(cont.)

However even if your assertion were true, at least the people would have the option of *refusing to fund* such corporations by not buying their products. Under your preferred option, payment is taken under compulsion – taxation - or fraud – the Fed; both of which are illegal for corporations, and would continue so under President Ron Paul.

Thus your entire argument collapses.

But if I am wrong, what are the answers to my questions?

If you can't, please admit that by supporting Obama over Ron Paul
• you are actively supporting mass killings of innocent people
• since the US dollar is the world’s reserve currency, you are actively supporting government monopoly control of the money supply that works by thieving massive wealth from the poorest people in the US and the world, to the richest and most powerful banks, big corporations, and officials, especially profiting the military-industrial complex.
• you are actively supporting a man who, in violation of the plain words of the Constitution, claims the arbitrary prerogative to order the indefinite detention of American citizens on American soil without charge or trial, and who sanctions the killing of American citizens without trial, and torture and disappearances throughout the world, based on a non-declared war on an abstract concept.
All despite the fact you are unable to justify your reasoning which is multiple layers deep in ethical and logical falsehoods and factual untruths.

Sir Vivor
I think you are projecting onto government what you think it should be, rather than what is actually is.

“It’s a jungle…”
Only if you confuse violent with voluntary social relations, which means you haven’t understood libertarianism. That’s why you have unwittingly supported mass murder and corruption over peace and freedom.

If you are right, how do you respond to my three numbered points above, showing how big government corruptly favours big business?

Also, 4. putting aside corporations’ revenue because of big government, all their revenue comes from people’s voluntary payments, which people can freely withhold – especially if government isn’t suffocating a thousand competitors as now.

(cont.)

It is governments’, not corporations’, revenues that are compulsory. Why doesn’t this prove your argument wrong?

Isn’t it time for you to re-think the views you mistakenly formed at age 18, after 10 years compulsory state indoctrination by the biggest monopoly corporation of all – the state – which just happened to confuse in your mind peace and freedom, with violence and fraud?

All
Since many self-styled progressives are supporting totalitarian fascism over peace and freedom, we have to ask: why?

Obviously it’s no use asking them, because, assuming they are not genuinely evil or dishonest, they must be confused. Why? Because they’re supporting inhumane and corrupt abuses that are self-evidently the opposite of what they think they stand for.

I believe we can identify two fundamental errors, one ethical, one economic in their thinking.

The most fundamental moral blunder is to confuse violent with non-violent social relations. Yet this error underlies the statist – left and right wing - ideology in favour of forced redistributions: the ethical element is disregarded. And then they are surprised when the landscape of social values turns out grotesque and corrupted by power. Well surprise surprise.

The economic error is that they do not reflect that there is nothing about the nature of the state that guarantees the forced redistributions will be from the poor to the rich. In fact government has far more to gain from currying favour with the rich, especially if the intellectual class, having forgotten the very idea of freedom, act as cheerleaders for the state, which is exactly what the economically illiterate left wing intelligentsia have been doing for the last 100 years. “The tree is known by its fruit.”

The economic error is the uncritical belief that government creates net benefits for society by printing money, and provides security and justice by extensive and intensive aggressions against property rights.

What if these beliefs are wrong?

What if that creed makes, not for social justice, but for an unfair society dominated by unjust political favouritism and huge neo-feudal privilege? That would have explaining power, wouldn’t it?

What if government, far from being a righteous counter-weight to big business, is the worst enabler of its corruption, and robber of the workers?

What if personal and economic liberty are two sides of the same coin? Since human rights cannot be expressed but through property rights, and the statists think property rights are immoral and should be forcibly overridden, what ultimately follows is the great agreement between the progressives and totalitarian fascism, which we have seen in this thread.

The idea that the solution is *even more* war, tax, inflation, debt, bubbles, depressions, bailouts, handouts, bureaucracy, central planning, regulations, and tyrannical trashing of ancient rights and liberties, only shows their moral and intellectual bankruptcy.

When we put aside the leftists’ misrepresentations and misunderstandings, they have NO ANSWER whatsoever to Ron Paul’s radical critique of the left, the right, and the state.

Ron Paul’s candidacy shows the statists of both left and right wing are at a cross-roads. They either continue their ideology that the people are united on the principle of unlimited submission and obedience to the state, that the Constitution is the state’s toilet paper; continue their disgraceful support for aggressive war abroad, a police state at home, and grand monetary fraud everywhere...

… or instead support *real* social justice based on peace, freedom, honest money, and the principle they have too long neglected – the moral primacy of *voluntary* social relations!

President Ron Paul!

P Hume, whether or not I am projecting is a moot point, as I may also have greater expectations of profit-driven corporations, as well as of first-world (and other) national governments.

I think you are projecting onto libertarianism what you think it should be, rather than what is actually is.

What do you expect will happen in the event that Ron Paul becomes prez? In an ideal libertarian world, will government wither away? And then, with a bit of luck and planning, will a semi-libertarian state then evolve into an anarchic utopia?

What, under such circumstances, would you guess to be the maximum natural size of of a profit-driven entity? Will the corporations evolve into anarchist collectives as well?

Everybody saw what happened to a left wing President like Barack Obama who promised the lefties the world when they got into office, he suddenly got a reality check and figured out that his promises were tantamount to total stupidity. The same thing happened to Tony Blair.

One suspects that when they reached high office and tried to implement their left wing "reforms", their own bureaucrats started to tell them the hard facts of life. As Prime Minister or President, they were now privy to secret information about their countries enemies which they had no notion of before. And their senior advisors told them that they were not in fairy land anymore, they were responsible for the continued prosperity, welfare and security of the entire country.

Fortunately, people like Blair and Obama were smart enough to change their spots. One wonders whether the present contenders for high office are that smart. Or is the western world now a metaphor for the Costa Concordia, with the residents of the West only concerned with their lifestyles, there is an idiot at the helm, and nobody is wondering where the ship of state is heading.

One puzzling aspect of your position, Peter Hume, is why you are actively supporting the continuation of a system that you so clearly despise...

>>President Ron Paul!<<

I see nothing in Paul's manifesto that envisages the disappearance of government itself, and the full assertion of root and branch libertarianism that you propose. He will still be President. There will still be an executive. And in order to implement his policies, he will still need to impose the government's will over the people's.

And he will still have to manage the government's impact on the economy, which is hardly going to disappear overnight, is it? And in your words:

>>...fascism results from government attempts to manage the economy. Economically speaking, that's what fascism *is* by definition.<<

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=13065#225874

How do you differentiate Paul's proposals for a return to specie, that seem to underpin his "economic policies", from your definition of fascism above?

Having utopian ideas is not a crime. Believing that they have a place in today's world just could be.