
I've had my suspicions for a while!


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 21, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> The bloke on the left of the picture looks so like a teacher at my secondary school who got sent down for some serious paedophile behaviour, it's uncanny. *Almost* the same surname too!


 
great-grandson maybe?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 21, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> There was a particularly amusing one on here a couple of years back. A norwegian blogger called Onar Am.
> 
> Utterly woofbark donkey - has to be seen to be believed. You can find him imparting his peace loving wisdom and urbanites ungratefully mocking him here if you so wish.


 
That was fucking brilliant when he turned up! he was more hatstand than a hatstand factory!


----------



## sihhi (Apr 21, 2013)

supports


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 21, 2013)

sihhi said:


>


 
Four more subjects for the Peoples' Facial recognition Software.

Almost as good-looking as their older brothers on the preceding page, aren't they?


----------



## sihhi (Apr 21, 2013)

I like how they parades themselves at the funeral:


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 21, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> great-grandson maybe?


 
I'm not that old, ye bastid!!! 

Could be his younger brother, though!


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 21, 2013)

sihhi said:


>


 
He's put on some serious heft


----------



## J Ed (Apr 21, 2013)

Weird how all of these libertarians are white and male, it's almost as if they are interested in perpetuating their own privilege...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 21, 2013)

sihhi said:


> I like how they parades themselves at the funeral:


 
Nice to see they're not afraid to embarrass themselves by flaunting disproved dogma.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 21, 2013)

sihhi said:


>


 
The bloke on the right deffo wants to have Wallace's babies!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 21, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> He's put on some serious heft


 
That's what happens when you go on trysts to Whites with Conservative MPs of a certain age. All that suet pudding catches up with you.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 21, 2013)

J Ed said:


> Weird how all of these libertarians are white and male, it's almost as if they are interested in perpetuating their own privilege...


 
Perhaps a greater percentage of women than men see through the political rhetoric to the underlying selfishness, and steer well clear?


----------



## sihhi (Apr 21, 2013)

Mark Littlewood IEA, ex Freedom League Youth, one time Liberty and NO2ID guy explains Thatcher was *not* working for bosses


----------



## J Ed (Apr 21, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Perhaps a greater percentage of women than men see through the political rhetoric to the underlying selfishness, and steer well clear?


 
I think that's right, but don't discount the overwhelming misogyny and obnoxiousness of the libertarian men as a factor too.


----------



## sihhi (Apr 21, 2013)

Here's the tall guy Felix Bungay again







"Felix Bungay is student at University of Cambridge where he is reading an MPhil in Intellectual History and Political Thought." 

Why is he not at a non-state funded education course?


----------



## sihhi (Apr 21, 2013)

These people win in education every single time.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 21, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Here's the tall guy Felix Bungay again
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Because like all good right-libertarians, he's a hypocrite who masks his hypocrisy in rhetoric about "taking back from the state" some of the money his parents have paid in.
Obviously, when someone on the dole uses exactly that argument about getting back some of their own contributions, that's beyond the pale!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 21, 2013)

sihhi said:


> These people win in education every single time.


 
They lost in the gene pool, so swings and roundabouts!


----------



## peterkro (Apr 21, 2013)

Cunts to a person,thieving bastards calling themselves "Libertarians" this they maybe what the certainly aren't is libertarians or indeed libertaires.The word was created by Joseph Dejacque to differentiate his anarchism from Proudhon's who was a bit light on gender equality.It was also the name of the paper he produced in New York for several years.


----------



## treelover (Apr 21, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Mark Littlewood IEA, ex Freedom League Youth, one time Liberty and NO2ID guy explains Thatcher was *not* working for bosses




and former adviser to the Lib Dems, should have been a warning..


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 21, 2013)

that skinny one really does look like a sex offender


----------



## sihhi (Apr 21, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Because like all good right-libertarians, he's a hypocrite who masks his hypocrisy in rhetoric about "taking back from the state" some of the money his parents have paid in.


 
Ah yes... their parents have 'paid in' by owning shares and using other people's labour - so they get to party in grand halls with oil paintings






They also spend their student loans on beer - look here a bunch of Tories promoting Hague-a-Thons - a chance to meet war criminal esteemed foreign secretary William Hague - no pub piss ups where participants have to beat the Hague record of 14 pints.


----------



## nino_savatte (Apr 21, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Mark Littlewood IEA, ex Freedom League Youth, one time Liberty and NO2ID guy explains Thatcher was *not* working for bosses



Yeah, good luck with that, Littlewood, ya putz.

It's funny how two of my least favourite people in this country have the surname "Littlewood".


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 21, 2013)

sihhi said:


> These people win in education every single time.


 
Imagine swinging a baseball bat among them, very satisfying


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 21, 2013)

nino_savatte said:


> Yeah, good luck with that, Littlewood, ya putz.
> 
> It's funny how two of my least favourite people in this country have the surname "Littlewood".


 
What have the catalogue company ever done to you?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 21, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Imagine swinging a baseball bat among them, very satisfying


 
Four of 'em in the foreswing, the little guy on the backswing, just as he's thinking "OMG! I escaped the massac...."


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 21, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Four of 'em in the foreswing, the little guy on the backswing, just as he's thinking "OMG! I escaped the massac...."


 
nah I'd snap his neck with one hand


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 21, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> What have the catalogue company ever done to you?


 
They refused to keep sending him new catalogues to replace the ones with the mysteriously stuck-together pages in the lingerie section.


----------



## Idris2002 (Apr 21, 2013)

An old colleague of mine is having a sort of semi-meltdown on Facebook, and recommending Murray Rothbard to all and sundry.


----------



## chilango (Apr 21, 2013)

This thread is wonderfully cheering. 

I particularly love the photos of em playing dress up.


----------



## Wolveryeti (Apr 21, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Here's the tall guy Felix Bungay again
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Nasty syphilitic sore on the guy on the left - all that rimming of Nigel Farage has obviously done him no favours whatsoever


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 21, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Here's the tall guy Felix Bungay again
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Felix Bungay must be the only person I have ever seen whose Adam's apple is bigger than his head.

His name makes me think of that baker in Viz who shags gingerbread men. 

I think it's safe to assume that the roots of his misanthropic politics lie in the fact that he got bullied to fuck at school because of his name. It resulted in a deep resentment of humanity in general and led him to celebrate poor children starving and stuff.


----------



## sihhi (Apr 21, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> I think it's safe to assume that the roots of his misanthropic politics lie in the fact that he got bullied to fuck at school because of his name. It resulted in a deep resentment of humanity in general and led him to celebrate poor children starving and stuff.


 
How can that be assumed at all? It could well be some family wealth pool and reading Ayn Rand - as below.







UKIP's Tim Aker on left, Nic Conner on right Simon Richards Freedom Association chief with the camera in background





Nic Conner has done well for himself:



> He has served on The Bow Group council since 2011 where he has been involved in all of the Group’s activities. Nic policy interests are in: Military, Social Justice (particular homelessness and the surrounding issues), Constitutional and Energy policy. In November 2012 Nic’s ‘To Lay in Valour’ policy paper was published by The Bow Group gaining much media attention.   Nic has acted as a spokesman for the Group on many occasions, featuring in all national newspapers. He has also appeared on broadcast media such as BBC Newsnight. His articles feature regularly on The Commentator.  He is currently reading Law at BPP Law School. As well as studding he puts into practice his social enterprise beliefs in helping some of the UK’s most vulnerable people by working with The Big Issue. In the past Nic has worked for the Conservative Party Campaigns Team. First at CCHQ in the lead up to the 2010 general election, and then on a target seat in Kent, where he helped achieve a swing 9.9%, and just under a 9000 majority. He has also worked internationally with many right of centre political parties, including assisting the Australian Liberals in their 2010 election campaign.


 






I urge people to re-visit this thread on the TaxPayers Alliance links to Libertarians and vice-versa.

http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/the-taxpayers-alliance-a-tory-front-group.165962/page-3


----------



## sihhi (Apr 21, 2013)

chilango said:


> I particularly love the photos of em playing dress up.


 
For you 






This is the head of the Conservative Humanist Association - Oliver Cooper - also a member of the Freedom Association.

Here he is dressing up



Here he is communicating his American associates


Here he is doing the Gangnam Style (note - posh hotel again)





Here he is posing







And here he is joking about cuts:

Q: What's your favourite fizzy pop beverage? 
_Red Bull. What, that doesn’t count? Fine, then Monster or Relentless: twice the heart attacks as Red Bull for the same cost – now THAT’s austerity!_


----------



## brogdale (Apr 21, 2013)

> *Dr Tim Evans (Current Shareholder and Former President)* has worked for numerous organisations that include: The Foundation for Defence Studies (defunct), The Independent Healthcare Association (defunct), The Centre for the New Europe (defunct), Global Health Futures (defunct), Westminster Associates (defunct), Nurses for Reform (defunct), and the Cobden Centre (watch this space).
> He was President of the Libertarian Alliance between 2006 and February 2011. His stated grounds for resignation were the need to rebalance his business and personal interests. This was made an opportunity by certain persons for ill-informed speculation. However, Dr Evans continues to play an important role in the Libertarian Alliance. As of the 13th November 2012, he retained the 49 per cent shareholding in the Libertarian Alliance Ltd, given to him by Sean Gabb, and continued steadfastly to refuse all requests to give this back so shares could be allocated to active members of the Committee.
> http://www.libertarian.co.uk/




I believe this is actually genuine!



 












> Sean Gabb is controversial to some because of his views, for example: "the Commission for Racial Equality and all similar organisations should be abolished, and their records burned." Gabb explained this by often likening the British government to a police state, saying, "Every so often, someone stands up and tells us what benefits we have had from diversity. Such may be, but we must also consider that part of the price has been a police state. In this country, we have severe restrictions on freedom of speech, on freedom of association and on freedom of contract - all in the name of good race relations."


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 21, 2013)

sihhi said:


> How can that be assumed at all? It could well be some family wealth pool and reading Ayn Rand - as below.


 
It can't, I wasn't seriously suggesting it - my post is best read as an attempt at a more sophisticated version of 'he's called Felix Bungay LOL'


----------



## Dan U (Apr 21, 2013)

Harry Cole. 

Don't need a pic, generally sat opposite Owen Jones arguing on tv.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 21, 2013)

Have you got files on these people or something sihhi?


----------



## chilango (Apr 21, 2013)

These guys would be screwed if "big government" wasn't around to protect their sorry asses...


----------



## chilango (Apr 21, 2013)

At the moment it's a tie between Nic Conner and Felix Bungay for my favorite.

I *heart* them both.


----------



## Firky (Apr 21, 2013)

I hate this thread.


----------



## where to (Apr 21, 2013)

We need a better name for these people than libertarians. Not something derogatory but an accurate term which reflects the purpose and agenda behind their politics. Libertarian sounds too nice.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 21, 2013)

chilango said:


> At the moment it's a tie between Nic Conner and Felix Bungay for my favorite.
> 
> I *heart* them both.


 
Felix Bungay is obviously better. He has the name and the Adam's apple. Nic Conner doesn't even have the amusing barnet anymore.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 21, 2013)

where to said:


> We need a better name for these people than libertarians. Not something derogatory but an accurate term which reflects the purpose and agenda behind their politics. Libertarian sounds too nice.


 
Sociopath?


----------



## Dan U (Apr 21, 2013)

Self interested


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 21, 2013)

I was at uni with Sean Gabb. 

He was mental then too ...


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 21, 2013)

Actually to be fair to him, he is a very bright bloke who you can have a pretty interesting drunken argument with. He was a hell of a lot smarter than the other FCS types. I would guess that he'd handle himself a fuck of a lot better here than that Onan bloke did for example. 

But every now and then when he's been ranting on about successive governments being tools of the ruling class out to screw us all and you're just starting to see him as an OK guy, he goes all randroid and you remember that he's a right-wing fruitcake.


----------



## BigTom (Apr 21, 2013)

sihhi said:


> <snip>
> 
> 
> Nic Conner has done well for himself:
> ...


 
And who was saying they never got laid?


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 21, 2013)

Keep seeing this thread and thinking 'Librarians? who is dissing librarians?'

then I read it properly an realise there is only the righteous mockery of ultra rightist fucking filth going on and all is good with the world


----------



## brogdale (Apr 21, 2013)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Actually to be fair to him, he is a very bright bloke who you can have a pretty interesting drunken argument with. I would guess that he'd handle himself a fuck of a lot better here than that Onan bloke did for example. Although obviously I could be wrong.
> 
> But every now and then when he's been ranting on about successive governments being tools of the ruling class out to screw us all and you're just starting to see him as an OK guy, he goes all randroid and you remember that he's a right-wing fruitcake.


 
"randroid"

Ayn it always the way with these guys?


----------



## sihhi (Apr 21, 2013)

<editor: defamatory content removed>


----------



## Roadkill (Apr 21, 2013)

chilango said:


> These guys would be screwed if "big government" wasn't around to protect their sorry asses...


 
These people are usually quite keen on 'big government' when it's repressing protesters and harassing 'lefties,' for some strange reason...


----------



## Roadkill (Apr 21, 2013)

sihhi said:


> These people win in education every single time.


 





Never see 'em together, would you?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 21, 2013)

sihhi said:


> These people win in education every single time.


 
WTF is going on with Felix Bungay's (lol) left ear in that pic? And is it just me or is he giving the dark haired cunt to his right (our left) a handjob? The idiot grin on his face certainly suggests that he is.


----------



## Casually Red (Apr 21, 2013)

ha...Felix Bungay...LOL


----------



## Casually Red (Apr 21, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Why always posh hotels?


 
the size of his head...LOL...hes like one of them Tefal scientists


----------



## sihhi (Apr 21, 2013)

Roadkill said:


> These people are usually quite keen on 'big government' when it's repressing protesters and harassing 'lefties,' for some strange reason...


 
This was the pro-cuts rally in April 2011:






'Axe High Tax'





'Common sense' chestnuts - they always do the job.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 21, 2013)

sihhi said:


>


 
Their placards are LOL - is that a graph of the national debt on the one on the right?


----------



## Roadkill (Apr 21, 2013)

sihhi said:


> This was the pro-cuts rally in April 2011


 
I was on the anti-cuts march that day and went down for a look out of sheer curiosity.  It was pathetic.


----------



## J Ed (Apr 21, 2013)

The funny thing is that you know that the placards are intentionally awful since the groups these people are from are absolutely loaded and could make some really nice ones.


----------



## sihhi (Apr 21, 2013)

Roadkill said:


> I was on the anti-cuts march that day and went down for a look out of sheer curiosity. It was pathetic.


 
You're right though they often share platforms with the most pro-big government types


----------



## Roadkill (Apr 21, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Their placards are LOL - is that a graph of the national debt on the one on the right?


 
If it was the counter-demo should have had this on its placards:






Record levels of debt my arse!


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 21, 2013)

(((dolphins)))


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 21, 2013)

Roadkill said:


> If it was the counter-demo should have had this on its placards:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
I think it's government spending actually.


----------



## Roadkill (Apr 21, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> I think it's government spending actually.


 
Might be - I can't read the placard in that picture - but same difference.  Neither matters.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 21, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> (((dolphins)))


 
Dolphins, like whales, are shit.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 21, 2013)

Roadkill said:


> Might be - I can't read the placard in that picture - but same difference. Neither matters.


 
Well they are libertarians, were you expecting them to understand what they're talking about?


----------



## sihhi (Apr 21, 2013)

J Ed said:


> The funny thing is that you know that the placards are intentionally awful since the groups these people are from are absolutely loaded and could make some really nice ones.


 
This was student exuberance - the serious people like Adam Smith Institute knew it was dumb because there would be so few supporters.

The Adam Smith Institute held a party a few months later to celebrate the budget 

Nice snap here - free marketer over women's bodies Peter Stringfellow alongside Adam Smith Institute executive Eamonn Butler.


----------



## Casually Red (Apr 21, 2013)




----------



## J Ed (Apr 21, 2013)

sihhi said:


> This was student exuberance - the serious people like Adam Smith Institute knew it was dumb because there would be so few supporters.
> 
> The Adam Smith Institute held a party a few months later to celebrate the budget
> 
> Nice snap here - free marketer over women's bodies Peter Stringfellow alongside Adam Smith Institute executive Eamonn Butler.


 

Stringfellow has suggested that he might stand against Clegg in the next election in Sheffield Hallam. Bizarre.


----------



## Roadkill (Apr 21, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Well they are libertarians, were you expecting them to understand what they're talking about?


 
Good point. 



sihhi said:


> This was student exuberance - the serious people like Adam Smith Institute knew it was dumb because there would be so few supporters.


 
Very Serious People, as Paul Krugman characterises such idiots. I do wonder how many people who mindlessly chant Adam Smith's name - most of the institute that bears his name included - have ever actually read anything by him, though. Well, aside from a few carefully selected passages from _The Wealth of Nations._


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 21, 2013)

J Ed said:


> Stringfellow has suggested that he might stand against Clegg in the next election in Sheffield Hallam. Bizarre.


 
Who would he stand for? The Tories?


----------



## sihhi (Apr 21, 2013)

Them taking the piss out of themselves


----------



## J Ed (Apr 21, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Who would he stand for? The Tories?


 
Independent I think


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 21, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Them taking the piss out of themselves


 
That site is seriously


----------



## sihhi (Apr 21, 2013)

J Ed said:


> Independent I think


 
UKIP were interested for a while



Westminster Conservative Council regulating parking in one of the most densely crowded business districts in Europe ... socialists.


----------



## Casually Red (Apr 21, 2013)

sihhi said:


> These people win in education every single time.


----------



## where to (Apr 21, 2013)

So what is the current relationship between ukip and these freaks? Are they on fringe, a distinct platform or embedded in powerful positions?


----------



## where to (Apr 21, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:
			
		

> Sociopath?



They remind me of Kevin the teenager character, "why do I have to pay tax, its so unfair"

There must be a better name for this than libertarianism.


----------



## Casually Red (Apr 21, 2013)

J Ed said:


> Weird how all of these libertarians are white and male, it's almost as if they are interested in perpetuating their own privilege...


----------



## Roadkill (Apr 21, 2013)

where to said:


> They remind me of Kevin the teenager character, "why do I have to pay tax, its so unfair"
> 
> There must be a better name for this than libertarianism.


 
Stupidity?


----------



## Casually Red (Apr 21, 2013)

where to said:


> They remind me of Kevin the teenager character, "why do I have to pay tax, its so unfair"
> 
> There must be a better name for this than libertarianism.


 
selfishness


----------



## xslavearcx (Apr 22, 2013)

i want one of those 'hayek is my homeboy' t-shirts


----------



## Favelado (Apr 22, 2013)

xslavearcx said:


> i want one of those 'hayek is my homeboy' t-shirts


 
Also available in socialism.


----------



## xslavearcx (Apr 22, 2013)

Favelado said:


> Also available in socialism.View attachment 31715


 
but that wouldn't be as ironic


----------



## xslavearcx (Apr 22, 2013)

Just bought the damn t-shirt. stupid internet


----------



## seventh bullet (Apr 22, 2013)

Favelado said:


> Also available in socialism.


 
The Cyrillic for G is the wrong way round.  O is Church Slavonic rather than the Cyrillic for F being altered?  The Y is actually U, what looks like a 3 is actually Z rather than Э (pronounced 'eh,' as opposed to the Russian E which is 'yeh'), and the B is just the soft sign rather than Б. 

So, if including the G and O then GROGSKU IS MU HOMZOU.


----------



## xslavearcx (Apr 22, 2013)

now thats a slogan!


----------



## Idris2002 (Apr 22, 2013)

Meanwhile on Facebook, my former colleague is now declaring that "mass public education is equal in its inequality". I feel a defriending coming on. . .


----------



## fredfelt (Apr 22, 2013)




----------



## nino_savatte (Apr 22, 2013)

where to said:


> We need a better name for these people than libertarians. Not something derogatory but an accurate term which reflects the purpose and agenda behind their politics. Libertarian sounds too nice.


I quite like LOLibertarians as a way of describing them.


----------



## gentlegreen (Apr 22, 2013)

I have for some time described myself as a libertarian - though I'm somewhat restrained in my own life and I don't recognise myself in the stereotypes above.
Is this another word that now can't be used - especially cross-Atlantic - like "liberal" ?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 22, 2013)

gentlegreen said:


> I have for some time described myself as a libertarian - though I'm somewhat restrained in my own life and I don't recognise myself in the stereotypes above.
> Is this another word that now can't be used - especially cross-Atlantic - like "liberal" ?


