addressalign-toparrow-leftarrow-rightbackbellblockcalendarcameraccwcheckchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-small-downchevron-small-leftchevron-small-rightchevron-small-upchevron-upcircle-with-checkcircle-with-crosscircle-with-pluscontroller-playcrossdots-three-verticaleditemptyheartexporteye-with-lineeyefacebookfolderfullheartglobegmailgooglegroupshelp-with-circleimageimagesinstagramFill 1light-bulblinklocation-pinm-swarmSearchmailmessagesminusmoremuplabelShape 3 + Rectangle 1ShapeoutlookpersonJoin Group on CardStartprice-ribbonprintShapeShapeShapeShapeImported LayersImported LayersImported Layersshieldstartickettrashtriangle-downtriangle-uptwitteruserwarningyahoo

Re: [humanism-174] Who?

From: Greg P.
Sent on: Wednesday, November 7, 2012 12:11 PM
Libertarianism, like Communism, seems to work well on a 
small scale, among a group of like-minded people. Neither 
of them scale very well to a large group of 
diverse/disparate people.

It's easy to see (and therefore moderate) the impact of 
our actions on a group of people we are sharing space 
with, or are related to. But once we move beyond our 
sphere of familiarity, it's much harder to be mindful of 
how our actions impact the larger society, or people 
halfway around the world.

Maybe I've misunderstood, but Libertarianism requires 
mutual awareness and action on a large scale.