No, not at all, you are miles off. As the above posts should quite clearly indicate to you. Do you support/are a member of any of the extreme-right wing groups laughed at above?


----------



## 8ball (Apr 22, 2013)

gentlegreen said:


> I have for some time described myself as a libertarian - though I'm somewhat restrained in my own life and I don't recognise myself in the stereotypes above.
> Is this another word that now can't be used - especially cross-Atlantic - like "liberal" ?


 
I was a libertarian before it was right-wing.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 22, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> No, not at all, you are miles off. As the above posts should quite clearly indicate to you. Do you support/are a member of any of the extreme-right wing groups laughed at above?


 
No, that's right, I'm sure. But tbf the increasing, stateside, tendancy to associate the term exclusively with "anarcho-capitalism", minarchism and various tones of extreme, neo-liberal, laissez-faire loonery does mean that our, (European?), use of the synonym for anarchism requires the use of an adjective like 'left' or 'communist'. Shame, an all that, but for 'global' understanding I suppose we just have to accept that's the way the ideological language has developed.


----------



## Dogsauce (Apr 22, 2013)

Yossarian said:


> Can you give this lot a kicking while you're at it? They look relatively harmless, but if you tangled with them I think the one furthest left would stab you while the one furthest right sat on you.


 
Surely they'd just 'Release the hounds!' to fend you off?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 22, 2013)

Thing is, there are really no left/anarchist groups here (or in the US) that either call themselves libertarian or use it in their self-description - the five man libertarian discussion group in the mid-80s was pretty much the last thing i can think of, and before that the  Libertarian League in New York in the 60s. If we're not actively using it then this will happen...


----------



## brogdale (Apr 22, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Thing is, there are really no left/anarchist groups here (or in the US) that either call themselves libertarian or use it in their self-description - the five man libertarian discussion group in the mid-80s was pretty much the last thing i can think of, and before that the Libertarian League in New York in the 60s. If we're not actively using it then this will happen...


 
Yep, the term 'left-libertarian' has tended to be used by individuals rather than groups. I suppose, in some cases, the rationale was to distance themselves (and their work) from the perceived neagtive connotations of the 'A' word in order to attract a wider audience?


----------



## 8ball (Apr 22, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Yep, the term 'left-libertarian' has tended to be used by individuals rather than groups. I suppose, in some cases, the rationale was to distance themselves (and their work) from the perceived neagtive connotations of the 'A' word in order to attract a wider audience?


 
Definitely some truth in that, though not so much about attracting an audience so much as not immediately alienating people. 

Agree with butchers about how the term libertarianism has been gifted to the right.  To some extent I think that's deliberate.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 22, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Yep, the term 'left-libertarian' has tended to be used by individuals rather than groups. I suppose, in some cases, the rationale was to distance themselves (and their work) from the perceived neagtive connotations of the 'A' word in order to attract a wider audience?


In some cases that may well have been the motivation, in others that i'm more familiar with though it was to specifically identify with the continental libertarian communist tradition (through the plaform to Fontenis rather than the floppy liberal bollocks anarchism of much of post-war anarchism - see albert meltzer for example.

edit: and i'd say post-miners strike that usage was replaced by small c communist.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Apr 22, 2013)

Fuck's sake, you CAN'T have a thread on these clowns without having this in it


----------



## Steel Icarus (Apr 22, 2013)

How he says captililism - fucking hell, still cracks me up


----------



## 8ball (Apr 22, 2013)

S☼I said:


> Fuck's sake, you CAN'T have a thread on these clowns without having this in it




I can't make any sense of that whatsoever.


----------



## sihhi (Apr 22, 2013)

S☼I said:


> How he says captililism - fucking hell, still cracks me up


 
Brushed himself up quite a bit now - apparently very eloquent


----------



## chilango (Apr 22, 2013)

A lot less huggable in the latest pictures.

Shame.

Felixstowe Bungay you're now my No.1 Liberatarian Homeboy.

Nic you're still in with a shot if you stop intervening in your hairstyle and diet though...


----------



## peterkro (Apr 22, 2013)

brogdale said:


> No, that's right, I'm sure. But tbf the increasing, stateside, tendancy to associate the term exclusively with "anarcho-capitalism", minarchism and various tones of extreme, neo-liberal, laissez-faire loonery does mean that our, (European?), use of the synonym for anarchism requires the use of an adjective like 'left' or 'communist'. Shame, an all that, but for 'global' understanding I suppose we just have to accept that's the way the ideological language has developed.


In general I like wikipedia but there has been a big failure on this and several other topics,while many people fought the UScentricism ultimately they lost and stupidity prevailed.May I recommend wikipedia.fr for a better understanding.


----------



## nino_savatte (Apr 22, 2013)

> He is currently reading Law at BPP Law School. As well as *studding* he puts into practice his social enterprise beliefs in helping some of the UK’s most vulnerable people by working with The Big Issue.
> http://www.bowgroup.org/people/nic-conner


 
What's "studding"? Does he erect plasterboard walls or something?


----------



## brogdale (Apr 22, 2013)

peterkro said:


> In general I like wikipedia but there has been a big failure on this and several other topics,while many people fought the UScentricism ultimately they lost and stupidity prevailed.May I recommend wikipedia.fr for a better understanding.


 
Yeah...erm...maybe? I'm not entirely sure what point you're making, though.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 22, 2013)

sihhi said:


> You're right though they often share platforms with the most pro-big government types


 
Unsurprisingly, for most of these "Young Britons", their support for the military is strictly verbal. Actually *serving* would put the screaming willies up most of 'em, especially as "other ranks".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 22, 2013)

nino_savatte said:


> What's "studding"? Does he erect plasterboard walls or something?


 
He wanks into a bottle, on the premise that young libertarian women want to inseminate themselves with his superior seed.

He has 7 full fridges in his basement.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 22, 2013)

nino_savatte said:


> What's "studding"? Does he erect plasterboard walls or something?


 

having sex with horses


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 22, 2013)

sihhi said:


> This was student exuberance - the serious people like Adam Smith Institute knew it was dumb because there would be so few supporters.
> 
> The Adam Smith Institute held a party a few months later to celebrate the budget
> 
> Nice snap here - free marketer over women's bodies Peter Stringfellow alongside Adam Smith Institute executive Eamonn Butler.


 
Identi-cunts.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 22, 2013)

where to said:


> They remind me of Kevin the teenager character, "why do I have to pay tax, its so unfair"
> 
> There must be a better name for this than libertarianism.


 
Whiney-cuntism gets my vote.


----------



## peterkro (Apr 22, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Yeah...erm...maybe? I'm not entirely sure what point you're making, though.


The point I was perhaps badly trying to make is the English language Wikipedia site has been hi-jacked by those UScentric people who use terms like Libertarian (meaning right wing nut jobs) and "anarcho-capitalists" terms which have completely different meanings in most of the world.This is why I recommended the French version which in general doesn't fall for the Washington/Hollywood bollocks.


----------



## sihhi (Apr 22, 2013)

Posting to attack hyper-individualism and egotism - not to attack single people

Anyone remember this?

http://nymag.com/news/features/artifact/51814





> Chinoy, Manila, Philippines
> My individualism takes precedence at all costs, if not at all times.


 



> lostpainting, Hagerstown, Maryland
> Please note: If you’re overweight, I won’t date you.


 


> I love intelligent, sassy girls, particularly those working in *consulting* or *investment banking* (but other fields are great too). Really, nothing is hotter than an accomplished girl in a suit, as long as she is willing to settle down and have my children. I want a girl who will support my ambitions against the naysayers in society


 



> Zak, Long Island, New York
> I am rational, integrated, and efficacious. ... I would love to find someone I can learn something from; someone who challenges me to think; someone I can feel like I’ve won, rather than lowered myself to.


 
Depressingly, the site is still there with 16,000 profiles with stuff like this




> TBrinsko
> Las Vegas, Nevada
> In many ways, I am a combination of Rand's two iconic heroes. Like John Galt, I am on strike from a society which is not worthy of what I can produce and have been for going on seven years now. That said, I consider myself (my personality and motivation) more similar to Howard Roar...


----------



## gentlegreen (Apr 22, 2013)




----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 22, 2013)

isn't Galt also a rapist.


----------



## Idris2002 (Apr 22, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> isn't Galt also a rapist.


 
Yes, yes he is.

What a rotten person Ayn Rand was.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Apr 22, 2013)

" Like John Galt, I am on strike from a society which is not worthy of what I can produce and have been for going on seven years now. That said, I consider myself (my personality and motivation) more similar to Howard Roar"


----------



## sihhi (Apr 22, 2013)

Idris2002 said:


> Yes, yes he is.
> 
> What a rotten person Ayn Rand was.


 





PD needs a flowchart for Libertarians in Britain.

Have you ever been in the lobby of a posh hotel?

Do you pay income tax? 

Do you want to scrap the General Teaching Council?

Did you attend a grammar school and think to yourself it could have been improved by charging fees?

Who crashed RBS?  Its owners' decisions OR Marxists in the Labour Party.

Do you have a holding company in Jersey or the Cayman Islands?

Have you ever canvassed for UKIP?

Have you ever met Kwasi Kwarteng?

Have you ever used a picture of Margaret Thatcher as a facebook profile?

Have you ever been an intern to a Euro MEP?

Have you ever done work experience for the IEA?


----------



## J Ed (Apr 22, 2013)

fredfelt said:


>


 
Ron Swanson is the one libertarian I like


----------



## brogdale (Apr 22, 2013)

peterkro said:


> The point I was perhaps badly trying to make is the English language Wikipedia site has been hi-jacked by those UScentric people who use terms like Libertarian (meaning right wing nut jobs) and "anarcho-capitalists" terms which have completely different meanings in most of the world.This is why I recommended the French version which in general doesn't fall for the Washington/Hollywood bollocks.


 
You may well be right there, but the 'right-wing' appropriation of the term in the US does go back a long way before Wiki was ever invented. IIRC the US party using that name started out in the 1970's, and led to the (cliched) observation that libertarians were anarchists with property/money.


----------



## Idris2002 (Apr 22, 2013)




----------



## Casually Red (Apr 22, 2013)

sihhi said:


> These people win in education every single time.


 
the only good thing about looking at this picture is the knowlege these punters have a much statistically higher chance than me of being eaten by a lion/polar bear/tiger ,killed by tribesmen/pirates, dying in a lightaircraft/helicopter mishap, or by autoerotic asphyxiation .

And even if none of that ever happens to them one of them will still always be called Felix Bungay


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 22, 2013)

...and stil have that weird shit hanging on his ear.


----------



## Casually Red (Apr 22, 2013)

seventh bullet said:


> So, if including the G and O then GROGSKU IS MU HOMZOU.


 
thats probably what Trotsky sounded like after that icepick incident


----------



## Casually Red (Apr 22, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> ...and stil have that weird shit hanging on his ear.


 
wtf is that thing..its like a cattle tag or something


----------



## brogdale (Apr 22, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> wtf is that thing..its like a cattle tag or something


 
He does have impressive ears, but I think that what we're seeing there is actually something shiny in the background. Maybe something to do with the gilt door furniture etc. that they have in these sort of venues?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 22, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> ...and stil have that weird shit hanging on his ear.


 
by jove I think he has flesh tunnels


----------



## 8ball (Apr 22, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> by jove I think he has flesh tunnels


 
I really don't get that shit.


----------



## J Ed (Apr 22, 2013)

My new favourite libertarian

https://twitter.com/jontycampbell

Describes himself as 



> Highlander Cyberpunk,Voiceover,Traveller,Serial Adventurer&Persistent Improver(Tedious & Pointless says @OwenJones84)Follows/RT/Followrs no Endorsement


 
Believes that "Fascism is Italian word for Socialism" - also his name is Jonty.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 23, 2013)

has there ever been a Jonty who wasn't a massive prick? Its like the name is a curse, doomed to warp its bearer into the sort of person you want to kerb stamp


----------



## 8ball (Apr 23, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> has there ever been a Jonty who wasn't a massive prick? Its like the name is a curse, doomed to warp its bearer into the sort of person you want to kerb stamp


 
Bit like Adrian.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 23, 2013)

The best ever jonty


----------



## J Ed (Apr 23, 2013)

This is actually quite scary

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/21/b...l=1&adxnnlx=1366675638-JC/U491TItOKvzXXty4/Wg



> Three years ago, Charles and David Koch, the billionaire industrialists and supporters of libertarian causes, held a seminar of like-minded, wealthy political donors at the St. Regis Resort in Aspen, Colo. They laid out a three-pronged, 10-year strategy to shift the country toward a smaller government with less regulation and taxes.
> 
> The first two pieces of the strategy — educating grass-roots activists and influencing politics — were not surprising, given the money they have given to policy institutes and political action groups. But the third one was: media.
> 
> Other than financing a few fringe libertarian publications, the Kochs have mostly avoided media investments. Now, Koch Industries, the sprawling private company of which Charles G. Koch serves as chairman and chief executive, is exploring a bid to buy the Tribune Company’s eight regional newspapers, including The Los Angeles Times, The Chicago Tribune, The Baltimore Sun, The Orlando Sentinel and The Hartford Courant.


----------



## J Ed (Apr 23, 2013)




----------



## nino_savatte (Apr 23, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> the only good thing about looking at this picture is the knowlege these punters have a much statistically higher chance than me of being eaten by a lion/polar bear/tiger ,killed by tribesmen/pirates, dying in a lightaircraft/helicopter mishap, or by autoerotic asphyxiation .
> 
> And even if none of that ever happens to them one of them will still always be called Felix Bungay


None of them looks old enough to shave, tbh.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 23, 2013)

Idris2002 said:


> Yes, yes he is.
> 
> What a rotten person Ayn Rand was.


 
Obvious masochist too.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 23, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> by jove I think he has flesh tunnels


 
If he doesn't, I'll happily carve him one.


----------



## Idris2002 (Apr 23, 2013)

Idris2002 said:


> An old colleague of mine is having a sort of semi-meltdown on Facebook, and recommending Murray Rothbard to all and sundry.


 
Now he has this to say:



> *Conspiracy theories are statements, never questions. Unanswered questions are, however, conspiracies against the truth.*


 
Isn't there quite a bit of overlap between Ron Paul-style "libertarians" and conspiraloons in the US?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 23, 2013)

J Ed said:


> My new favourite libertarian
> 
> https://twitter.com/jontycampbell
> 
> ...


 
And he's a descendent of the treacherous Clan Campbell, which makes him a wrong'un on any day of the month.


----------



## J Ed (Apr 23, 2013)




----------



## Idris2002 (Apr 23, 2013)

Homeschooled and ILLITERATE:

http://www.salon.com/2012/03/15/homeschooled_and_illiterate/


----------



## Knotted (Apr 23, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Obvious masochist too.


 
And a hybristophile.


----------



## nino_savatte (Apr 23, 2013)

J Ed said:


>



Is that cunt serious? Fucking hell!


----------



## Casually Red (Apr 23, 2013)

nino_savatte said:


> None of them looks old enough to shave, tbh.


 
which is good . That means theyre likely to go somewhere exotic  on a gap year or something .


----------



## cantsin (Apr 23, 2013)

we need to add Frankie Fucktard Turner to this thread - a proud libertarian and a man without a single molecule of integrity to his name

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/F1L5zJ2afLs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>


----------



## J Ed (Apr 24, 2013)

http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/04/23/ron_paul_fans_furious_over_rand_pauls_drone_flip_flop

Who saw that coming? Hint: everyone outside the cult


----------



## Casually Red (Apr 24, 2013)

J Ed said:


> My new favourite libertarian
> 
> https://twitter.com/jontycampbell
> 
> ...


 
jonty and felix..sticking it to the reds and then guffawing about it later over a  pimms in the adam smith inst bar


----------



## cesare (Apr 24, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> In some cases that may well have been the motivation, in others that i'm more familiar with though it was to specifically identify with the continental libertarian communist tradition (through the plaform to Fontenis rather than the floppy liberal bollocks anarchism of much of post-war anarchism - see albert meltzer for example.
> 
> 
> 
> edit: and i'd say post-miners strike that usage was replaced by small c communist.



Why do you consider Meltzer to be a floppy liberal bollocks anarchist? That's not what comes across in the Kate Sharpley overview of him http://www.katesharpleylibrary.net/w9gk1g although I've only read one of his books, which is why I'm curious.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Apr 24, 2013)

FB is awash with a new breed of sillies with catchphrases such as "UKIP For Me" and "UKIP All The Way". Some of them venture to suggest that the party is "libertarian".

I've never seen them square this with policies on doubling prison capacity or tax discs for cyclists.
To be fair I've seen some Libertarians rip them to shit.

I guess the main problem with modern libertarianism is that it is simplistic in the extreme. At least anarchists seem more ready to grapple with the issues and challenges their beliefs raise. self styled Libertarians tend to be smug know-all types, drooling of Rand and Ron Paul with no thought of the inevitable consequences of even more extreme madness than that which created the current economic mess.


----------



## JimW (Apr 24, 2013)

cesare said:


> Why do you consider Meltzer to be a floppy liberal bollocks anarchist? That's not what comes across in the Kate Sharpley overview of him http://www.katesharpleylibrary.net/w9gk1g although I've only read one of his books, which is why I'm curious.


I'm sure butchers means meltzer was one of the ones wanting to make the distinction, not that he was a floppy liberal. Mind I've only read half a book more than you so not any expert!


----------



## William of Walworth (Apr 24, 2013)

J Ed said:


> This is actually quite scary
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/21/b...l=1&adxnnlx=1366675638-JC/U491TItOKvzXXty4/Wg


 
In amidst all ths pisstaking and fringeloon stuff, this is the really serious/worrying bit I'd say. The Kochs have serious money and already have plenty of influence, and look determined to gain more.


----------



## cesare (Apr 24, 2013)

JimW said:


> I'm sure butchers means meltzer was one of the ones wanting to make the distinction, not that he was a floppy liberal. Mind I've only read half a book more than you so not any expert!



So see what Meltzer was saying about it for example, rather than see Meltzer for example. Gotcha


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 24, 2013)

cesare said:


> Why do you consider Meltzer to be a floppy liberal bollocks anarchist? That's not what comes across in the Kate Sharpley overview of him http://www.katesharpleylibrary.net/w9gk1g although I've only read one of his books, which is why I'm curious.





cesare said:


> So see what Meltzer was saying about it for example, rather than see Meltzer for example. Gotcha


 
Yep, that's it.


----------



## cesare (Apr 24, 2013)

Meltzer said:
			
		

> Liberal economics are almost as dead as the dodo. What rules is either the monopoly of the big firms, or of the State. Yet laissez-faire economics remain embodied aspirations of the Tory Party which they never implement. They object to the intervention of the State in business, but they never care to carry the spirit of competition too far. There is no logical reason why there should be any restriction on the movement of currency -- and this is good Tory policy (though never implemented! Not until the crisis, any crisis, is over!). From this point of view, why should we not be able to deal in gold pieces or U.S. dollars, or Maria Theresa tales, or Francs, or Deutschmarks, or even devalued Deutschmarks? The pound sterling would soon find its own level, and if it were devalued, so much the worse for it. But why stop there? If we can choose any currency we like, free socialism could coexist with capitalism and it would drive capitalism out.
> 
> Once free socialism competes with capitalism -- as it would if we would choose to ignore the State's symbolic money and deal in one of our own choosing, which reflected real work values -- who would choose to be exploited? Quite clearly no laissez-faire economist who had to combine his role with that of party politician would allow things to go that far.
> 
> ...


----------



## J Ed (Apr 24, 2013)




----------



## Idris2002 (Apr 24, 2013)

J Ed said:


>


 
"And then I'll say to Austria. . . form an alliance with the crown. . . not the king, just. . . the crown. They may mock me now, but when the history of this past era is written, they shall mark my name well. . . "


----------



## marty21 (Apr 25, 2013)

Old_Holborn on twitter describes himself as a libertarian and a defender of free speech - all was going well until he trolled liverpool people over hillsborough and Jamie Bulger and someone managed to find out who he was and the death threats started

http://www.thisistotalessex.co.uk/C...tory-18801178-detail/story.html#axzz2RTd6Uqqq


----------



## treelover (Apr 25, 2013)

Horrible man, but I really don't like this thing where people hassle his place of work, etc, won't be long before it happens to someone on the left

oh, it did, the teacher at the thatch parties..


----------



## nino_savatte (Apr 25, 2013)

Old Hobo is a cunt and an unpleasant one at that. I laughed my head off when I saw him for the first time at the Rally for Cuts a couple of years ago.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 25, 2013)

treelover said:


> Horrible man, but I really don't like this thing where people hassle his place of work, etc, won't be long before it happens to someone on the left
> 
> oh, it did, the teacher at the thatch parties..


Fuck him, he's not some organised group who can and will offer some comeback.


----------



## BigTom (Apr 27, 2013)

treelover said:


> Horrible man, but I really don't like this thing where people hassle his place of work, etc, won't be long before it happens to someone on the left
> 
> oh, it did, the teacher at the thatch parties..



Whilst I think it's wrong to direct any actual abuse at anyone except the man himself, his workplace deserves to be hassled for this alone:



> "We also have a young lad, who's 18 now, here on work experience for a year and a half who took an abusive call.


http://www.thisistotalessex.co.uk/O...tory-18801178-detail/story.html#axzz2RduBf5ju

A year and a half of work experience? That cannot be legal, surely.
Fuck the company, though the workers don't deserve to receive abusive phone calls, a communications blockade is a potentially useful tactic


----------



## treelover (Apr 29, 2013)

This one agrees with her UKIP colleague Cllr Tom Bursnall that the unemployed should not be able to vote, in fact its dangerous!
she is 23 year old former Tory Alexandra Swann, she is a self professed anarcho-capitalist and
her Phd is on 'Social Darwinism' Ugh...

http://politicalscrapbook.net/2012/04/alexandra-swann-unemployed-voting/


''whats the ugliest part of your body, I think its your mind'...

Frank Zappa


----------



## treelover (Apr 29, 2013)

> . I did not defend Cllr Bursnall. I said he raised interesting points. My comment about dangerous was in reference to national debt through excessive public spending – I have NEVER advocated reducing the franchise or abolishing one man one vote.
> 2. My PhD is on Herbert Spencer and 19thC land tenure reform, not Social Darwinism.
> 3. I’m 24.
> [*]Please in future contact me before taking my comments out of context. I said Tom raised interesting points from a theoretical perspective, I wasn’t saying it should be UKIP policy.



 

Oop, PS got it wrong, to a degree, she was quick to respond, very net savvy these RW libertarians.




> AlexandraLouiseSwann
> ‏ @AlexandralSwann
> Follow
> @GarethJAnderson no,allowing people to vote on how other people’s money is spent-if they dont contribute-is dangerous.wouldnt reverse reform
> 9:12 PM – 17 Apr 12 via Twitter for BlackBerry®


 


update, ah, but twitter is your friend


----------



## Idris2002 (Apr 29, 2013)

Ronaldo Bates said:


> It doesn't much matter what you say when you're only 23 though.
> 
> They recently made a 24 year-old at work a supervisor for some reason. When he tells us something we just look at him and then carry on as if he never said it.


----------



## treelover (Apr 29, 2013)

Eh?


----------



## Idris2002 (Apr 30, 2013)

treelover said:


> Eh?


 
I mean that the Life and Strange Adventures of LLETSA bear a startling resemblance to those of Radio 4 favourite Ed Reardon.


----------



## sihhi (May 7, 2013)

Looking forward to a new UKIP dawn

https://libertarianalliance.wordpress.com/2013/05/02/i-voted-ukip-earlier-today



"make shame on the tories and labour. sack the cliamte advisiors on the councils, rid yourselves of the parasites, cut the obese millage allowances in local government and the soical services, reduce the overtime, fat people sitting on their backsides eating “Pot Noddles” and drinking tea"

_fat people sitting on their backsides eating “Pot Noddles” and drinking tea_

that's how they see the workforce of the country

I think this is all irony though - not sure.


"I had two votes, but there was only one UKIP candidate. So I voted only once."
"I see my vote was of some use here in Kent. Partly thanks to me, UKIP is now the official opposition in the county."


----------



## J Ed (May 9, 2013)

Spiked Online = 'libertarian' paedos

http://www.spiked-online.com/site/article/13604/


----------



## nino_savatte (May 9, 2013)

treelover said:


> This one agrees with her UKIP colleague Cllr Tom Bursnall that the unemployed should not be able to vote, in fact its dangerous!
> she is 23 year old former Tory Alexandra Swann, she is a self professed anarcho-capitalist and
> her Phd is on 'Social Darwinism' Ugh...
> 
> ...


I've just had another look at that photo and it seems a little photoshopped (a la James Purnell). Is that really Farage's head or did they take it from somewhere else and splice it onto a hapless suit?


----------



## J Ed (May 19, 2013)




----------



## J Ed (May 19, 2013)

https://www.facebook.com/media/set/...81733612776.1073741825.471946726159611&type=3

Straight to the fucking gulag all of them


----------



## DotCommunist (May 19, 2013)

J Ed said:


>


 

thats a satan-beard, a crap satan beard


----------



## Brixton Hatter (May 20, 2013)

Felix has a blog on Conservative Home:  http://conservativehome.blogs.com/platform/felix-bungay/

His profile pic is the one with the wierd shit hanging off his ear!


----------



## Casually Red (Jun 2, 2013)

8ball said:


> Definitely some truth in that, though not so much about attracting an audience so much as not immediately alienating people.
> 
> Agree with butchers about how the term libertarianism has been gifted to the right. To some extent I think that's deliberate.


 
 both right and left libertarians have the marquis de sade in their ideological family tree, and i sort of chuckle at that line in Pasolinis _Salo_, when the boyo announces _we fascists are the only true anarchists ._

fucking free thinkers


----------



## Casually Red (Jun 2, 2013)

nino_savatte said:


> I've just had another look at that photo and it seems a little photoshopped (a la James Purnell). Is that really Farage's head or did they take it from somewhere else and splice it onto a hapless suit?


 
by the positioning of his fingers in that one, he looks like hes having a serious thought about groping her left tit . Which would explain the massive weird grin .


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 2, 2013)

J Ed said:


>


 
Who is that cunt? We need a picture of that pinochet loving neckbeard libertarian wanker at Sheffield Uni on this thread - he's another classic case.


----------



## J Ed (Jun 2, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Who is that cunt? We need a picture of that pinochet loving neckbeard libertarian wanker at Sheffield Uni on this thread - he's another classic case.


 

Is/was a Sheffield student, pictured here at a meeting for an organisation he set up for Tories to suck up to central Asian dictatorships.

I'm waiting for him to advance in the party cos I have some stuff that links him to the BNP.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 2, 2013)

J Ed said:


> Is/was a Sheffield student, pictured here at a meeting for an organisation he set up for Tories to suck up to central Asian dictatorships.
> 
> I'm waiting for him to advance in the party cos I have some stuff that links him to the BNP.


 
Don't think it's embedded properly mate - is it from his facebook? Might have to right click and save the pic then upload it onto here. For the sake of the international proletariat this needs doing.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 2, 2013)

My flatmate sent friend requests to all the librarian society members so that we could do proper files on them with pictures and everything. We never got around to doing the files though - honest!


----------



## thedockerslad (Jun 2, 2013)

The most help I've ever had from a librarian was silently pointing towards the exit.


----------



## J Ed (Jun 2, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Don't think it's embedded properly mate - is it from his facebook? Might have to right click and save the pic then upload it onto here. For the sake of the international proletariat this needs doing.


 

Here's a choice few from the Central Asian Enterprise and Investment Forum founding meeting at the East India Club http://imgur.com/a/C91NM


----------



## emanymton (Jun 2, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> has there ever been a Jonty who wasn't a massive prick? Its like the name is a curse, doomed to warp its bearer into the sort of person you want to kerb stamp


A few years ago the WRP had a leading student member withe the great name of Jonty left. Can't comment on his prick status though


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 2, 2013)

emanymton said:


> A few years ago the WRP had a leading student member withe the great name of Jonty left. Can't comment on his prick status though


 
Close - was leff i'm afraid.


----------



## emanymton (Jun 2, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Close - was leff i'm afraid.


Was it? Crap I got lied to, or someone miss heard.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 2, 2013)

*CUNTS*

Sorry about that, I feel better now though.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jun 2, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> My flatmate sent friend requests to all the librarian society members so that we could do proper files on them with pictures and everything. We never got around to doing the files though - honest!


 

What have the librarians ever done to you?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 2, 2013)

cynicaleconomy said:


> What have the librarians ever done to you?


 
SSShhhhhhhhh! The cunts


----------



## sihhi (Jun 7, 2013)

Here is the Libertarian right taking up intersectionality/privilege politics

http://petespence.co.uk/why-libertarians-should-embrace-ideas-of-privilege-and-intersectionality





> We find that in many cases, minorities are better able to fend for themselves when left alone, despite the existence of oppression, than when politicians attempt to help. Libertarians will be familiar with the example of the minimum wage, which is thought to disproportionately render the young, black and the disabled unable to find a willing employer.
> 
> Trade is not only a great tool to generate wealth and prevent wars, but it is also a great equaliser. The co-ordinating forces of trade see thousands of people who might never speak to each other if they passed each other on a street working together to create.
> 
> Economic historians have documented the ways in which even in the face of great social oppression, where markets are present, the oppressed are able to live better lives.


 
The libertarian minority caucus: Fight against any positive reforms, fight for real libertarian capitalism!


----------



## Nylock (Jun 7, 2013)

jesus christ 

does that clown also still believe in santa and the tooth fairy?


----------



## caleb (Jun 7, 2013)

Here's the grain of truth in that piece though, far more honest than anything a left-wing supporter of these concepts will admit:



> *These three concepts are all inherently individualist ones*. They ask you only to remember that information asymmetries exist. People can not be treated homogenously, and suffer particular issues that are individual to them. We should act accordingly.


----------



## Ungrateful (Jun 7, 2013)

caleb said:


> Here's the grain of truth in that piece though, far more honest than anything a left-wing supporter of these concepts will admit:


 
I don't know any left-winger who is unaware of this. How odd that such an obvious principle, which appears to recognise that different people in different contexts require different (though often just subtley differet) norms and practices in order to thrive, should be used to justify the universal approval of market principles.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Jun 7, 2013)

I have nothing against Librarians.


----------



## 8ball (Jun 7, 2013)

Dillinger4 said:


> I have nothing against Librarians.


 
Ssshhh!!


----------



## Dillinger4 (Jun 7, 2013)

thedockerslad said:


> The most help I've ever had from a librarian was silently pointing towards the exit.


 

true situationists


----------



## Dillinger4 (Jun 7, 2013)

Nylock said:


> jesus christ
> 
> does that clown also still believe in santa and the tooth fairy?


 

wait what are you trying to say?


----------



## caleb (Jun 7, 2013)

Ungrateful said:


> I don't know any left-winger who is unaware of this. How odd that such an obvious principle, which appears to recognise that different people in different contexts require different (though often just subtley differet) norms and practices in order to thrive, should be used to justify the universal approval of market principles.


 
Read more carefully, "left-wing _supporter of these concepts_". Something like "checking your privilege" is an inherently liberal/individualist approach to racism, etc. and yet you'll find self-proclaimed 'communists' touting it.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 8, 2013)

I think that article could prove very useful.


----------



## xenon (Jun 8, 2013)

Check your privilege agrovates me,as  a phrase and what it seems to imply. But Anarcho Capatlists, right wing libertarians still strike me as either selfish immature brats, dressing there why can't I have XYZ in philosophical tinsel or sociopathic wankers.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jun 8, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Here is the Libertarian right taking up intersectionality/privilege politics
> 
> http://petespence.co.uk/why-libertarians-should-embrace-ideas-of-privilege-and-intersectionality
> 
> The libertarian minority caucus: Fight against any positive reforms, fight for real libertarian capitalism!


 
This is interesting. If you check back to the old debates between Edmund Burke and Tom Paine, the "revolution controversy" between _Reflections on the Revolution in France_ and _The Rights of Man_, this is an interesting sub-argument where the political strands of conservatism and classical liberalism diverge from modern liberalism and democratic socialism. It's pretty much where the modern notions of left vs right come from. Edmund Burke was a reactionary classical liberal tosspiece who considered povetry to be a defect of the individual, Paine on the other hand considered poverty to be a product of society and the economy, something deliberately built into the economy and not an unavoidable fact of life based on the inadaquecy of the general population. Burke constantly individualises the roots of poverty whereas Paine looks at it structurally, and when I was reading some Burke for research related my luddite studies there's a number of quotes I underlined which, when read today, would be more than consistent with some versions of intersectionality that I see. The fact there's libertarians who have come to the same conclusion doesn't surprise me at all.

If you wanted to do a really rough "intersectionality is inherently conservative and reactionary" hitjob then you couldn't really start with a better place than Edmund Burke. I'm on Tom Paine's side myself.


----------



## Casually Red (Jun 8, 2013)

i just hate the word libertarian

its like something Mr Darcy would accuse someone of

fops


----------



## protesticals (Jun 8, 2013)

Amazed at the appalling postures of violence against such an irrelevant group. Really nasty talk of beating up kids who dare to have different viewpoints from you or me. What was more offensive was the attacks based on physical appearance. Like you lot are all Adonises and Aphrodites.
Since when have progressive people judged anyone on their physical attractiveness.

I also thought this thread was about libertarians and it turned into a rant about UKIP who are certainly not libertarians.

Whilst I don't share Libertarians economic policies their social policies are far more in line with mine and that certainly can't be compared to UKIP.

Some really nasty people here. I hope I meet some nice ones.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 8, 2013)

Oh lord, a whiney libertarian. This should be fun.


----------



## protesticals (Jun 8, 2013)

As I said I am not a Libertarian. I am an anti-capitalist Green.


----------



## chilango (Jun 8, 2013)

Still whining though.


----------



## protesticals (Jun 8, 2013)

chilango said:


> Still whining though.


Lovely to meet you . Are you an armchair body builder too?

Whining= What bullies call the protestations of weaker people.


----------



## chilango (Jun 8, 2013)

protesticals said:


> Lovely to meet you . Are you an armchair body builder too?
> 
> Whining= What bullies call the protestations of weaker people.



Wut?

Armchair body builder? Huh huh. 

You got issues.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 8, 2013)

protesticals said:


> Amazed at the appalling postures of violence against such an irrelevant group. Really nasty talk of beating up kids who dare to have different viewpoints from you or me. What was more offensive was the attacks based on physical appearance. Like you lot are all Adonises and Aphrodites.
> Since when have progressive people judged anyone on their physical attractiveness.
> 
> I also thought this thread was about libertarians and it turned into a rant about UKIP who are certainly not libertarians.
> ...


 
oh look - another one who needs his legs breaking


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 8, 2013)

protesticals said:


> I am an anti-capitalist Green.


 
Why doesn't that surprise me?


----------



## emanymton (Jun 8, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> oh look - another one who needs his legs breaking


Just his legs? Bloody liberal


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 8, 2013)

protesticals, if you had to would you cull the working class to save the amazonian tree frog? I bet you would you rotter


----------



## Dillinger4 (Jun 8, 2013)

protesticals said:


> As I said I am not a Libertarian. I am an anti-capitalist Green.


 
oh dear.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 8, 2013)

protesticals said:


> As I said I am not a Libertarian. I am an anti-capitalist Green.


Green meaning what?


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jun 8, 2013)

protesticals said:


> Amazed at the appalling postures of violence against such an irrelevant group. Really nasty talk of beating up kids who dare to have different viewpoints from you or me. What was more offensive was the attacks based on physical appearance. Like you lot are all Adonises and Aphrodites.
> Since when have progressive people judged anyone on their physical attractiveness.
> 
> I also thought this thread was about libertarians and it turned into a rant about UKIP who are certainly not libertarians.
> ...


 

They're not being judged on their attractiveness, they're being mocked for looking, dressing and posing like upper class tossers. They're also not being attacked for having 'different viewpoints' from anybody. They're being attacked for using their privileged backgrounds and/or privileged positions to promote policies and positions that are having/would have a deleterious impact on the poorest and most marginalised sections of society. Some of the talk is nasty. What goes around comes around.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 8, 2013)

protesticals said:


> Amazed at the appalling postures of violence against such an irrelevant group. Really nasty talk of beating up kids who dare to have different viewpoints from you or me. What was more offensive was the attacks based on physical appearance. Like you lot are all Adonises and Aphrodites.
> Since when have progressive people judged anyone on their physical attractiveness.


 
Learn to punctuate. It makes your sentences *slightly* more relevant and coherent.



> I also thought this thread was about libertarians and it turned into a rant about UKIP who are certainly not libertarians.


 
By whose definition?
It's certainly the case that part of UKIP's roots are in the Libertarian Alliance, and that UKIP's leader was one of the founders of the Libertarian Alliance, so perhaps you need to add a little historical perspective to your knowledge base?



> Whilst I don't share Libertarians economic policies their social policies are far more in line with mine and that certainly can't be compared to UKIP.


 
Which social policies would they be? Left-libertarian; right-libertarian; anarcho-capitalist? What?



> Some really nasty people here. I hope I meet some nice ones.


 
Pfft.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 8, 2013)

protesticals said:


> As I said I am not a Libertarian. I am an anti-capitalist Green.


 
So you're a liberal with enough of a guilt complex to be ecologically-minded.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 8, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Why doesn't that surprise me?


 
The politics of the tortured middle class.

You know, the ones who're not *quite* so tortured that they want to do anything immediate or to-the-point like protesting social conditions, so they stick with being green and "sticking it to the man" by calling themselves "anti-capitalists", while sipping a latte and wanking about with an iPad/iPod/iPenis.


----------



## rioted (Jun 8, 2013)

protesticals said:


> As I said I am not a Libertarian. I am an anti-capitalist Green.


You'll soon learn that here "debate" is "robust" - it consists of hitting each other over the head til one side gives in. Comes down to who's got the biggest Club. And they do like picking on outsiders - it's their authoritarian pack instinct.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 8, 2013)

I blame the feminists.


----------



## protesticals (Jun 8, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> The politics of the tortured middle class.
> 
> You know, the ones who're not *quite* so tortured that they want to do anything immediate or to-the-point like protesting social conditions, so they stick with being green and "sticking it to the man" by calling themselves "anti-capitalists", while sipping a latte and wanking about with an iPad/iPod/iPenis.


 

Ah the prolier than thou, horny handed son of the toil response. I presume you mean protesting against social conditions.


----------



## protesticals (Jun 8, 2013)

rioted said:


> You'll soon learn that here "debate" is "robust" - it consists of hitting each other over the head til one side gives in. Comes down to who's got the biggest Club. And they do like picking on outsiders - it's their authoritarian pack instinct.


 
So I see. Its quite amusing to see so many internet warriors show me their willies.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 8, 2013)

protesticals said:


> Ah the prolier than thou, horny handed son of the toil response. I presume you mean protesting against social conditions.


 
That's the best you can do - a jibe about my class, and a meaningless remark about my usage of English (both forms are equally valid in standard British English, by the way)?

Oh boy.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 8, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I blame the feminists.


 
The good feminists or the bad feminists?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 8, 2013)

It's all the same to rioted.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 8, 2013)

protesticals said:


> So I see. Its quite amusing to see so many internet warriors show me their willies.


 

my flies are closed


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jun 8, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> oh look - another one who needs his legs breaking


 
Comrade, we can't be breaking all their legs, that's salt's not gonna mine itself....


----------



## BigTom (Jun 8, 2013)

protesticals nice name, what do you think of Laurie Penny?


----------



## el-ahrairah (Jun 8, 2013)

why do we get all the drive-by pillocks?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 8, 2013)

protesticals said:


> So I see. Its quite amusing to see so many internet warriors show me their willies.


 
That was my belly button, weirdo.


----------



## 8ball (Jun 8, 2013)

rioted said:


> You'll soon learn that here "debate" is "robust" - it consists of hitting each other over the head til one side gives in. Comes down to who's got the biggest Club. And they do like picking on outsiders - it's their authoritarian pack instinct.


 
Any thread relating to libertarians is going to attract authoritarians and lead to a bit of a weird dynamic.

cf. feminist threads and misogynists


----------



## J Ed (Jun 8, 2013)

8ball said:


> Any thread relating to libertarians is going to attract authoritarians and lead to a bit of a weird dynamic.
> 
> cf. feminist threads and misogynists


 

There's nothing particularly 'libertarian' about these people in any meaningful sense of the word. They worship authority and capital to the extent that the authority of capital MUST trample absolutely unimpeded over each and every liberty.


----------



## 8ball (Jun 8, 2013)

J Ed said:


> There's nothing particularly 'libertarian' about these people in any meaningful sense of the word. They worship authority and capital to the extent that the authority of capital MUST trample absolutely unimpeded over each and every liberty.


 
Certainly true - it look as if most 'right-wing' libertarians seem to have confused freedom with tyranny in a manner that is so complete that it's actually quite puzzling.  At least until it becomes obvious that they are just completely disingenuous and dishonest.  You get a few who seem sincere and actually aim for a kid of consistency, but I think these become either disillusioned or treated as 'useful idiots' in pretty short shrift.

On the other hand, there is plenty that is particularly 'authoritarian' about plenty of the posts on this thread.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 8, 2013)

Most of the Libertarians I've encountered are fans of Pinochet. Seriously.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 8, 2013)

el-ahrairah said:


> why do we get all the drive-by pillocks?


 
becuase we are a collection of cantankerous arseholes who give as much sufferance to fools as I would give to the home for aged fascists

its a hard life. I just cooked a chicken that cost me a pound and realised it was rotten while halfway through it. I mean for fucks sake. Why am I being sold shonky meat now- this is libertarianism they would be all 'well you bought this bad meat in a fair exchange and thus have no recourse to moan about it'

yhey'd sell your kids heroin if it was done in fair exchange, cos y'know, human interaction can only be improved by market forces and the free exchange of goods. Fuck I hate these people. I'd render them down for dogfood and silage.


----------



## 8ball (Jun 8, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Most of the Libertarians I've encountered are fans of Pinochet. Seriously.


 
When the libertarians are authoritarians it's no wonder the debate gets confused and angry.


----------



## 8ball (Jun 8, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> I just cooked a chicken that cost me a pound and realised it was rotten while halfway through it.


 
Where are you buying these chickens?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 8, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Most of the Libertarians I've encountered are fans of Pinochet. Seriously.


 

thats not rare. These people believe pinochet won a grand battle. By having every trade unionist and his wife raped by dogs. Other than that, they are good enough fellows.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 8, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> becuase we are a collection of cantankerous arseholes who give as much sufferance to fools as I would give to the home for aged fascists
> 
> its a hard life. I just cooked a chicken that cost me a pound and realised it was rotten while halfway through it. I mean for fucks sake. Why am I being sold shonky meat now- this is libertarianism they would be all 'well you bought this bad meat in a fair exchange and thus have no recourse to moan about it'
> 
> yhey'd sell your kids heroin if it was done in fair exchange, cos y'know, human interaction can only be improved by market forces and the free exchange of goods. Fuck I hate these people. I'd render them down for dogfood and silage.


 
Stick a bit of rope up their arses, plant their heads in the ground and use the cunts as candles to light the streets.


----------



## 8ball (Jun 8, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Stick a bit of rope up their arses, plant their heads in the ground and use the cunts as candles to light the streets.


 
I'm going to need some clarification - you're _not_ a fan of Pinochet.
Is that right? 

edit: Hang on, is this where the term 'arsecandle' comes from?  Should I be posting this on the 'incredibly obvious things you never realised' thread?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 8, 2013)

8ball said:


> I'm going to need some clarification - you're _not_ a fan of Pinochet.
> Is that right?
> 
> edit: Hang on, is this where the term 'arsecandle' comes from? Should I be posting this on the 'incredibly obvious things you never realised' thread?


 
No I am most definitely not - that fate is reserved for its supporters.

And I think I just made that up so it probably isn't where arse candle comes from


----------



## Dillinger4 (Jun 9, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Most of the Libertarians I've encountered are fans of Pinochet. Seriously.


 

true that.

sick fucks.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jun 9, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> becuase we are a collection of cantankerous arseholes who give as much sufferance to fools as I would give to the home for aged fascists
> 
> its a hard life. I just cooked a chicken that cost me a pound and realised it was rotten while halfway through it. I mean for fucks sake. Why am I being sold shonky meat now- this is libertarianism they would be all 'well you bought this bad meat in a fair exchange and thus have no recourse to moan about it'
> 
> yhey'd sell your kids heroin if it was done in fair exchange, cos y'know, human interaction can only be improved by market forces and the free exchange of goods. Fuck I hate these people. I'd render them down for dogfood and silage.


 
If you cook it right through it'll probably be alright though.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jun 9, 2013)

protesticals said:


> Amazed at the appalling postures of violence against such an irrelevant group. Really nasty talk of beating up kids who dare to have different viewpoints from you or me. What was more offensive was the attacks based on physical appearance. Like you lot are all *Adonises and Aphrodites*.
> Since when have progressive people judged anyone on their physical attractiveness.
> 
> I also thought this thread was about libertarians and it turned into a rant about UKIP who are certainly not libertarians.
> ...


 
I'm both adonis and aphrodite. And I've got a reasonable sized cock. And I'm a self styled "nice guy". Fancy a bum?


----------



## J Ed (Jun 9, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> its a hard life. I just cooked a chicken that cost me a pound and realised it was rotten while halfway through it. I mean for fucks sake. Why am I being sold shonky meat now- this is libertarianism they would be all 'well you bought this bad meat in a fair exchange and thus have no recourse to moan about it'


 

Typical pinko, don't you know that if there were no government intervention in the economy then market forces would finally be unleashed capable of miraculously curing your chicken?


----------



## 8ball (Jun 9, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> And I think I just made that up so it probably isn't where arse candle comes from


 
A quick Google seems to point towards Chris Morris as the originator of the term.


----------



## J Ed (Jun 9, 2013)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22832994

Alex Jones on The Daily Politics hahaha


----------



## 8ball (Jun 9, 2013)

J Ed said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22832994
> 
> Alex Jones on The Daily Politics hahaha


 


Much as it pains me to agree with Aaronavitch, if I was in charge of the New World Order I'd _definitely_ have Jones or someone like him on the payroll.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Jun 9, 2013)

8ball said:


> Much as it pains me to agree with Aaronavitch, if I was in charge of the New World Order I'd _definitely_ have Jones or someone like him on the payroll.


 

I have just said something similar on that bilderberg thread. I have suspected it for ages, it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if it were true.


----------



## YouSir (Jun 9, 2013)

Intensely dislike Alex Jones when he's in the US because he's not alone in being a shouting halfwit there and he does seem to be given some credence. Here though it's quite funny as people really don't take him seriously. Guessing he doesn't understand the national differences.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 9, 2013)

Dillinger4 said:


> I have just said something similar on that bilderberg thread. I have suspected it for ages, it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if it were true.


 
I don't think you'd need to pay or engineer these sorts. The conditions and processes of society will produce them. No need for payroll. Maybe watch them and feed them. But never an active recruitment and training. Why would they?


----------



## Dillinger4 (Jun 9, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> I don't think you'd need to pay or engineer these sorts. The conditions and processes of society will produce them. No need for payroll. Maybe watch them and feed them. But never an active recruitment and training. Why would they?


 

For the rest of them, I agree. But Alex Jones just seems too perfect in disseminating misinformation.

I have been reading about the CIA's involvement in the cultural cold war, what was called 'The Mighty Wurlitzer'. I think even you might be surprised the kind of people they had on their payroll. 

It would be quite useful for them to have a person considered widely credible in the paranoid community spreading massive amounts of misinformation and false directions to people who might be dangerous if they had a clue.

Like I said, it is not something I have any evidence of. It is just something that seems plausible and would be unsurprising if true. Speculation. Also another reason to think he is full of shit.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 9, 2013)

Dillinger4 said:


> For the rest of them, I agree. But Alex Jones just seems too perfect in disseminating misinformation.


 I have commented to my frogz before that Jones has the air of snake-oil showmanship about him rather than Ickes solid belief in his shit.

He just rings false. I'd be more inclined to believe he is a moneymaker rather than an asset. Why should the state pay for his like when he can fund himself and be fed the odd tidbit to maintain his credibility amongst the fans?

If you don't have to make them but just water them?

Will read on your linkage though. There very much is a secret war going on for the control of ideas and public perception. And we are losing. Badly.

change gonna come though


----------



## Dillinger4 (Jun 9, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> I have commented to my frogz before that Jones has the air of snake-oil showmanship about him rather than Ickes solid belief in his shit.
> 
> He just rings false. I'd be more inclined to believe he is a moneymaker rather than an asset. Why should the state pay for his like when he can fund himself and be fed the odd tidbit to maintain his credibility amongst the fans?
> 
> ...


 

It is the falseness that makes me suspicious. And why can't he be both? It is America, after all. He wouldn't be plausible if he wasn't a success. 

He can spout off about whatever he wants to sell his DVDs, and every so often be given a certain message that is to be put there to misinform. He makes me very suspicious.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 9, 2013)

J Ed said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22832994
> 
> Alex Jones on The Daily Politics hahaha


In amongst that, he does make a good point: 'You think they only spy on the bad guys?' It's the basic contradiction that's always there when you consent to the idea of being spied on, and those who would do the spying cultivate people's fear to manufacture that consent. That was Blair's govt in a nutshell - scare people into consenting to having more and more civil rights taken away from them, a process that started even before 9-11. And it largely worked.


----------



## 8ball (Jun 9, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> I have commented to my frogz before that Jones has the air of snake-oil showmanship about him rather than Ickes solid belief in his shit.
> 
> He just rings false. I'd be more inclined to believe he is a moneymaker rather than an asset. Why should the state pay for his like when he can fund himself and be fed the odd tidbit to maintain his credibility amongst the fans?
> 
> If you don't have to make them but just water them?


 
You certainly have some insight into managing costs in the disinformation propaganda process.
If you got yourself Lean Six Sigma accredited you could totally rinse the Government for consultancy fees.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jun 10, 2013)

Dillinger4 said:


> true that.
> 
> sick fucks.


Including one former poster/cunt on here.


----------



## J Ed (Jun 21, 2013)

Someone commenting on a thread that contained this popped up on my facebook timeline

From a libertarian



> 'He broke the law' isn't an argument. We know that. Oscar Wilde broke the law, slaves who ran away broke the law. The only relevant aspect is whether those laws are moral or not.
> 
> He didn't violate a position of trust at all.
> 
> ...


 
What the fuck is it with all these libertarians and paedophilia?


----------



## 8ball (Jun 21, 2013)

Seems both sides in that argument are trying to apply logic to the law.

Mug's game, that.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 9, 2013)

http://www.alternet.org/visions/tru...-ideology-promote-corporate-agenda?paging=off


----------



## Citizen66 (Sep 9, 2013)

I've asked this question before and cesare answered but I actually forgot what she said.  hobbes? Hobsian?

If we have a society without a state and the class system is maintained, how do they protect their ill gotten gains? Private security firms whose employees become the boss class? I can't get my head around anarcho-capitalism at all.


----------



## cesare (Sep 9, 2013)

Citizen66 said:


> I've asked this question before and cesare answered but I actually forgot what she said.  hobbes? Hobsian?
> 
> If we have a society without a state and the class system is maintained, how do they protect their ill gotten gains? Private security firms whose employees become the boss class? I can't get my head around anarcho-capitalism at all.


Did you mean #208?


----------



## Citizen66 (Sep 9, 2013)

cesare said:


> Did you mean #208?



Was it on this thread?  shit, I'll go and check.


----------



## Citizen66 (Sep 9, 2013)

cesare said:


> Did you mean #208?



I don't think so...


----------



## cesare (Sep 9, 2013)

Citizen66 said:


> I don't think so...


I can't remember saying anything much about anarcho-capitalism beyond saying it's not really anarchism at all.


----------



## The Pale King (Sep 9, 2013)

J Ed said:


> Is/was a Sheffield student, pictured here at a meeting for an organisation he set up for Tories to suck up to central Asian dictatorships.
> 
> I'm waiting for him to advance in the party cos I have some stuff that links him to the BNP.



https://www.facebook.com/media/set/...81733612776.1073741825.471946726159611&type=3
I think this photo's my favourite. It's funny how he wasn't fist-bumping with any of the other people at the party. I wonder why...


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 10, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Most of the Libertarians I've encountered are fans of Pinochet. Seriously.









The Duke:_ It is when I see others degraded that I rejoice knowing it is better to be me than the scum of "the people". Whenever men are equal, without that difference, happiness cannot exist. So you wouldn't aid the humble, the unhappy. In all the world no voluptuousness flatters the senses more than social privilege. _


The Duke: _We Fascists are the only true anarchists, naturally, once we're masters of the state. In fact, the one true anarchy is that of power. _


----------



## Dillinger4 (Sep 10, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> The Duke:_ It is when I see others degraded that I rejoice knowing it is better to be me than the scum of "the people". Whenever men are equal, without that difference, happiness cannot exist. So you wouldn't aid the humble, the unhappy. In all the world no voluptuousness flatters the senses more than social privilege. _
> 
> 
> The Duke: _We Fascists are the only true anarchists, naturally, once we're masters of the state. In fact, the one true anarchy is that of power. _



I watched this recently. It is one of the few films that left me feeling completely empty by the end. Pasolini is a genius.


----------



## Idris2002 (Sep 10, 2013)

The Pale King said:


> https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.564081733612776.1073741825.471946726159611&type=3#!/media/set/?set=a.564081733612776.1073741825.471946726159611&type=3
> I think this photo's my favourite. It's funny how he wasn't fist-bumping with any of the other people at the party. I wonder why...



They really do all look inbred, don't they?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Sep 10, 2013)

Dillinger4 said:


> I watched this recently. It is one of the few films that left me feeling completely empty by the end. Pasolini is a genius.


what's the fillum called?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 10, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> what's the fillum called?


Salo

Pasolini turned on the students and workers in the hot autumn and after and sided with the police and the state mind.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Sep 11, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Salo
> 
> Pasolini turned on the students and workers in the hot autumn and after and sided with the police and the state mind.



I thought Pasolini was alright (politically) right up until the end? I don't know a huge amount about his biography, I admit.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 11, 2013)

So I found this http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/spain.htm

It's a 'history' of Anarchism in the Spanish Civil War by an 'Anarcho'-Capitalist, and it's just amazing. I cannot imagine it getting a 2.1 at undrgraduate level and yet it's written by an actual economics professor. Wow.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 11, 2013)

Dillinger4 said:


> I thought Pasolini was alright (politically) right up until the end? I don't know a huge amount about his biography, I admit.


His politics were awful, do what the PCI orders me to do, defend the idea of the PCI embodying the national interest (the class interests being seen as a subordinate to this) in conjunction with the nice capitalists - and so by extension, people who challenge this reading in words or deed (the workers and students in the hot autumn for example) are anti-national and class interest and need extirpating - "left-wing facists" in fact. This was obviously after he himself had finally rejected fascism.




			
				Pasolini said:
			
		

> Now all the journalists in the world are licking your arses… but not me, my dears. You have the faces of spoilt brats, and I hate you, like I hate your fathers .... When yesterday at Valle Giulia you beat up the police, I sympathized with the police because they are the sons of the poor.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 11, 2013)

J Ed said:


> So I found this http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/spain.htm
> 
> It's a 'history' of Anarchism in the Spanish Civil War by an 'Anarcho'-Capitalist, and it's just amazing. I cannot imagine it getting a 2.1 at undrgraduate level and yet it's written by an actual economics professor. Wow.


He _was _a student when he wrote that  - that -  and him - is famous in usenet history for him jumping into any thread possible to spam it and talk about libertarianism is. He was in just about every anarchist on the internets kill file.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 11, 2013)

Interesting backstory!


----------



## SpineyNorman (Sep 11, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Salo
> 
> Pasolini turned on the students and workers in the hot autumn and after and sided with the police and the state mind.



That film is very strange. I'm really glad I wasn't at my mum's when I watched it cos, not knowing it was about extreme s&m like stuff (yeah I know, should have read the IMDB page), I'd have probably asked her if she wanted to watch it with me, which would have been awkward!


----------



## J Ed (Sep 19, 2013)

This is what libertarians actually believe http://www.forbes.com/sites/harrybi...es-its-time-for-the-99-to-give-back-to-the-1/


----------



## 8ball (Sep 19, 2013)

J Ed said:


> This is what libertarians actually believe http://www.forbes.com/sites/harrybi...es-its-time-for-the-99-to-give-back-to-the-1/


 
Ayn Rand follower in 'barking mad' shocker.


----------



## pissflaps (Sep 19, 2013)

do you think they know that she wrote novels?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 19, 2013)

J Ed said:


> This is what libertarians actually believe http://www.forbes.com/sites/harrybi...es-its-time-for-the-99-to-give-back-to-the-1/



Is "Binswanger" a  name, or a directive?
I have to say that his column (three examples of which I forced myself to read) is the kind of absolutist religious thinking I usually expect from zealots or fanatics for an ideology - logic proceeding from false premises, and near total elision of any inconvenient facts.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 19, 2013)

pissflaps said:


> do you think they know that she wrote novels?



I believe that some of them may even take their sexual etiquette from her novels, believing them to actually be directives.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 19, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> I believe that some of them may even take their sexual etiquette from her novels, believing them to actually be directives.



http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/shouts/2012/10/i-was-ayn-rands-lover.html


----------



## treelover (Nov 20, 2013)

http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...nservative-grassroots-candidate-sexuality-gay


Mark Wallace is now having articles in the Guardian, ffs..


----------



## nino_savatte (Nov 20, 2013)

J Ed said:


> http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/shouts/2012/10/i-was-ayn-rands-lover.html


Mind bleach NOW!


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Nov 20, 2013)

Eek.


----------



## Quartz (Nov 20, 2013)

nino_savatte said:


> Mind bleach NOW!



You mean it's not satire?


----------



## nino_savatte (Nov 20, 2013)

Quartz said:


> You mean it's not satire?


It's the image in the mind, satire or not.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Nov 20, 2013)

Didn't Alan Greenspan have an affair with Rand?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 20, 2013)

cynicaleconomy said:


> Didn't Alan Greenspan have an affair with Rand?


Loads and loads of people did. Very complicated and bitchy infighting around it as well - involving literary executors, money, the right to operate under the RAND imprint today.


----------



## Stigmata (Nov 21, 2013)

Is support for trade unions incompatible with libertarianism? Cos i'm politely arguing with someone who I quite like and don't want to alienate, and he reckons it's not.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 21, 2013)

Stigmata said:


> Is support for trade unions incompatible with libertarianism? Cos i'm politely arguing with someone who I quite like and don't want to alienate, and he reckons it's not.


 
It's a definite 'it depends'.

edit: those agreeing that libertarian espouses the right to associate with others free from coercion would be decidedly against 'closed shop' and other monopolistic union practices, but even 'right libertarian' types I've spoken to make no arguments against workplace organisation _per se_


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Nov 21, 2013)

Hilarious recent lecture from Yaron Brook, the executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute, at the LSE:

http://www.lse.ac.uk/newsAndMedia/videoAndAudio/channels/publicLecturesAndEvents/player.aspx?id=2071

He sounds like Barry Kripke from the Big Bang Theory:


----------



## J Ed (Nov 21, 2013)

Stigmata said:


> Is support for trade unions incompatible with libertarianism? Cos i'm politely arguing with someone who I quite like and don't want to alienate, and he reckons it's not.



Libertarians will spend all day and night slagging off really existing trade unions, trade union demands, individual trade union members etc in a way that they never would corporations but will still talk about how trade unions would operate and ensure workers' rights in their dystopian fantasy world. They are also happy enough to talk about how necessary trade unions were in the past but how all demands they make now are unreasonable. They need to maintain these positions to be able to maintain that their ideology is an ideology for everyone, not just the rich, while using it for its true purpose which is to shill for the very richest in society at the expense of the rest.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Nov 21, 2013)

AFAIA libertarians (of the sort this thread is about) usually theoretically support the right of individuals to form and join trade unions but oppose any legal protections against discrimination,  dismissal etc for trade union membership or activity. The belief is that the employment contract is a voluntary transaction between employer and employee both acting in their own self-interest and therefore any attempt to impose legal duties upon it in relation to union activity constitutes a 'distortion' of the free market.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Nov 21, 2013)

Jeff Robinson said:


> AFAIA libertarians (of the sort this thread is about) usually theoretically support the right of individuals to form and join trade unions but oppose any legal protections against discrimination,  dismissal etc for trade union membership or activity. The belief is that the employment contract is a voluntary transaction between employer and employee both acting in their own self-interest and therefore any attempt to impose legal duties upon it in relation to union activity constitutes a 'distortion' of the free market.



You can organise, collectively bargain and even have a strike, but employers can fire the organisers and bring in all the scabs they want, so in effect it wouldn't exist. (or it would exist, and they'd need to contract an armed force to repress it, so you'd just be replacing the monopoly of the state on violence with the monopoly of the employer)


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Nov 21, 2013)

Lo Siento. said:


> You can organise, collectively bargain and even have a strike, but employers can fire the organisers and bring in all the scabs they want, so in effect it wouldn't exist. (or it would exist, and they'd need to contract an armed force to repress it, so you'd just be replaced the monopoly of the state on violence with the monopoly of the employer)



Most libertarians aren't opposed to superior (although not monopoly) armed violence resting with the state. The anarcho-caps constitute a minority in the movement. The Night Watchman State mobilizing its armed violence to enforce contracts and protect the property rights of employers is exactly what most (right) libertarians want it to do.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 21, 2013)

Jeff Robinson said:


> The Night Watchman State mobilizing its armed violence to enforce contracts and protect the property rights of employers is exactly what most (right) libertarians want it to do.


 
They're like most people - they're perfectly happy with a violent unaccountable tyrannical centre of power so long as it is on their side.


----------



## Quartz (Nov 21, 2013)

Stigmata said:


> Is support for trade unions incompatible with libertarianism? Cos i'm politely arguing with someone who I quite like and don't want to alienate, and he reckons it's not.



Of course it isn't. Why on earth would union membership be incompatible with libertarianism? A person would join a trade union if they so wished, and gain the benefits it offered and accept the responsibilities that come with membership. 

However, I think that under libertarianism trades unions would be rather different beasts from those of today.


----------



## J Ed (Nov 21, 2013)

Quartz said:


> Of course it isn't. Why on earth would union membership be incompatible with libertarianism? A person would join a trade union if they so wished, and gain the benefits it offered and accept the responsibilities that come with membership.



In theory yes, in reality see Chile under Pinochet.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 21, 2013)

J Ed said:


> In theory yes, in reality see Chile under Pinochet.


 
Well, in theory you don't get major inequality with communism...


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 21, 2013)

Stigmata said:


> Is support for trade unions incompatible with libertarianism? Cos i'm politely arguing with someone who I quite like and don't want to alienate, and he reckons it's not.


Thing is, I've never seen a coherent 'libertarian' platform. Rand is a good example - her ideas are totally incoherent. It mostly seems to boil down to little more than simplistic reification of the right of property owners to exploit everyone else, where the person saying it doesn't even realise that this is what they are doing.


----------



## nino_savatte (Nov 21, 2013)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Hilarious recent lecture from Yaron Brook, the executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute, at the LSE:
> 
> http://www.lse.ac.uk/newsAndMedia/videoAndAudio/channels/publicLecturesAndEvents/player.aspx?id=2071
> 
> He sounds like Barry Kripke from the Big Bang Theory:



"The moral case for freedom". Fuck's sake.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Nov 21, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I've never seen a coherent 'libertarian' platform.



Nozick is coherent, the problem being that he builds on a bizarre foundation of misapplied Kantianism.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 21, 2013)

Silas Loom said:


> Nozick is coherent, the problem being that he builds on a bizarre foundation of misapplied Kantianism.


Nozick's the chap who argued with Rawls, no? Don't know too much about him except that he argued with Rawls.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Nov 21, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Nozick's the chap who argued with Rawls, no? Don't know too much about him except that he argued with Rawls.



They were both horribly wrong; it's a salutary lesson on why philosophers shouldn't be let near politics. Applied philosophy of any sort is dangerous - they're even less trustworthy on ethics.

See any summary of _Anarchy State and Utopia_ for Nozick's views. Essentially he starts from a position of absurdly prioritised negative rights, then spends a lot of effort explaining how an ultraminimal state (but no more) is justified by the existence of a dominant protection agency.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 21, 2013)

Strikes me that absurdly prioritising negative rights is what the US does. Its constitutional rights are all very good and have positive effects in many ways, but someone can lie in a ditch and starve in plain view of the whole world and not have their constitutional rights violated.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 21, 2013)

nino_savatte said:


> "The moral case for freedom". Fuck's sake.


 
His definition of capitalism early on appears to be use of slavery and the sequestering of huge amounts of natural resources by force.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Nov 21, 2013)

nino_savatte said:


> "The moral case for freedom". Fuck's sake.



The mowal case for fweedom.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 21, 2013)

people who argue for a night watchman state forget that a lot of times night watchmen are having a really quality dream about beating Elvis at Texas Hold Em poker while the people your minimal state has left to rot are angry, hungry and robbing your house.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 21, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> people who argue for a night watchman state forget that a lot of times night watchmen are having a really quality dream about beating Elvis at Texas Hold Em poker while the people your minimal state has left to rot are angry, hungry and robbing your house.


 
That only serves as an argument for a more heavily armed and effective watchman.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 21, 2013)

8ball said:


> That only serves as an argument for a more heavily armed and effective watchman.




exactly, and for maximum effectiveness they can be given amphetamine during shift times. Obviously this will mean that during down time they'll need some heavy opiate based medication in order to sleep. This regime will of course mean they need laxatives to shit and a broad-spectrum benzo to keep everything ticking over.

We could call it 'the tory party' They maniacally gab off at every waking hour, are twatted and moribund when you do need them and can largely be relied upon to shit all over you while twitching


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Nov 21, 2013)

Silas Loom said:


> They were both horribly wrong; it's a salutary lesson on why philosophers shouldn't be let near politics. Applied philosophy of any sort is dangerous - they're even less trustworthy on ethics.
> 
> See any summary of _Anarchy State and Utopia_ for Nozick's views. Essentially he starts from a position of absurdly prioritised negative rights, then spends a lot of effort explaining how an ultraminimal state (but no more) is justified by the existence of a dominant protection agency.



I really enjoyed reading that book. It's full of so many mad thought experiments involving utility monsters, experience machines, ray guns and killing 10,000 cows by clicking your fingers. As you say though, it's built on castles of sand.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 21, 2013)

I wonder how you would incentivise the police in this ultra-minimal state?  If their function was to guarantee the sanctity of economic value, how could you justify squandering that on investigating the murder of a poor, old person when those same resources could quite possibly prevent the theft of a thousand widescreen tellies? 

It would be far more efficient to use the power of the market and privatise the minimal Government.


----------



## Quartz (Nov 21, 2013)

J Ed said:


> In theory yes



Well yes, but that's the problem with theories.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Nov 21, 2013)

8ball said:


> I wonder how you would incentivise the police in this ultra-minimal state?  If their function was to guarantee the sanctity of economic value, how could you justify squandering that on investigating the murder of a poor, old person when those same resources could quite possibly prevent the theft of a thousand widescreen tellies?
> 
> It would be far more efficient to use the power of the market and privatise the minimal Government.



To be fair to Nozick, his minimal state is premised on upholding fundamental rights rather than economic efficiency. Private property is not defending because of its utility, but rather because Nozick regarded it as an extension of its owner. To take somebody's property through force is to violate the owner's rights. However, Nozick wants a State that does nothing to help its propertyless citizens from destitution and death, and one that would use its full force to violently suppress any attempts by them to rob from the rich. The Randians are even worse. In the talk I posted above, the speaker defends the genocide of the native americans on the basis that they did not own private property!


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 21, 2013)

That's s basic tenet of classical economics, has been for centuries. They didn't improve the land so it was not only ok but a moral imperative to take it from them and improve it.


----------



## BigTom (Nov 22, 2013)

Stigmata said:


> Is support for trade unions incompatible with libertarianism? Cos i'm politely arguing with someone who I quite like and don't want to alienate, and he reckons it's not.



Who needs trade unions? An employment contract is a transaction entered into voluntarily, and by definition all voluntary transactions necessarily maximise the utility of all parties involved, or they wouldn't enter into the transaction would they.

Therefore, since the transaction between employee and employer achieves the optimal outcome for both parties, the addition of a trade union can only move us to a suboptimal solution.

I suppose if you wanted to join a trade union and pay your monthly dues to fat cat union bosses lazing around in their subsidised council housing then you can, but who wants to do that?


----------



## likesfish (Nov 22, 2013)

Silas Loom said:


> They were both horribly wrong; it's a salutary lesson on why philosophers shouldn't be let near politics. Applied philosophy of any sort is dangerous - they're even less trustworthy on ethics.
> 
> See any summary of _Anarchy State and Utopia_ for Nozick's views. Essentially he starts from a position of absurdly prioritised negative rights, then spends a lot of effort explaining how an ultraminimal state (but no more) is justified by the existence of a dominant protection agency.




Does'nt the equally apply to marxism?
  Would explain how every so called marxist state has ended in blood and horror.
Marxist theory may have a lot going for it but going from theory to practice is a lot harder than people think.
  Liberal  Social democracy is a lot more messy has no overeaching grand philosphy and doesnt really hold together in theory just in practice achieves the greatest good for the greatest number of people?


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Nov 22, 2013)

likesfish said:


> the greatest good for the greatest number of people?



J S Mill and all who followed him are dangerous, too.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 22, 2013)

likesfish said:


> Liberal  Social democracy is a lot more messy _*has no overeaching grand philosphy *_and doesnt really hold together in theory just in practice achieves the greatest good for the greatest number of people?



That you believe that amply demonstrates liberalism's ideological basis.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 22, 2013)

8ball said:


> I wonder how you would incentivise the police in this ultra-minimal state?  If their function was to guarantee the sanctity of economic value, how could you justify squandering that on investigating the murder of a poor, old person when those same resources could quite possibly prevent the theft of a thousand widescreen tellies?
> 
> It would be far more efficient to use the power of the market and privatise the minimal Government.



AFAIR the Rothbardian argument saw the "nightwatchmen" motivated by profit, and competing to offer the "consumers" the most 'reliable', 'effective' service of protection and success in moving prosecution onto the privatised courts.


----------



## likesfish (Nov 22, 2013)

Norway, sweden, finland, no fences or guards to keep people in.
No need for foreign armed adventures few imprisoned dissidents. swedens actually closing prisons as its got a shortage of prisoners 
	Compared to every so called workers state way better and compared to freedoms last best hope (sic)
 People are happier and safer even if they cant carry an uzi to the supermarket.

Its far from perfect and may not be repeatable outside of the nordic nations but its fucking better than any other system so far tried.


----------



## Nylock (Nov 22, 2013)

Quartz said:


> However, I think that under libertarianism trades unions would be rather different beasts from those of today.



Yep, they'd be extinct ones...


----------



## nino_savatte (Nov 22, 2013)

8ball said:


> His definition of capitalism early on appears to be use of slavery and the sequestering of huge amounts of natural resources by force.


In other words, it's the moral framework of the brute and the bully.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Nov 22, 2013)

Nylock said:


> Yep, they'd be extinct ones...



Is this why right wingers always refer to unions as dinosaurs?


----------



## 8ball (Nov 22, 2013)

nino_savatte said:


> In other words, it's the moral framework of the brute and the bully.


 
But with the imposition of market-based discipline for the lower orders


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 22, 2013)

This is basic crude marxism isn't it? Historical primitive accumulation and that.


----------



## love detective (Nov 22, 2013)

Jeff Robinson said:


> To be fair to Nozick, his minimal state is premised on upholding fundamental rights rather than economic efficiency. Private property is not defending because of its utility, but rather because Nozick regarded it as an extension of its owner. To take somebody's property through force is to violate the owner's rights. However, Nozick wants a State that does nothing to help its propertyless citizens from destitution and death, and one that would use its full force to violently suppress any attempts by them to rob from the rich. The Randians are even worse. In the talk I posted above, the speaker defends the genocide of the native americans on the basis that they did not own private property!



Out of interest, what is there in Nozick on this that Locke hadn't got to a good three hundred years before?

And also from the little i've read off him he does seem to get caught up in circles with this. As while his minimal state is premised on upholding fundamental rights rather than economic efficiency he has to use economic efficiency to 'justify' the existence of those rights in the first place - so all of a sudden when it comes to his 'Lockian Proviso' these supposed inert, natural and fundamental rights which he is supposedly a proponent off can only be justified on the consequentialist grounds of efficiency


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Nov 22, 2013)

love detective said:


> Out of interest, what is there in Nozick on this that Locke hadn't got to a good three hundred years before?
> 
> And also from the little i've read off him he does seem to get caught up in circles with this. As while his minimal state is premised on upholding fundamental rights rather than economic efficiency he has to use economic efficiency to 'justify' the existence of those rights in the first place - so all of a sudden when it comes to his 'Lockian Proviso' these supposed inert, natural and fundamental rights which he is supposedly a proponent off can only be justified on the consequentialist grounds of efficiency



Yes, completely agree. Nozick's defence of the minimal state is explicitly Lockean, with a bit Kantianism and the techniques of analytical philosophy thrown in. Nozick follows Locke in recognising the natural rights to life, liberty and property on the basis that individuals own themselves. Whilst this is fairly persuasive in relation to the rights to life and liberty, Nozick runs into trouble in trying to find a basis for a natural property right in unowned things. Again following Locke, his argument is that it is the mixing of ones labour with that unowned property that confers a natural right in it. Yet he is unable to provide a convincing metaphysical account of how mixing labour with x gives rise to a property right in x. So he falls back on the Lockean proviso that as long as the circumstances of others are not worsened through original acquisition there is no reason not to afford property rights. It is here that he smuggles in the consequentialism: the system of private property ownership will not fall afoul of the Lockean proviso because it increases the overall social product etc. Nozick's argument would be that this is not consequentialism - it's rather an argument designed to show that those who don't own property cannot complain that their rights have been infringed. But I agree with you that that's a distinction without a difference.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Nov 22, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> This is basic crude marxism isn't it? Historical primitive accumulation and that.



True, but didn't Marx say that primitive accumulation was capitalism's 'dirty secret' or some such thing? Most of capitalism's ideologues today try to hush up the violent origins of capitalism - or present them as aberrations of the past that have little to do with our present system. What's interesting about the Randians is that they are so upfront in defending and justifying these actions. In some ways they are amongst the most honest and consistent defenders of capitalism, which is probably why they'll remain at the margins of political life.


----------



## J Ed (Dec 12, 2013)

This is what libertarians actually believe

The solution to racism is to pay black people half of what you pay white people for the same work

http://www.turningpointusa.net/greed-ultimate-enemy-racism/



> One day, one of these firms looks at the market conditions and realizes something: “I’m making some good money and all, and I am hiring as few black people as possible. But, you know, these wages of white people ($10/h) are just a lot higher than those of black people ($5/h). Hiring all these white people is hurting my profits. If I were to switch to hiring more black people, I could have higher profits.” And so this firm swallows its discriminatory pride and switches to hiring more black labor, since it’s cheaper. This results in significantly higher profits for the firm, giving it an advantage over other firms. These other firms, after some time, realize that they’re losing customers to the less-discriminating firm down the street, which can sell products more cheaply since it buys black labor.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 12, 2013)

J Ed said:


> This is what libertarians actually believe
> 
> The solution to racism is to pay black people half of what you pay white people for the same work
> 
> http://www.turningpointusa.net/greed-ultimate-enemy-racism/



That's really quite special


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Dec 12, 2013)

Is that what the article says? The quote just says that market forces eventually overcome prejudice and discrimination. That's silly, of course, because it ignores the marketability of cultural and social capital in a racist society. But it's not the point that J Ed claims to see.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 12, 2013)

Silas Loom said:


> Is that what the article says? The quote just says that market forces eventually overcome prejudice and discrimination. That's silly, of course, because it ignores the marketability of cultural and social capital in a racist society. But it's not the point that J Ed claims to see.



It sort of is though isn't it? The starting point, at least, is to hire black workers for half as much money as white ones. Hyper-exploitation as the first step towards black liberation lol

Why am I not especially surprised to see you defending this crap?


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Dec 12, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Why am I not especially surprised to see you defending this crap?



Presumably because you're too stupid to read what I wrote.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 12, 2013)

Silas Loom said:


> Presumably because you're too stupid to read what I wrote.



Nope, try again. Hint: it is possible to defend something even when you openly state you don't agree with it - like you did just then.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Dec 12, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Nope, try again. Hint: it is possible to defend something even when you openly state you don't agree with it - like you did just then.



So you're actually defending me? Okay, you're a Cretan and not a cretin, but I don't really have time to play paradoxes.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 12, 2013)

Silas Loom said:


> So you're actually defending me? Okay, you're a Cretan and not a cretin, but I don't really have time to play paradoxes.



What on earth are you on about? You defended that article - claiming it didn't advocate paying black workers half the wages of white workers as a step towards overcoming racism even though it did - while saying you disagreed with it. You both defended and disagreed with the article. 

Fuck knows what a Cretan is and I don't see the paradox.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Dec 12, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> What on earth are you on about? You defended that article - claiming it didn't advocate paying black workers half the wages of white workers as a step towards overcoming racism even though it did - while saying you disagreed with it. You both defended and disagreed with the article.
> 
> Fuck knows what a Cretan is and I don't see the paradox.



I didn't look at the article*, I looked at the quote. J Ed's selected quote didn't say what he said the article did. Which was my point. 

Your response appeared to be that disagreeing with something was a sneaky way of defending it, which is where I reached for Epimenides. 



*Because I was on a crap tablet at the time which doesn't open links very well.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 12, 2013)

Link doesn't work for me either. Probably just as well, tbh.


----------



## treelover (Dec 27, 2013)

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/27/conservative-party-self-interest


Wallace is in the Guardian again

apparently, he is also now executive editor of Conservative home, a tory rising star?


----------



## shagnasty (Dec 27, 2013)

treelover said:


> http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/27/conservative-party-self-interest
> 
> 
> Wallace is in the Guardian again
> ...


The comments made it clear quite early in the comments


----------



## J Ed (Dec 27, 2013)

treelover said:


> http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/27/conservative-party-self-interest
> 
> 
> Wallace is in the Guardian again
> ...



That's such an awful article, I'm pretty sure I could write a much more convincing argument as to why the Tories aren't self-interested and it's really obvious to me that they are


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Dec 27, 2013)

Some sort of online dating FaceSpace thing for libertards.


----------



## rekil (Dec 28, 2013)

http://www.economist.com/blogs/schumpeter/2013/12/libertarian-enclaves



> A GROUP of self-described anarchists, libertarians and Ron Paul supporters fleeing the crumbling world economic system have founded Galt's Gulch, a community in Chile inspired by Ayn Rand's “Atlas Shrugged”—and with an economy based entirely on Bitcoin. Or that's the goal, anyway.
> 
> "Our farm workers and suppliers still want to get paid in pesos,” Ken Johnson, the project’s founder and managing partner, explains. "But Bitcoin as the John Galt coin? Why shouldn't it be?”
> 
> "The farm came with 65 hectares of lemons,"


----------



## Lo Siento. (Dec 28, 2013)

The only time I've ever approved of sticking "self-described" in front of the word anarchists. 

"Our farm workers and suppliers still want to get paid in pesos"

I'm not entirely sure what they reckon is even specifically libertarian about their community. I mean if theyre still paying taxes and adhering to chilean law?


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 28, 2013)

by day three they will be crawling around puking up bits of lemon and the farmworkers will rob them.


----------



## Combustible (Dec 28, 2013)

With any luck


----------



## FNG (Dec 28, 2013)

J Ed said:


> This is what libertarians actually believe
> 
> The solution to racism is to pay black people half of what you pay white people for the same work
> 
> http://www.turningpointusa.net/greed-ultimate-enemy-racism/




wow just wow.

Somehow to make that argument work one would have to ignore the actual history of the united states, and how racially divisive such employment practices were.The results of using black labour to undermine Terms&Conditions of white labour were far to frequently race riots and mass lynchings,in the short term.And resulted in Segregated lunch counters and jim crow in the long.
One would have to also ignore primarily the role of Black labour organising itself and demanding equal pay and civil rights, and secondary the outlawing of such discriminatory practices under JFKs New frontier program, which also made an attempt to tackle gender pay inequality too.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jan 1, 2014)

FNG said:


> wow just wow.
> 
> Somehow to make that argument work one would have to ignore the actual history of the united states, and how racially divisive such employment practices were.The results of using black labour to undermine Terms&Conditions of white labour were far to frequently race riots and mass lynchings,in the short term.And resulted in Segregated lunch counters and jim crow in the long.
> One would have to also ignore primarily the role of Black labour organising itself and demanding equal pay and civil rights, and secondary the outlawing of such discriminatory practices under JFKs New frontier program, which also made an attempt to tackle gender pay inequality too.



No-one was making that argument, though.


----------



## FNG (Jan 1, 2014)

did you read the article yet? or would you rather continue to defend the article from a position of ignorance?


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jan 1, 2014)

FNG said:


> did you read the article yet? or would you rather continue to defend the article from a position of ignorance?



Yep, finally. It's a silly article which suggests that the invisible hand of the market evens out all prejudice. But while that's a silly point, it's not the same silly point that J Ed made.

I don't believe that I've "defended" the article anywhere in this thread.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 1, 2014)

Silas Loom said:


> Yep, finally. It's a silly article which suggests that the invisible hand of the market evens out all prejudice. But while that's a silly point, it's not the same silly point that J Ed made.
> 
> I don't believe that I've "defended" the article anywhere in this thread.



Yes it is - you're doing it again - the article really does argue that the first step towards overcoming racial inequality is for employers to take black workers on at lower wages.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jan 1, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> Yes it is - you're doing it again - the article really does argue that the first step towards overcoming racial inequality is for employers to take black workers on at lower wages.



It doesn't.

It proposes a hypothetical and unrealistic scenario of wage inequality and then suggests that in this scenario wages would eventually level out. It doesn't propose any specific steps towards ending inequality in the real world. It merely makes the (weak) point that if greed is unrestrained (which it isn't) and if all other things are equal (they aren't) then greed will triumph over prejudice.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 1, 2014)

Silas Loom said:


> It doesn't.
> 
> It proposes a hypothetical and unrealistic scenario of wage inequality and then suggests that in this scenario wages would eventually level out. It doesn't propose any specific steps towards ending inequality in the real world. It merely makes the (weak) point that if greed is unrestrained (which it isn't) and if all other things are equal (they aren't) then greed will triumph over prejudice.



...because people will want to employ black workers for less than white ones. Are you sure you've read it?


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jan 1, 2014)

I could say exactly the same. Would that get us anywhere?


----------



## FNG (Jan 2, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> Yes it is - you're doing it again - the article really does argue that the first step towards overcoming racial inequality is for employers to take black workers on at lower wages.



 And also that racist employers would have any reservation about enacting such discriminatory policies.Even by Paeleolibertarian standards thats pretty weak


----------



## FNG (Jan 2, 2014)

Still it made me read up on the 1892 New Orleans strike where black and white unions collectively held together to demand and gain equal T&C despite the bosses and local press using every trick in the divide and rule book. Up to and including publishing fictitious accounts of rampaging black mobs,the standard lynch parties call to arms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1892_New_Orleans_general_strike


----------



## J Ed (Jan 2, 2014)

Yeah the idea that a right wing American website is arguing this as an abstract idea in a vacuum is ridiculous.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 2, 2014)

Silas Loom said:


> I could say exactly the same. Would that get us anywhere?



Yes. Because then you'd be admitting their argument that



> greed would triumph over prejudice



takes as its starting point people employing black workers for less than white ones.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jan 2, 2014)

Oh God.

Last post on this. 

Suppose I said: "imagine that two children live in a loft and need to share six sweets".

Would you then accuse me of wanting children to be kept in attics as a precursor to redistributive justice? The Yank used a foolish hypothesis to make a point.


----------



## J Ed (Jan 2, 2014)

Weird how a group of people who are usually apologists for white supremacy ended up coming up with that hypothesis and conclusion


----------



## FNG (Jan 3, 2014)

Silas Loom said:


> Oh God.
> The Yank used a foolish hypothesis to make a point.



a hypothesis which doesn't stand up to even the most cursory of examinations,which even you have somewhat begrudgingly admitted to yet you still attack and dismiss other peoples criticisms of the article out of hand by trying to frame and limit the debate to an isolated excerpt that you have chosen to comment upon devoid of context of both the entirety of the article and its position in a wider social attack by Paelolibertarians on equal pay legislation.Bankrolled by the likes of Ron Paul et al

Why?


----------



## FNG (Jan 3, 2014)

> Suppose I said: "imagine that two children live in a loft and need to share six sweets".
> 
> Would you then accuse me of wanting children to be kept in attics as a precursor to redistributive justice?



 No however if your hypothisis relied on the assumption that eating sweets alone provided all the calorific intake required for raising healthy children and your "research" was funded by josef fritzel and the british dentistry association,expect to get called on it


----------



## J Ed (Jan 17, 2014)

Rand Paul responds to West Virginia chemical spill which has led to the contamination of the drinking water of hundreds of thousands of people by calling for further deregulation http://aattp.org/yes-rand-paul-is-s...deregulation-after-west-virginia-water-spill/

I struggle to think of these people as being entirely human.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 17, 2014)

copliker said:


> http://www.economist.com/blogs/schumpeter/2013/12/libertarian-enclaves


That'll go well.


----------



## Quartz (Jan 17, 2014)

Libertarians would be taken much more seriously if they mentioned responsibility more. Just as you're free to do something so you have to accept the responsibility for doing it.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 17, 2014)

Quartz said:


> Libertarians would be taken much more seriously if they mentioned responsibility more. Just as you're free to do something so you have to accept the responsibility for doing it.


Then they wouldn't be libertarians would they?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 17, 2014)

Quartz said:


> Libertarians would be taken much more seriously if they mentioned responsibility more. Just as you're free to do something so you have to accept the responsibility for doing it.



That'd kind of miss the point of them being libertarians in the first place, if they actually wanted to take responsibility for the shit their freebooting ways causes.
They'd be a particularly noxious form of hair-shirt liberal.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 17, 2014)

copliker said:


> http://www.economist.com/blogs/schumpeter/2013/12/libertarian-enclaves


----------



## cantsin (Jan 17, 2014)

J Ed said:


> Rand Paul responds to West Virginia chemical spill which has led to the contamination of the drinking water of hundreds of thousands of people by calling for further deregulation http://aattp.org/yes-rand-paul-is-s...deregulation-after-west-virginia-water-spill/
> 
> I struggle to think of these people as being entirely human.



it's always fun when the Libtards/free marketeers in general come up against impending enviromental realities - their paper thin, venal dogshit of an economic philosophy just dies there and then - there is no free market answer to climate change, so all they can do is deny, forever....the vengeful side of me  hopes the key protagonists end up swinging from lamposts if we end up where we look like we're heading at the moment.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jan 17, 2014)

cantsin said:


> it's always fun when the Libtards/free marketeers in general come up against impending enviromental realities - their paper thin, venal dogshit of an economic philosophy just dies there and then - there is no free market answer to climate change, so all they can do is deny, forever....the vengeful side of me  hopes the key protagonists end up swinging from lamposts if we end up where we look like we're heading at the moment.



The answer is always "more free markets needed". Like the medieval quack who after finding that the application of the previous fifty leeches has not cured you, concludes that not enough leeches have been applied yet. If in the end you bleed to death, it was because not enough leeches were applied earlier. That's water-tight logic you can't get around, statist liberty-haters.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 17, 2014)

cantsin said:


> it's always fun when the Libtards/free marketeers in general come up against impending enviromental realities - their paper thin, venal dogshit of an economic philosophy just dies there and then - there is no free market answer to climate change, so all they can do is deny, forever....the vengeful side of me  hopes the key protagonists end up swinging from lamposts if we end up where we look like we're heading at the moment.



Swinging from lamp-posts as the rising tidal waters lap at their legs, giving them just enough buoyancy that they don't quite die as quickly as they might wish to.


----------



## cantsin (Jan 17, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Swinging from lamp-posts as the rising tidal waters lap at their legs, giving them just enough buoyancy that they don't quite die as quickly as they might wish to.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 17, 2014)

8ball said:


>



Surely I can't be alone in thinking I wouldn't mind living there? Better than that london or the countryside anyway.


----------



## nino_savatte (Mar 11, 2014)

Hannan's defence of 'libertarians' rivals Adrian Mole's secret diary for its sheer immaturity.


> The core value of libertarianism is the autonomy of the individual. Libertarians are repelled by the notion of categorising people by type. They have no time for racism or sexism, nor for the quotas favoured by some declared opponents of racism and sexism. No one, in libertarian eyes, is defined by the circumstances of his or her birth.
> 
> This point is worth emphasising because many Leftists misunderstand it, or at least affect to misunderstand it. Think, for example, of the strenuous attempts to show that the Tea Party in the United States, a movement actuated *almost wholly* by opposition to excessive levels of taxation, spending and borrowing, was _really_ motivated by hostility to a mixed-race president.
> http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/d...d-stop-confusing-libertarianism-with-bigotry/



The Tea Party is what? Misunderstood? Pull the other one, you plank.


----------



## J Ed (Mar 11, 2014)

Maybe people just think that the Tea Party in the USA is racist because of the Confederate flags and racial slurs...


----------



## 8ball (Mar 11, 2014)

nino_savatte said:


> Hannan's defence of 'libertarians' rivals Adrian Mole's secret diary for its sheer immaturity.


 
Took a peek.




			
				Hannan said:
			
		

> To libertarians, personal autonomy implies absolute property rights. If your mind and your body are yours, so are the products of your labour.


 
Hmmm - very nice - but to the Randist mob the products of _other people's_ labour becomes their property too - yet nowhere is this ever mentioned, and that's only the tip of the confusion iceberg.  Think we can file this one under 'useful idiot'.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 11, 2014)

the cock doesn't seem to realise even your average repub finds these people an embarrasment


----------



## Quartz (Mar 11, 2014)

8ball said:


> Hmmm - very nice - but to the Randist mob the products of _other people's_ labour becomes their property too



Umm... no. Not unless paid for, anyway.

Hannan and co would have much more success if they promoted the flip side of freedom: responsibility.


----------



## 8ball (Mar 11, 2014)

Quartz said:


> Umm... no. Not unless paid for, anyway.


 
For given values of 'paid for'...

Sooner or later, they'll pay, though.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 12, 2014)

this sounds like fun

*FRIDAY 14 MARCH
3:00 pm* *Afternoon Tea with Ruth Lea*
_A full traditional British tea with one of Britain’s leading economists_
*6:00 pm* *Better Off Out Drinks Reception*
_Complimentary drinks at the Better Off Out Bar_
Chaired by: Rory Broomfield, Speaker: Donal Blaney
*7:30 pm* *Seaside Supper Party*
_All the fun of the fair, including Punch & Judy, candyfloss etc._
Chaired by: Simon Richards, Speaker: Conor Burns MP
*9:00 pm* *North v South debate*
_Join in a verbal mud-wrestle between two lively libertarians_
Speakers: Mark Littlewood and Mark Wallace
*10:00 pm* *The Freedom Festival Pub Quiz*
_The Freedom Association’s Westminster Pub Quiz comes to the seaside_
Quizmasters: Jonathan Isaby and Stephanie Lis
*Better Off Out Bar*
_Open to residents until 5.00 am_

*SATURDAY 15 MARCH
7:30 am  Full English Breakfast*
_Residents only_
*9:00 am* *State of The Movement Address*
_One of Britain’s most successful campaigners surveys the centre-right_
Matthew Elliott
*10:00 am* *Grant Tucker in conversation with Esca Hayek (TBC)*
_An interview with Friedrich Hayek’s daughter-in-law_
*10:45 am* *Coffee and biscuits
11:15 am  Defending Freedom in the Free World*
_Putting the case for freedom, worldwide_
Chaired by Charles Crawford, Speakers: Donal Blaney, Ted Bromund, Daniel Hannan MEP and Iain Murray
*12:15 am* *The Index of Economic Freedom*
Guest speaker: Bryan Riley (TBC)
*1:00 pm* *Lunch with Lord Tebbit*
_Two-course hot buffet lunch with one of the greatest living Conservatives_
*2:00 pm* *Selling Freedom: Solving the Free Market’s Image Problem*
_Three successful media figures discuss how to get your message across_
Speakers: Martin Durkin, Paul Staines (TBC) and Rory Sutherland
*3:00 pm* *The Future of Civil Liberties: Creating a Manifesto for 2015*
_Emma Carr leads an audience participation session_
*3:45 pm  Tea and biscuits
4:15 pm  The Scotland Debate: Is Freedom linked to Independence?*
_Scotland: should it stay or should it go?_
Chaired by Rory Broomfield, Speakers: Mark Littlewood and Brian Monteith
*5:15 pm  Which Tax Should We Axe?*
_A Dragons’ Den-style session on tackling the cost of living_
Guest speakers: Matthew Elliott, Jonathan Isaby and John O’Connell
*8:00 pm  Festival Dinner, sponsored by Jonathan Davis Wealth Management*
_A three-course traditional English roast beef dinner_
Chaired by Simon Richards, Speakers: Jonathan Davis and Sir Mark Worthington OBE
*10:00 pm* *Better Off Out Bar*
_Open to residents until 5.00 am_

*SUNDAY 16 MARCH
7:30 am  Full English Breakfast*
_Residents only_
*9:15 am* *The Great Debate: Libertarianism V. Conservatism*
_An open debate, free for all to participate_
*9:45 am* *This House Believes That We Need More immigration*
_Is immigration a boon or a burden?_
Speakers: Dr. Tim Evans and Steven Woolfe
*10:45 am  Coffee and biscuits
11:15 am* *Simon Says: Just a Minute*
_Speakers from leading think-tanks try to speak without hesitation etc.  _
Chaired by Simon Richards
*11:45 am  Is the conservative family falling apart?*
_Are divisions on the centre-right here to stay?_
Chaired by Charles Crawford, Speakers: Philip Blond, Adrian Hilton and Toby Young
*1:00 pm  Reducing the Cost of Living: What should have priority*
_Speakers from leading think-tanks discuss how to tackle the cost of living_
*1:30 pm Two-Course Hot Buffet Lunch
2:30 pm Closing speeches*
Speakers: Alex Deane and Simon Richards
*3:00 pm  Festival ends*


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 12, 2014)

jesus tapdancing christ I'd rather someone gouged out my right eye and then fucked the socket

also how does tea and biscuits take half hour?


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 12, 2014)

_A Dragons’ Den-style session on tackling the cost of living
_
flail me to death with a length of barbed wire


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 12, 2014)

_A full traditional British tea with one of Britain’s leading economists_

fist me while wearing a gauntlet made of spikes


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Mar 12, 2014)

It's been said before that those there Libertarians sure do love their biscuits.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 12, 2014)

An interview with Von Hayek's daughter-in-law lol

It's the equivalent of the SWP holding an audience with Tony Cliffe's daughter's best mate from school.


----------



## nino_savatte (Mar 12, 2014)

*



			11:15 am Defending Freedom in the Free World
		
Click to expand...

*


> _Putting the case for freedom, worldwide_
> Chaired by Charles Crawford, Speakers: Donal Blaney, Ted Bromund, Daniel Hannan MEP and Iain Murray"



Jeez, they know how to please us, don't they? Donal Blaney, is a former Hammersmith & Fulham councillor, who set up the Young Britons Foundation with help from his pal, Dan Hannan. Here's a tip, boys. If you want to 'defend' freedom, how about getting the fuck out of our faces?

*



			10:00 pm
		
Click to expand...

*


> *The Freedom Festival Pub Quiz*
> _The Freedom Association’s Westminster Pub Quiz comes to the seaside_
> Quizmasters: Jonathan Isaby and Stephanie Lis"



Fuck's sake.


----------



## nino_savatte (Mar 12, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> jesus tapdancing christ I'd rather someone gouged out my right eye and then fucked the socket
> 
> also how does tea and biscuits take half hour?


Most conferences that I go to, refreshments take up 15 minutes max.


----------



## nino_savatte (Mar 12, 2014)

If the above doesn't take your fancy, you can always hang out with a bunch of spoilt brats at Freedom Forum 2014, where many of the same speakers will be in attendance.
http://www.uklibertyleague.org/

The links on the website don't work.


----------



## likesfish (Mar 12, 2014)

The free market does work like most things to a certain extent but like every ism rapidly runs out of steam when facing the real world.
  The best system we have worked out is a social democratic mixed economy yes its unfair has comtradictions and the theory is a bit wonky.
 But regualted itself and appears to produce the best outcome for the most people.
   So called marxist societys tend to tyranny


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Mar 12, 2014)

Got to head out, but most Libertarians I've come across are smart arses, it's just a hard edged faction of the capital cult. Simplistic fundamentalisms tend to provide easy answers to everything almost by definition. "tch - yeah, government is rubbish", not helped by the fact that so many establishment politicians seem to agree.

The whole Ron/Rand Paul adulation is especially odd. The former is a nepotist who fell in with Romney, probably to further the career of the latter.

Ron Paul gets a lot of (more deserved) attention for being anti fed and anti war, but that's no reason to go along with his bonkers economics.

He wanted to slash food stamps by about 2/3. That's his solution to the crisis - screw the poor to give more to the banks. Super radical that innit. Ron Paul - The Rickets Candidate.

Without regulation, markets tend to cartel and monopoly. Adam freakin' Smith knew that.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 12, 2014)

Glad to see that you've finally seen the light about Ron Paul.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Mar 12, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> An interview with Von Hayek's daughter-in-law lol
> 
> It's the equivalent of the SWP holding an audience with Tony Cliffe's daughter's best mate from school.


 
I once went to a Militant event at the Alexander Palace where we were treated to a live link up with Esteban Volkov...aka Trotsky's grandson; and that wasn't the most surreal part of the day...a full on Militant finacial appeal was something to behold!

Cheers - louis MacNeice


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 12, 2014)

See also: 

WSWS publishes interviews with children of the Left Opposition.


----------



## J Ed (Mar 12, 2014)

WSWS are really weird, I don't think I've ever come across them in person but I see their members linking to their website all over the place. On reddit I saw one of their members slagging off Salvador Allende and blaming him for letting Chile succumb to Pinochet.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 12, 2014)

J Ed said:


> WSWS are really weird, I don't think I've ever come across them in person but I see their members linking to their website all over the place. On reddit I saw one of their members slagging off Salvador Allende and blaming him for letting Chile succumb to Pinochet.


That's an utterly bog-standard left postion though - read any serious critical account of that period from a left/anarchist/etc perspective and you'll find a series of mistakes that (maybe in hindsight, but people were pointing it out at the time) made by Allende and the coalition. Not dealing with the army officer dissidents - promoting them (Pinochet to the fore amazingly) in fact being quite high amongst them. That's just mainstream left history.


----------



## barney_pig (Mar 12, 2014)

Louis MacNeice said:


> I once went to a Militant event at the Alexander Palace where we were treated to a live link up with Esteban Volkov...aka Trotsky's grandson; and that wasn't the most surreal part of the day...a full on Militant finacial appeal was something to behold!
> 
> Cheers - louis MacNeice


for sheer embarressment julie waterson's attempt to copy the militant appeal at an SWP mayday rally has never been beaten.


----------



## Quartz (Mar 12, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Without regulation, markets tend to cartel and monopoly. Adam freakin' Smith knew that.



It was known and exploited long before Adam Smith. One of the ways English monarchs used to raise money was the sale of (limited-time) monopolies.


----------



## J Ed (Mar 12, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> That's an utterly bog-standard left postion though - read any serious critical account of that period from a left/anarchist/etc perspective and you'll find a series of mistakes that (maybe in hindsight, but people were pointing it out at the time) made by Allende and the coalition. Not dealing with the army officer dissidents - promoting them (Pinochet to the fore amazingly) in fact being quite high amongst them. That's just mainstream left history.



Well sure but these criticisms from WSWS went a bit beyond suggesting that these were tactical mistakes, they seemed to be suggesting that Allende was right-wing and that is why he made them. There are a lot of legitimate criticisms of Allende, a lot of them are eerily similar to the mistakes made by the Spanish Second Republic, especially Allende not arming the w/c but WSWS seem to go further than all of that..

I can't find the thing I saw on reddit but this article from their website seems like it takes a similar tack https://www5.wsws.org/development/en/articles/2013/09/11/pers-s11.html?view=print



> Allende was not a socialist, much less a revolutionary. His essential political role was that of holding back the socialist revolution in Chile and imposing “social peace” by suppressing the powerful offensive of the Chilean working class. This was done in close collaboration with the US-trained Chilean officer corps. Its chiefs, including General Pinochet, appointed commander-in-chief of the army by Allende, were invited into the president’s cabinet to better coordinate the suppression of the mass workers movement.



Isn't it a bit much to say that Allende wasn't a socialist?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 12, 2014)

In what unholy parallel demon dimension is Ruth Lea one of Britain's leading economists?
She may be a favourite of the CBI and right-libertarian wingnuts, but she's as much one of Britain's "leading economists" as Roger Scrotum is one of Britain's foremost philosophers - i.e. only in the most sordid of libertarian fever-dreams.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 12, 2014)

J Ed said:


> Well sure but these criticisms from WSWS went a bit beyond suggesting that these were tactical mistakes, they seemed to be suggesting that Allende was right-wing and that is why he made them. There are a lot of legitimate criticisms of Allende, a lot of them are eerily similar to the mistakes made by the Spanish Second Republic, especially Allende not arming the w/c but WSWS seem to go further than all of that..
> 
> I can't find the thing I saw on reddit but this article from their website seems like it takes a similar tack https://www5.wsws.org/development/en/articles/2013/09/11/pers-s11.html?view=print
> 
> ...



Yes, bog standard hard-trot analysis. An always seething near revolutionary w/c formed in conditions of capitals final degeneration being held back by union sell outs and weak leaders (remember "The historical crisis of mankind is reduced to the crisis of revolutionary leadership"). As for being a socialist = well they're talking about his role rather than his personal opinions i suppose. But if you think socialists don't make mistakes such as he did (socialists being the further seeing brain and memory of the class) then those who make those mistakes become non-socialists.


----------



## nino_savatte (Mar 12, 2014)

likesfish said:


> The free market does work like most things to a certain extent but like every ism rapidly runs out of steam when facing the real world.
> The best system we have worked out is a social democratic mixed economy yes its unfair has comtradictions and the theory is a bit wonky.
> But regualted itself and appears to produce the best outcome for the most people.
> So called marxist societys tend to tyranny


Many non-Marxist societies also tend to tyranny.


----------



## nino_savatte (Mar 12, 2014)

Now this is my kind of Freedom Festival. 
http://www.freedomfestival.co.uk/about/


----------



## nino_savatte (Mar 12, 2014)

They're an incestuous lot.
http://thefreedomfestival.net/index.php/people/

This "Freedom Festival" is not a festival at all; it's a conference.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Mar 12, 2014)

It's a certainty that anyone who barks on about 'liberty' and 'freedom' is a complete arse uninterested in either of those things if it involves extending them to me.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 30, 2014)

Reason is the biggest libertarian publication in the world - very influential in powerful elite circles.  Here's something about it/them.

As Reason’s editor defends its racist history, here’s a copy of its holocaust denial “special issue”



> After I exposed Reason’s history as a publisher of racist, pro-apartheid South Africa articles during the 1970s, the current editor-in-chief, Matt Welch, answered back in what must stand as one of the most bizarre responses imaginable.
> 
> Rather than simply doing what any sensible editor would do — apologize for the magazine’s past transgressions but reiterate that the racists articles do not represent its current editorial position — Welch instead wrote a long blog post, smearing Pando and my reporting, including describing me  (apparently without irony) as an “anti-libertarian conspiracy theorist.” He also admitted that — sure! — Reason published a bunch of sick, racist pro-apartheid articles… but hey, they also published articles critical of apartheid, so what’s the big deal?







> Astonishingly, in February 1976, Reason dedicated an entire “special issue” to promoting Holocaust deniers, under the guise of so-called “historical revisionism.” How horrifying is it? You can judge for yourself — the whole thing is embedded below.
> 
> PandoDaily contacted noted Holocaust historian and Holocaust Museum expert Deborah Lipstadt to ask her opinion. In 2000, Lipstadt won a much-publicized libel trial in Britain against a leading Holocaust denier, David Irving. When we shared with her the list of Reason’s “special issue” contributors and authors positively cited in the issue, Lipstadt described it as “the Who’s Who of early American Holocaust deniers.”


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Sep 2, 2014)

Canadian libertarian icon goes on an Elliot Rodger style misogynist rant about women being the source of all evil in the world (at 3:04):



There aren't enough  in the universe.


----------



## Dogsauce (Sep 2, 2014)

The moment you hear him say 'nice guys' you know you're dealing with a complete dicksplash, not that the preamble hadn't flagged that up.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Sep 3, 2014)

Yeah its pure  Elliot Rodgerism: 'women won't have sex me with me therefore they are the root of all evil'. He's a real oddball fuckwit. He claims that his whole 'philosophy' is based upon opposition to the 'initiation of force' yet he has produced videos supportive of the killing of Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown. Scratch a libertarian and you uncover fascist...


----------



## CNT36 (Sep 30, 2014)

> “Ayn Rand has always been popular with teenagers,” we are informed. “But she is supposed to be something you grow out of, like ska music or handjobs.”
> 
> The segment notes that Rand is still popular with “a certain type of adult,” using tech billionaire Mark Cuban as an example, pointing out Cuban’s “287-foot yacht is named ‘Fountainhead,’ because sometimes having a 287-foot yacht just isn’t enough to warn people you’re a douchebag.”




http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/09/...nduring-influence-of-ayn-rand-selfish-sshole/


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 30, 2014)

Hey! I still like ska music!


----------



## Dillinger4 (Sep 30, 2014)




----------



## butchersapron (Sep 30, 2014)

Always been popular with 10 teenagers in the US. I remember Doug Henwood ( i think it was him on his show) talking about his time as a young and eager randist said that lots of people in his circle bought atlas shrugged, a whole lot  less started it, and even fewer finished it - a handful. And that was a pro-rand circle.


----------



## likesfish (Sep 30, 2014)

nino_savatte said:


> Many non-Marxist societies also tend to tyranny.


 Yes but name one self declared Marxist societie that survived when people got a choice?


----------



## Lurdan (Sep 30, 2014)

nino_savatte said:


> Hey! I still like ska music!


Doesn't it have different connotations in the US ? I think there was a 'ska-punk' fad amongst frat boys in the 80s/90s.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 30, 2014)

Lurdan said:


> Doesn't it have different connotations in the US ? I think there was a 'ska-punk' fad amongst frat boys in the 80s/90s.


Yes and US ska is shite.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 30, 2014)

likesfish said:


> Yes but name one self declared Marxist societie that survived when people got a choice?


What is choice and why is it so important to neoliberals?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 30, 2014)

nino_savatte said:


> Yes and US ska is shite.


Which makes it rather annoying that clip used to represent ska was the specials.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 30, 2014)

NOFX were good. Don't know if just having a trumpet in your punk tunes makes you ska though.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 30, 2014)

This is NOFX:



This is ska:


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Sep 30, 2014)

As its already been noted on here, Tim Aker is now a UKIP MEP and head of the party's policy unit. I saw he said this the other day



> “We’re beyond left-right, authoritarian-libertarian—those arguments are for university [common rooms],”



http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/o...-will-ukips-election-2015-manifesto-look-like

This is Tim Aker  (far left) from a few years back, demonstrating his 'beyond left-right, authoritarian libertarianness' 







But maybe its unfair to drag up a photo from his past. Maybe he really is beyond 'left-right' and 'authoritarian-libertarian' these days. What policies does he support? In the same article:



> And the top rate (of tax)? “Abolish it,” says Aker. Above the 40p rate, there will be “no further rates,” he says. “We are for flatter, simpler and lower taxes.”
> 
> Aker says that the party is determined to reduce the deficit; the manifesto will outline substantial Whitehall cuts. “Foreign aid is an obvious target,” he says. The party is also committed to the abolition of the Climate Change Act...
> 
> ...



Like so many people who claim to be beyond left and right, Aker is just another rabid right-winger in denial.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 30, 2014)

nino_savatte said:


> What is choice and why is it so important to neoliberals?


 
It's not that important really, but they like to leave the option open.


----------



## Quartz (Sep 30, 2014)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Like so many people who claim to be beyond left and right, Aker is just another rabid right-winger in denial.



You should have quoted the paragraphs above that:



> “Our people want to know how we’re going to make their lives easier, simpler and how they can just get on and feel more comfortable. That’s it. It’s a blue-collar platform, but for people that want to aspire to achieve absolutely anything.
> 
> “We want to take low earners out of income tax altogether. No tax on the minimum wage,”



They're channelling Margaret Thatcher from 1979 when the Tories targeted the aspirational working class.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 30, 2014)

Quartz said:


> You should have quoted the paragraphs above that:
> 
> 
> 
> They're channelling Margaret Thatcher from 1979 when the Tories targeted the aspirational working class.


When have the tories - or any other party - _not_ targeted the aspirational working class?


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 30, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Which makes it rather annoying that clip used to represent ska was the specials.


----------



## likesfish (Sep 30, 2014)

nino_savatte said:


> What is choice and why is it so important to neoliberals?



Because it fucking works

Top 20 best countries to live in the world social democratic.
 Making leaders accountable to the people means they deliver what the majority want or they are out of a job .
 Your 5 year plan doesn't work?sorry we will try somebody's elses plan doesn't matter how great the theory was and how many dead Germans you quote it didn't deliver.

 That's why people know who runs the torys and labour they get shit dome it may be done badly or maybe stupid shit but if it is they are out of a job. Nobody knows or cares who runs the swp because they will never have any power.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 30, 2014)

likesfish said:


> Because it fucking works
> 
> Top 20 best countries to live in the world social democratic.
> Making leaders accountable to the people means they deliver what the majority want or they are out of a job .
> ...


Choice "works"? What kind of nonsense is that? Choice is an illusion. Do you honestly think people in Eastern Europe are better off because they have 'choice'? Seriously, have a word with yourself.

You still didn't deal with my point about non-Marxist countries being tyrannical.

But I'm also interested in what you would define as a "so-called Marxist country"? The USSR? China?


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 30, 2014)

which 20 countries are social democracies?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 30, 2014)

likesfish said:


> Because it fucking works
> 
> Top 20 best countries to live in the world social democratic.
> Making leaders accountable to the people means they deliver what the majority want or they are out of a job .
> ...


What top 20 countries?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Sep 30, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Reason is the biggest libertarian publication in the world - very influential in powerful elite circles.  Here's something about it/them.
> 
> As Reason’s editor defends its racist history, here’s a copy of its holocaust denial “special issue”



Missed this post at the time. What a sewer.


----------



## likesfish (Sep 30, 2014)

http://www.therichest.com/rich-list/rich-countries/the-10-best-countries-to-live-in-2014/10/
 OECD list strangely no Marxists on it


----------



## likesfish (Sep 30, 2014)

likesfish said:


> http://www.therichest.com/rich-list/rich-countries/the-10-best-countries-to-live-in-2014/10/
> OECD list strangely no Marxists on it


 Any country that calls itself marxist


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 30, 2014)

likesfish said:


> http://www.therichest.com/rich-list/rich-countries/the-10-best-countries-to-live-in-2014/10/
> OECD list strangely no Marxists on it


Let me get this right - you say: 



> Top 20 best countries to live in the world social democratic.



and to support this you give us a list of 10 countries- none of which are social-democratic. Well, you could maybe argue that one is.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 30, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Missed this post at the time. What a sewer.


That should be read alongside this excellent companion piece about the real life effect of these swines today:
Ferguson is our “libertarian moment,” but not in the way some libertarians want you to believe



> Let’s leave aside for now the weirdness of using Rand Paul — a paranoid gun-nut who wants to weaponize every nook and cranny of American life, from arming all school teachers as the answer to Sandy Hook, to arming our border with a giant “underground electric fence, with helicopter stations to respond quickly to breaches of the border” (to be fair, Paul’s spokesman clarified his mega-fence vision as a “combination of thermal imaging, satellite technology, motion detection and helicopters at key checkpoints”) — as the libertarian pitch-man against police militarization. Or the fact that Michael Brown was killed by a non-militarized cop. The point is this: Libertarians say that Ferguson proves we’re at the Libertarian Moment, and that they’ve been developing the answers to our current police and criminal justice problems “for decades.”
> 
> And the scary thing is, they’re right: Libertarians have been coming up with reform programs for our city police and criminal justice systems for a long time. In fact, some of these reforms have actually become law in places like Ferguson.





> Take the shocking “discovery” — actually years in the making — that Ferguson shifted many of its revenue burdens away from taxpayers and onto something the New Yorker described as the city’s “offender-funded” justice system, designed to “shift the financial burden of probation directly onto the probationers…. charging petty offenders — such as those with traffic debts — for a government service that was once free.”





> Poole’s writings in the mid-late 1970s for Reason magazine (which he edited) and the Reason Foundation (which he co-founded, both with the Kochs’ support) provided the neoliberal blueprints for Thatcherism, as recounted by one of her advisers and hagiographers:
> 
> “The intellectual case for ‘contracting out’ came from an American MIT-trained engineer turned policy wonk, Bob Poole, head of the Reason Foundation in Santa Barbara and author of a little book called ‘Cutting Back City Hall.’ In this book he explained how all you needed to run a city was a CEO, a lawyer to review contracts and a secretary. Everything — literally everything — could be outsourced and he littered his book with examples and figures….[Thatcher advisor Michael Forsyth] translated Poole’s work into an English context and, led by the Westminster City Council, ‘contracting out’ spread like a contagious disease throughout the country.”





> Contracting was just one of many forms of privatization proposed by Poole in “Cutting Back City Hall.” Poole was particularly interested in finding ways to privatize America’s police departments and its criminal justice system, and in his handbook, Poole proposed replacing taxpayer-funded police departments with private contractors — Poole named Pinkerton, Burns and Wackenhut as three fine examples. The only thing holding America back in 1980, he lamented, was the country’s “attitude problem — that somehow only government should be providing police services…”


----------



## Batboy (Oct 1, 2014)

Yossarian said:


> Here they are at the premiere of Atlas Shrugged - Part 2.



Surely this is from a Man united recent game?  The prawn sandwich brigade must be moving across the city...  Or down to Chelsea.


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 1, 2014)

likesfish said:


> Any country that calls itself marxist


What? Like political parties that call themselves 'liberal' but are actually conservative?


----------



## likesfish (Oct 1, 2014)

nino_savatte said:


> What? Like political parties that call themselves 'liberal' but are actually conservative?


 Exactly but how else can you judge Marxism?, otherwise you enter no true Scotsman country.
   It's  a system that so far has been impossible to implement until either human nature radically changed or we get a post scarcity economy it's best avoided.


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 1, 2014)

likesfish said:


> Exactly but how else can you judge Marxism?, otherwise you enter no true Scotsman country.
> It's  a system that so far has been impossible to implement until either human nature radically changed or we get a post scarcity economy it's best avoided.


But you forget, there are _no_ Marxist countries (that is to say, those countries whose economic system is Marxist). There's Cuba, which has suffered from 50 years of being blockaded by the US, so that hardly counts.

As for social democratic countries, you haven't found any.


----------



## likesfish (Oct 1, 2014)

The rest sort of collapsed didn't they when the Russian boot was lifted


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 1, 2014)

They weren't Marxist.

As soon as the Berlin Wall collapsed, the neoliberals rushed in.


----------



## seventh bullet (Oct 1, 2014)

likesfish said:


> http://www.therichest.com/rich-list/rich-countries/the-10-best-countries-to-live-in-2014/10/
> OECD list strangely no Marxists on it



By 'Marxist' you crudely mean Marxist-Leninist (Soviet or Chinese derived, or a mixture of both).  A whole thread could be started on the nature of such societies (personally I don't think they can be so easily dismissed), but for now at number three on your list is Vietnam since 'doi moi' (neoliberalism cautiously facilitated by an authoritarian state).

With this gradual transition the children of dispossessed peasants are 'happy' in their choice stitching trainers for a pittance?


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Oct 1, 2014)

nino_savatte said:


> Choice "works"? What kind of nonsense is that? Choice is an illusion.



The libertarian vision of choice seems to boil down to choice to spend your money on what you want, a choice limited to how much money you've actually got. But the idea of imposing market choice into every area of social life is incredibly dystopian when you think about it. Libertarians always make the point of saying that individuals know how to spend their money better than the government does. Whether or not that's true, imagine having to make financial calculations about every area of your life: working out which road tolls to pay, which health plans to adopt, which fire insurance policy to take out etc. You'd have to devote significant amounts of your leisure time (assuming you have any) to being a fucking accountant. Paying taxes that are collectively used to fund public goods gives you are a far greater freedom than libertarians ever give it credit for: freedom from the tyranny of permanent economic calculation.


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 1, 2014)

Jeff Robinson said:


> The libertarian vision of choice seems to boil down to choice to spend your money on what you want, a choice limited to how much money you've actually got. But the idea of imposing market choice into every area of social life is incredibly dystopian when you think about it. Libertarians always make the point of saying that individuals know how to spend their money better than the government does. Whether or not that's true, imagine having to make financial calculations about every area of your life: working out which road tolls to pay, which health plans to adopt, which fire insurance policy to take out etc. You'd have to devote significant amounts of your leisure time (assuming you have any) to being a fucking accountant. Paying taxes that are collectively used to fund public goods gives you are a far greater freedom than libertarians ever give it credit for: freedom from the tyranny of permanent economic calculation.


For the 'libertarian', everything is reduced to the calculus of profit and loss. 

One thing that I've noticed about 'libertarians' is their obsession with numbers, especially statistics. When I point out to them that you can extrapolate any meaning you like from a set of stats, they have no answer and will start lashing out. They can't see anything beyond sets of numbers. Fucking weirdos.


----------



## likesfish (Oct 1, 2014)

Liberarians have some point privately run bars restaurants etc etc are better than a government run pub chain.
 Not sure private security police fire service roads etc etc a good idea at all.
   The new liberals were able to rush in because the society with out the threat of ever present informers and foreign military didn't work.
 You want to replace capitalism fine you have to come up with something better not something that's shitter but claims to be better.
 The west managed to produce guns and butter and shiny stuff to distract the proles and allow protest and communists party's and  a massive amount of soviet espionage.
  The sovet system was threatened by jazz musicans
   it could t even cope with people voting with their feet  that's how shit and rotten the whole system was it only survived because it put up a fence to keep people in.


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 1, 2014)

In which country are you likely to find a government run pub chain?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 1, 2014)

nino_savatte said:


> In which country are you likely to find a government run pub chain?


Well, bars not pubs, but Cuba.


----------



## likesfish (Oct 1, 2014)

Exactly it's a bloody stupid idea 
 Much like libertarian ideas of toll roads everywhere and  competing private police/ defence forces.
  Much like communist party's but with out the cool flags and the fiction of being for the majority of the population.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 1, 2014)

Offies in Sweden are govt-owned.


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 1, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Offies in Sweden are govt-owned.


Yes, they are but does that make them necessarily a bad thing?


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 1, 2014)

likesfish said:


> The new liberals were able to rush in because the society with out the threat of ever present informers and foreign military didn't work.


No, they circled like vultures waiting to pick off profitable parts of the state's economies. If you think Eastern Europe is a better place for neoliberalism, think again.

Was Pinochet's Chile better because of its free market economy?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 1, 2014)

The state used to own pubs and breweries in northern england scotland and london - right up until the heath govt.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Oct 1, 2014)

Subsidised beer sounds pretty good to me.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 1, 2014)

nino_savatte said:


> Yes, they are but does that make them necessarily a bad thing?


I think it depends what you want them to do. State-owned restaurants in Cuba serve pretty uninspiring food, but are cheap. They serve a purpose. Mind you the state-owned fast food chain in Cuba is both shit and expensive. It's mysteriously popular despite its shitness.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Oct 1, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Mind you the state-owned fast food chain in Cuba is both shit and expensive. It's mysteriously popular despite its shitness.



You could say that about McDonalds, to be fair.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 1, 2014)

cynicaleconomy said:


> You could say that about McDonalds, to be fair.


Yes, true. State-owned ice cream places in Cuba are cheap and good. Being state-owned doesn't have to equal shit.


----------



## Dogsauce (Oct 1, 2014)

State-owned software houses used to be quite good - British Telecom's 'Booty' platform game on the ZX Spectrum was ace.


----------



## Quartz (Oct 1, 2014)

nino_savatte said:


> For the 'libertarian', everything is reduced to the calculus of profit and loss.



Ask two libertarians what their definition of their philosophy is and you'll get three different answers.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 1, 2014)

Quartz said:


> Ask two libertarians what their definition of their philosophy is and you'll get three different answers.


No you won't.


----------



## seventh bullet (Oct 1, 2014)

likesfish said:


> Liberarians have some point privately run bars restaurants etc etc are better than a government run pub chain.
> Not sure private security police fire service roads etc etc a good idea at all.
> The new liberals were able to rush in because the society with out the threat of ever present informers and foreign military didn't work.
> You want to replace capitalism fine you have to come up with something better not something that's shitter but claims to be better.
> ...



Were the European satellites after WWII the same as the USSR?


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Oct 1, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yes, true. State-owned ice cream places in Cuba are cheap and good. Being state-owned doesn't have to equal shit.



Yep. There are just as many failures (actually probably more when you take into account the waste of resources associated with the 90% of businesses that fail within the first 2 years of opening shop) of service provision in the private sector as there are in the public. There are also just as many successes (actually probably more when you take into account rights of access and democratic control) in the public sector as there are in the private. 

The issue isn't really public vs private, it's about accountability to the people that need that service and availability of it to everyone in a fair and open way. Personally I'm not really bothered about who gives me my ice cream and beer. I am _absolutely _bothered about who gives me my healthcare though, and I want it to be the government. Not that I'm doing anything other than preaching to the converted here, of course.


----------



## 8ball (Oct 1, 2014)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Paying taxes that are collectively used to fund public goods gives you are a far greater freedom than libertarians ever give it credit for: freedom from the tyranny of permanent economic calculation.


 
Now, you may say that, but I saw that cultist fucknut arguing against this point by saying that may be true, but it's not about increasing freedom, it's about _morality_.  So now we have so-called libertarians trying to argue against what they pretend is the whole thrust of their argument by resorting to incoherent moral authoritarianism.

Hence a big part of my problem with this thread - these people aren't libertarians at all!


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 1, 2014)

8ball said:


> Now, you may say that, but I saw that cultist fucknut arguing against this point by saying that may be true, but it's not about increasing freedom, it's about _morality_.


How does that argument go, then? Is it _immoral_ to expect me to pay when you get sick? Is that the thrust of the thing? Perhaps it is _unchristian_?


----------



## 8ball (Oct 1, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> How does that argument go, then? Is it _immoral_ to expect me to pay when you get sick? Is that the thrust of the thing? Perhaps it is _unchristian_?


 
No, it comes down to the morality of taxation without consent, which really boils down to the social contract.  I agree with them that legitimacy comes with a social contract and not with the threat of violence, but the silliness of contracting everything out to private providers combined with the dubious morality of the alienation this will entail for the people providing the services and the rendering of profits to an owning class makes things worse rather than better.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 1, 2014)

8ball said:


> No, it comes down to the morality of taxation without consent.


Oh, ok, that idiocy. 

They really haven't progressed beyond the teenager's 'I didn't ask to be born', have they?


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 1, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yes, true. State-owned ice cream places in Cuba are cheap and good. Being state-owned doesn't have to equal shit.


Quite but likesfish seemed to be suggesting that it did.


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 1, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> The state used to own pubs and breweries in northern england scotland and london - right up until the heath govt.


You mean this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Management_Scheme

"No treating" (buying rounds)


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 1, 2014)

Quartz said:


> Ask two libertarians what their definition of their philosophy is and you'll get three different answers.


Oh?


----------



## likesfish (Oct 1, 2014)

nino_savatte said:


> Quite but likesfish seemed to be suggesting that it did.


 Sometimes it does though see British leyland


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 1, 2014)

likesfish said:


> Sometimes it does though see British leyland


Ah no, you're not allowed them. Read up on why BL was nationalised. It was a failing industry in private hands - taking it into public hands was an attempt to save it.


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 1, 2014)

likesfish said:


> Sometimes it does though see British leyland


I was about to deal with this but littlebabyjesus beat me to it.

Nationalised industries suffered from a lack of investment and poor management. Yet, the Tory line is that they failed because of union militancy.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Oct 1, 2014)

nino_savatte said:


> You mean this?
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Management_Scheme
> 
> "No treating" (buying rounds)


 Quite like the idea of pubs that aren't motivated to sell you stuff. Just a public space that happens to have a licence to sell booze


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 1, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> Quite like the idea of pubs that aren't motivated to sell you stuff. Just a public space that happens to have a licence to sell booze


Yeah, me too, although if the booze is half-decent, they'll sell plenty.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Oct 1, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Ah no, you're not allowed them. Read up on why BL was nationalised. It was a failing industry in private hands - taking it into public hands was an attempt to save it.





nino_savatte said:


> I was about to deal with this but littlebabyjesus beat me to it.
> 
> Nationalised industries suffered from a lack of investment and poor management. Yet, the Tory line is that they failed because of union militancy.


 
And of course BL was never run in the way that Tory privatisers like to imagine it was either. It was basically a private company run for profit by conventional capitalist managers (a lot of them recruited from the very successful Ford UK) that just happened to have the National Enterprise Board holding the shares and offering (relatively modest) investment. The only real difference between pre and post-1975 BL was where the capital was coming from, it's not like Tony Benn was designing the cars, ffs.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Oct 1, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> it's not like Tony Benn was designing the cars, ffs.



More's the pity.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 2, 2015)

Dunno if anyone saw this

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article4328271.ece

Everyone's favourite Libertarian has been sacked by UKIP


----------



## brogdale (Feb 2, 2015)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Dunno if anyone saw this
> 
> http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article4328271.ece
> 
> Everyone's favourite Libertarian has been sacked by UKIP



I don't really like to say this but...tbf...he really did have the impossible job, especially for an arch libertarian. How to square the circle of a party with minarchism as it's ideological 'DNA' writing 'big state' policies to appeal to the old,white, working class demographic they are attempting to attract.


----------



## 8ball (Feb 2, 2015)

Lo Siento. said:


> Quite like the idea of pubs that aren't motivated to sell you stuff. Just a public space that happens to have a licence to sell booze



I've been to plenty of pubs like that.  It gets on your tits after several minutes stood at tan empty bar waiting for them to get round to serving you, though.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 6, 2015)

12 in Anderston (Glasgow). Or at least 12 that could be bothered to vote.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Aug 28, 2015)

brogdale said:


> 12 in Anderston (Glasgow). Or at least 12 that could be bothered to vote.



 Think we've located them


----------



## J Ed (Aug 28, 2015)

DaveCinzano said:


> Think we've located them



Not white enough, gender ratio is spot on though


----------



## DaveCinzano (Aug 28, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Not white enough, gender ratio is spot on though


 Donald Sutherland makes an excellent Bungay.


----------



## likesfish (Aug 30, 2015)

BT provided a shit service weeks for a phone and a small vastly over priced selection of phones with dire threats if you dared to use an unauthorized phone


----------



## stethoscope (Aug 30, 2015)

likesfish said:


> BT provided a shit service weeks for a phone and a small vastly over priced selection of phones with dire threats if you dared to use an unauthorized phone



Just like TalkTalk then.


----------



## likesfish (Aug 30, 2015)

Except you have a choice to tell talk talk to shove it.
Monopoly's backed by the state can and do treat the customer like shit.
 While starved of fiance if they can't make money they are kept on life support if they can every cent goes to the Treasury zero for investment .


----------



## stethoscope (Aug 30, 2015)

Local Loop Unbundling and breaking up of Telecoms was just another Tory privatised con trick dressed up as 'but choice for the customer'. Even then its not that simple that you can always go with different providers due to the internal bidding/contracts involved at local exchanges and not being able to get infrastructure laid down in different areas whilst a million and one sub contracted companies battle for what profit is to be made and barely talk to each other. Its all bullshit.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Aug 30, 2015)

likesfish said:


> BT provided a shit service weeks for a phone and a small vastly over priced selection of phones with dire threats if you dared to use an unauthorized phone



I've heard this story about having to wait weeks for a phone a number of times anecdotally. Some questions spring to mind though, such as when was this? What was the comparable wait time for a phone in countries that had a private system? Couldn't this just be down to the technology of the era?

Genuine questions, by the way. I'm completely ignorant on the issue of British Telecom pre-privatisation.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 30, 2015)

cynicaleconomy said:


> I've heard this story about having to wait weeks for a phone a number of times anecdotally. Some questions spring to mind though, such as when was this? What was the comparable wait time for a phone in countries that had a private system? Couldn't this just be down to the technology of the era?
> 
> Genuine questions, by the way. I'm completely ignorant on the issue of British Telecom pre-privatisation.



According to a mate who worked for BT back when it was part of the GPO, the delays were down to (IIRC) three different sections of technical staff being involved in activating a line - one at the exchange, one who dealt with the (green) street junction box, and one who actually installed the phone in your house/office.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 2, 2015)

Brendan "I'm a Marxist really" O'Neill and other self-styled 'libertarians' get their arses kicked (again).
Twitter tyrants and social justice warriors beware. The libertarians are coming for you | Jason Wilson

I found this comment highly amusing.


> Mary1986
> 2h ago
> 45
> The Authoritarianism of the 'SJW & Twitter Tyrants' is being taken on by Libertarians such as O'Neill, Hoff Sommers & Yiannopoulos, rightly so.
> ...



You'd have to be ignorant of political ideologies to claim O'Neill is "left-wing" but so what if Yiannopolous is "gay"? Does that excuse his misogyny?


----------



## treelover (Sep 2, 2015)

> The “movement” includes professional anti-feminists like Christina Hoff Sommers, and celebrity culture warriors like Breitbart writer Milo Yiannopoulos and* Firefly actor Adam Baldwin*, of late a supporter of Gamergate.



Totally unlike his brother Alec.

btw, the new 'New Right' would love to ignite culture wars here, which haven't really taken off like in the U.S, except maybe EDL, etc.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Sep 2, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> Brendan "I'm a Marxist really" O'Neill and other self-styled 'libertarians' get their arses kicked (again).
> Twitter tyrants and social justice warriors beware. The libertarians are coming for you | Jason Wilson



The phoney libertarians haunt the conspiracy movement terribly. Apparently the global elite is SOCIALIST!!! Who knew?

Every bit as likely to be causing the BAD THINGS as jesuits, secret societies etc. is THE LEFT!!! They are especially fond of blaming things on the Fabians - people who have never struck me as anything more than sellouts and bores.

What doesn't compute about the idea that the left are running everything is the actual fact that the left run next to fuck all. We don't even have regulated buses anymore.

And that thing about human caused climate change being a lie used to tax and control us - even if it is, doesn't make it any less an actual thing. And the facts are that next to fuck all has happened to reduce emissions since the Rio summit (1992?)

Right libertarianism is as much a simplistic echo chamber/jerk circle as any school of thought I've come across, it pollutes analysis and exposure of genuine conspiracy at least as much as the lefts too-common refusal to engage with it at all.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Sep 2, 2015)

An interesting post from another board:

_I've spoken of Spiked before, but Spiked is just one element. I knew Claire Fox and her clique when I was at Uni. The entire same clique are now still working together through orgs like institute of ideas, sense about science etc.

All these orgs are seemingly modern, NonProfit and independent but in fact they are all interrelated whereby they invite each other on their panels and pretend they dont know each other. Its a complete career reinforcing & media brand enhancing process.

The whole clique has connections with Frank Furedi who osensibly is a left wing academic but actually all the orgs are financed by big corporates particularly those in pharma and GM crops.

The fact that people loke Fox gets to pad her living on radio 4 shows how far they have reached. A little research and you will constantly surpriosed how the same names turn up - its a shakedown racket but a strangely nasty one._


----------



## 8ball (Sep 2, 2015)

A self-facilitating media node.


----------



## sihhi (Sep 2, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Not white enough, gender ratio is spot on though



There's siginifcant non-white Libertarians so that ratio is not wrong. In fact in the Tory party the Libertarian wing contains just about all its non-white MPs.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Nov 30, 2015)

A teenage US anarcho capitalist visits an anarchist social centre in Greece:

I was beat up by left anarchists in Greece. • /r/Anarcho_Capitalism


----------



## peterkro (Nov 30, 2015)

Fozzie Bear said:


> A teenage US anarcho capitalist visits an anarchist social centre in Greece:
> 
> I was beat up by left anarchists in Greece. • /r/Anarcho_Capitalism


What a fucking dick.(that is of course it actually happened and it's not just some troll)


----------



## Idris2002 (Nov 30, 2015)

peterkro said:


> What a fucking dick.(that is of course it actually happened and it's not just some troll)


It would be great if it was true, but the idea that anyone would scream "stop initiating force against me" while being dragged down the stairs. . .


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Nov 30, 2015)

Idris2002 said:


> It would be great if it was true, but the idea that anyone would scream "stop initiating force against me" while being dragged down the stairs. . .



I know - that is still an amazing quote though


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Nov 30, 2015)

Fozzie Bear said:


> I know - that is still an amazing quote though



The comments section contains some great material as well.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Idris2002 (Nov 30, 2015)

Louis MacNeice said:


> The comments section contains some great material as well.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice


"Fanny packs are great and I know you'd be crying like a bitch if this happened to you."


----------



## Libertad (Nov 30, 2015)

Fozzie Bear said:


> A teenage US anarcho capitalist visits an anarchist social centre in Greece:
> 
> I was beat up by left anarchists in Greece. • /r/Anarcho_Capitalism



 Surely a shit troll but it made me smile.


----------



## J Ed (Nov 30, 2015)

Fozzie Bear said:


> A teenage US anarcho capitalist visits an anarchist social centre in Greece:
> 
> I was beat up by left anarchists in Greece. • /r/Anarcho_Capitalism






> It hurt really bad and I remember yelling "you're breaking the NAP" and things like that. "Stop initiating force against me." Then they kicked me around on the ground in the hallway, before they took my camera and threw me outside. I was crying and stuff, I just sat there.



I want to believe


----------



## J Ed (Nov 30, 2015)

Real or not, this is how I imagine that story


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 30, 2015)

what a heartwarming tale


----------



## brogdale (Dec 19, 2016)

Yossarian said:


> Can you give this lot a kicking while you're at it? They look relatively harmless, but if you tangled with them I think the one furthest left would stab you while the one furthest right sat on you.


Hesitate to admit to this....but is anyone else watching...er..."Only Connect"?


----------



## Santino (Dec 19, 2016)




----------



## brogdale (Dec 19, 2016)

Santino said:


>


2nd from left; Mark Wallace is appearing as a team captain.


----------



## treelover (Dec 20, 2016)

They are all making their way up the greasy pole, they are Oxbridge, aren't they?

The fat one, who i don't think is fat anymore, is often on Sky News.


----------



## two sheds (Dec 20, 2016)

fucking librarians


----------



## redcogs (Dec 20, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> According to a mate who worked for BT back when it was part of the GPO, the delays were down to (IIRC) three different sections of technical staff being involved in activating a line - one at the exchange, one who dealt with the (green) street junction box, and one who actually installed the phone in your house/office.



i, coincidentally, happen to know an answer to the question you are answering here VP.  As a 'one man installer' it was my responsibility to hoist and connect a 'dropwire' from the 'distribution pole' top to the subscribers home/office.  Once that was complete, the 'instrument' (ie telephone) was fitted according to the subscribers desires, often in the hallway or window bottom, but basically anywhere the sub' wanted it fitting.  Sometimes this would involve many yards of internal cabling, at no additional cost for the installation, which was a fixed price of about £45 if memory serves. Once the house install was complete it was also my task to attend the "green street junction box" (official description 'cabinet') to interconnect the distribution side of the underground cabling to the exchange side of the underground cabling to provide a dial tone service to the subscriber.	It was also often my task to attend to the 'main distribution frame' (MDF) connection at the appropriate telephone exchange, completing the installation by fitting a pair of fuses on the 'D' side of the MDF. 

It is possible that other telephone areas operated a slightly different regime, with the exchange work being the responsibility of dedicated staff, but the concept of a 'one man installer' was actually national in the UK, as was the pricing structure.

When we owned the telephone system (under the umbrella of the GPO) it was a system that sought to present a human face, and its necessary electronic complexity involved  significant planning,(ie, in the social democratic sense), and i well remember being involved in the cabling of entire council estates (prior to them being built), because the ethos of the public service aspect of the telephone network had understood and planned for a telephone to be fitted into every single tenancy.  It was dispiriting to see that once those estates had reached completion, much of that planning and investment went to (short term) waste - mainly because the council tenant demographic in the 1970s often could not afford the install costs of a telephone, or the rent, which wasnt insignificant.

All those decades of public investment for public purposes was ultimately stolen from the public by Thatcher and her gangsters in the tory privatising frenzy of the 1980s.  The rich sucked it all up, and continue to benefit from a comprehensive telecommunications network that really ought to be back in the hands of the state - but with one critical difference to the old model of the GPO days - when its renationalised, as it must be, lets have it under actual workers control, rather than suffering under the heel of batteries of lickspittle capitalists and accountants.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 17, 2017)

Yossarian said:


> Can you give this lot a kicking while you're at it? They look relatively harmless, but if you tangled with them I think the one furthest left would stab you while the one furthest right sat on you.


yer man in the t-shirt looks familiar, he's not on tv is he?


----------



## brogdale (Mar 17, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> yer man in the t-shirt looks familiar, he's not on tv is he?


Yes; as Exec Editor of 'ConservativeHome' and as a recent contestant on 'Only Connect'.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 17, 2017)

brogdale said:


> Yes; as Exec Editor of 'ConservativeHome' and as a recent contestant on 'Only Connect'.


yeh, i remember now. ta. mark wallace.


----------



## treelover (Mar 17, 2017)

he was on Only Connect, with his dad, as a team of bee keepers!, 

in other news, he is rapidly going up the political greasy pole, editor of Conservative Home, on Sky News paper review, etc.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 17, 2017)

treelover said:


> he was on Only Connect, with his dad, as a team of bee keepers!,
> 
> in other news, he is rapidly going up the political greasy pole, editor of Conservative Home, on Sky News paper review, etc.


glad to see you've caught up with us


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Mar 18, 2017)

Still reading this thread title as 'Librarians'. Disappointed every time.


----------



## redcogs (Mar 18, 2017)

Cant you see i'm trying to read over here??  Shhhhh!


----------



## Idris2002 (Mar 22, 2017)

J Ed said:


> I want to believe


I want to believe this:


----------



## NoXion (Mar 22, 2017)

I fucking hate it when pricks do that. The fact that some poor sods are slaving away in Africa digging up coltan barefoot in the mud while it's pissing down, doesn't somehow offset the shit wages of my own job. It's not a fucking competition for fuck's sake.


----------



## YouSir (Mar 22, 2017)

NoXion said:


> I fucking hate it when pricks do that. The fact that some poor sods are slaving away in Africa digging up coltan barefoot in the mud while it's pissing down, doesn't somehow offset the shit wages of my own job. It's not a fucking competition for fuck's sake.



Also never comes with any calls for the people mentioned to be paid more either, just for everyone else to suffer and accept it.


----------



## CNT36 (Mar 22, 2017)

Idris2002 said:


> I want to believe this:


Just quoting so I can like this again.


----------



## CNT36 (Mar 22, 2017)

Bollocks can't like own posts anymore.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 22, 2017)

there you go


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Mar 22, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> there you go



Can I have one too?


----------



## rekil (Feb 17, 2018)

This looks amazing. 

Speakers - Anarchapulco | Make Anarchy Great Again


----------



## ska invita (Feb 17, 2018)

copliker said:


> This looks amazing.
> 
> Speakers - Anarchapulco | Make Anarchy Great Again


Seems that in any future libertarian society having your face photoshopped will be compulsary


----------



## binka (Feb 17, 2018)

copliker said:


> This looks amazing.
> 
> Speakers - Anarchapulco | Make Anarchy Great Again


You can live stream it for just $199. Form an orderly queue now


----------



## mojo pixy (Feb 17, 2018)

copliker said:


> This looks amazing.
> 
> Speakers - Anarchapulco | Make Anarchy Great Again



The smug, it burns 

...and remember, taxation is theft!


----------



## 8ball (Feb 17, 2018)

mojo pixy said:


> ...and remember, taxation is theft!



What, taking something from someone with no regard to consent is theft now?

Call the cops!


----------



## eatmorecheese (Feb 17, 2018)

Oh fucks sake, what fresh hell is this, etc. Rugged selfie-individualists.


----------



## seventh bullet (Feb 17, 2018)

copliker said:


> This looks amazing.
> 
> Speakers - Anarchapulco | Make Anarchy Great Again



Needs a flamethrower.


----------



## mojo pixy (Feb 17, 2018)

I was reading about it and it was evidently a fiasco. The organisers and crew were overwhelmed and some attendees were stranded with no food, water or place to stay. Awww.


----------



## Nylock (Feb 18, 2018)

WTF is a '*Life Optimization Facilitator*'?

Fucksake

It's all the people from the fucking 'B' ark innit...


----------



## Part 2 (Feb 18, 2018)

They've posted a video on Facebook 'This is what Anarchy looks like'. Can't seem to get sound on it though, which is probably a good thing.

Fear not...they're also on yotube.


----------



## rekil (Feb 18, 2018)

Still a couple of days for it to go a bit Jonestown.


----------



## stethoscope (Feb 18, 2018)

Apparently Wu Tang Clan played!


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 18, 2018)

stethoscope said:


> Apparently Wu Tang Clan played!


I've got GZA in my head under 'cons[piracy bollocks' but google showing me nowt. Coulda sworn a 9/11 troof sorta thing...


----------



## JimW (Nov 30, 2021)




----------