On Wed, 7 Nov[masked]:56:01 -0500
  Randy Pelton <[address removed]> wrote:
> " Therefore, as an example,   the property owners 
>downstream from the Monsanto factory  would be able to 
>sue the corporation into oblivion for messing up their 
>land and water. "
> What a wonderful solution. Let the Goddam corporations 
>foul up the water and wreck havoc on the health and 
>welfare of the people and then sue the bastards. Let's 
>forget about organizing the system so that regulations 
>have some chance of preventing the corporation from 
>screwing up the environment in the first place and 
>putting people at risk.. Sure, lets do away with the EPA 
>and all environmental regulation. Let's deal with the 
>problem after the damage, injury and harm are already 
>done. This is bullshit. Your freakin solution doesn't 
>care about the welfare of people. And, yes, it should be 
>obvious that your comment has hit a raw nerve and pissed 
>me off! This is a goddam heartless point of view.
> You are wrong about my libertarian education. I have 
>spoken to many libertarians. I have read some of the same 
>libertarian literature that you and others almost 
>certainly have read. I did not learn libertarianism from 
>any anti-libertarians. I examined the libertarian 
>economic and political philosophy and literature and 
>concluded that while the libertarian viewpoint on liberty 
>has much merit, the libertarian economic view and trust 
>in free markets is pure bullshit.
> Randy
> ____________________­____________
> From: Russell Stanton <[address removed]>
> To: [address removed] 
> Sent: Wednesday, November 7,[masked]:55 AM
> Subject: Re: [humanism-174] Who?
> The misunderstandings of libertarianism  are very 
> apparent now.   Who was it that taught you 
>antilibertarians­ about 
> libertarianism?   (it was antilibertarians I’d 
> suspect)    And now I also readily admit that there are 
> people I like to call Wall Street libertarians,  who 
>think corporations 
> actually should have human rights.   Those people really 
> libertarians at all!    Let’s  at least get that 
> straight.   ....Lots of other misunderstandings you’ve 
> -   in a libertarian  society,  individual rights,  
> which includes the rights of land owners,  reigns 
> Therefore, as an example,   the property owners 
>downstream from the 
> Monsanto factory  would be able to sue the corporation 
>into oblivion for 
> messing up their land and water.    I really wish 
>everyone would 
> learn more about the history of corporations.    It’s 
>almost as 
> important as understanding the money and banking 
>system,  and of course the 
> history of all of that.     There is a very active group 
> Cleveland  dedicated to monetary education and peace 
>activism (the two are 
> very related to each other).   I like them a lot except 
>that they want 
> the government to do too much for us.  But I do wish 
>more people would get 
> involved with this group.   Here is some info from their 
> newsletter....      ­                    ­                    ­                    ­                    ­                    ­                    ­                    ­                    ­                    ­                    ­                    ­                    ­                    ­                    ­                    ­                    ­                    ­                    ­              
> Monetary History 
> Calendar
> We continue to publish weekly our monetary history 
> calendar. 
> http://www.afsc.n...­
> To receive them, see below. 
> Move to Amend – Ohio 
> http://movetoamen...­
> http://www.moveto...­
> Move to Amend - Cleveland 
> http://movetoamen...­
> http://www.facebo...­
> Move to Amend Summit 
> County
> http://movetoamen...­  
> ( You DON’T have to be a Quaker to join 
> them)               ­                    ­                    ­                    ­                    ­                    ­                    ­                    ­                    ­                    ­                    ­                    ­                    ­                    ­                    ­                    ­                    ­                    ­                    ­                    ­                    ­                    ­                    ­                    ­      
>                     ­                    ­                    ­                    ­                    ­                    ­                    ­          
>......And oh good grief how I wish everyone would 
> that the 1776 revolt was as much against the English 
>corporations as it was 
> against the King.  Early in US history people remembered 
>the dangers of 
> corporations.  Then they got lazy and stupid.  The 
>“eternal vigilance” 
> warning was not headed.    It was a very long 
> process that lead to corporations having the powers they 
>possess  today 
> -  and all of it was done with the help of your 
>mainstream politicians of 
> bothe 
> parties!            ­                    ­                    ­                    ­                    ­                    ­                    ­                    ­                    ­                    ­                    ­                    ­                    ­                    ­                    ­                    ­                    ­                    ­                    ­             
> Yes we humans are not inherently rational.   We are 
>greedy and 
> wasteful  and have multitudes of bad traits -  with us 
>all having our 
> own unique  degree of those traits both bad ones and the 
>less bad 
> ones.    That’s exactly why a libertarian/  free market 
> system is the most fair sort of system.   I have to 
>suspect that most 
> people who don’t like liberty have probably learned all 
>about it from people who 
> don’t like liberty for other people  and only want it 
>for themselves 
> -  or else they are some strange sort of 
> psychopaths.     I only wish I could be better at 
> the whole thing.   Apologies for my ineptitudes at 
> it,                 ­                    ­                    ­                    ­                    ­                    ­                    ­                    ­                    ­                    ­                    ­                    ­                    ­                    ­                    ­                    ­                    ­                    ­                    ­                    ­   
> Rus  
>From: Mark R. Orel 
> Sent: Tuesday, November 06,[masked]:28 PM
> To: [address removed] 
> Subject: Re: [humanism-174] Who?
>   Randy:  
> It's funny your argument is 
> the same one I use to 
> explain why religion will always remain with us.  
> It would seem that we are both 'Tilting at windmills'.  
> Change 
> has to begin somewhere otherwise it is 
> not change.    
> Mr. Campbell:  
> In an earlier post you said "I am NOT a 
> slave to Corporate 
> America."   You also say that there is an 
> enormous gulf 
> between the two candidates, Obama and Romney regarding 
> economics, foreign policy and social issues.  From the 
> debate 
> which was dedicated to foreign policy, there was a 
> lot of agreement.  
> Regarding economics and social issues 
> the Presidency is mostly 
> impotent.  These are under the 
> purview the Federal Reserve and Congress 
> respectfully.  
> The Federal Reserve is a closed door.  And Congress 
> is a 
> revolving door open to lobbyists.  This is the system 
> of party.  Did you know that the R.N.C. and the D.N.C. 
> private 
> organizations?  And yet they receive public funds, 
> our tax dollars, as 
> well as corporate donations.    
> A two party America is a 
> Corporate America.  And the party 
> faithful follow, faithfully.  
> I'll take Quixotic.  
> M. Orel 
> We always get the 
> government we deserve
> On[masked]:16, Tim Campbell wrote:
> In a message dated 11/6/2012 1:04:15 P.M. Eastern 
>Standard Time, [address removed] writes:
>>Obviously, I agree with Randy here.  In voting this 
>> afternoon, I noted a number of third-party/independ­ents 
>>running for  President.  They seemed to represent pretty 
>>much single-issue  candidacies.  Both the Libertarian and 
>>the socialist are out to radically  change the TYPE of 
>>government here in the U.S. ALL of them are Quixotic in 
>> nature and NONE of them in stand a chance of winning in 
>>the real world.   And quite frankly, I did not see a 
>>single one who attracted me enough to even  consider 
>>being "brave and bold" enough to vote for him or her.
>>Regardless, I see voting to them as equal to betting on 
>>the  Cleveland Browns to win the Super Bowl, when the New 
>>York Giants and the New  England Patriots are the ACTUAL 
>>teams playing in the Super Bowl!  "Brave  and Bold" 
>>perhaps, but a nice monetary gift to the bookie 
>>Tim Campbell
>>Recall that I said the libertarian economic  view is 
>>utopian and this why it won't work. Utopian solutions 
>>don't work and  can't work given the nature of the human 
>>species. What makes libertarianism  utopian? The view 
>>that individuals will work and behave rationally in their 
>> own self-interest. This is a fantasy. Humans are not 
>>inherently rational.  Rationalism is not the default 
>>position of the human brain. Libertarian  economics 
>>assumes the rational-person theory of markets. But the 
>>markets and  capitalism are not inherently rational 
>>enterprises because humans are not  inherently rational 
>>beings. Any ideology - economic, political or other - 
>> that does not acknowledge this simply won't work in the 
>>long run. As Tim  pointed out you may and can have some 
>>short-term successes with it. I am  convinced, however, 
>>that it will only greatly magnify the already morally 
>> offensive wealth and income inequality that already 
>>exists, and ultimately  fail.  Why
> will libertarian economics fail?  I am convinced it 
> would do so for essentially the same reason that 
>communism failed. Both are  utopian views of human 
>behavior and how to organize human society. Both  hold, I 
>am convinced, false assumptions about human behavior, 
>human  psychology and human society. 
>>> From: Tim Campbell mailto:[address removed]
>>>To: [address removed] 
>>>Sent: Tuesday, November 6, [masked]:26 AM
>>>Subject:­ Re:  [humanism-174] Who?
>>>I think you have answered your own question here and 
>>>shown WHY  libertarianism has not worked and will not 
>>>work in a complex industrial  urbanized society for a 
>>>species that is NOT devoid of greed, opportunism,  and 
>>>dishones­ty. At least not for more than about ten minutes!
>>>Simply put, open henhouses result in fewer chickens, not 
>>>The post-Civil War industrialization of the U.S. was in 
>>>fact very much  a libertarian effort, and the result was 
>>>expansio­n of the nation and the  nation's economy on one 
>>>hand, and great misery and inequality on the  other.  
>>>It is difficult to eliminate the "people with 
>>>other-th­an-libertarian  principles".
>>>Playing a game without a ref may work on a small local 
>>>non-prof­essional  level, but imagine the NFL--with all 
>>>its millions of dollars at stake,  trying to play their 
>>>season without refs--with the players calling their own 
>>> penalties and placements!  
>>>Tim Campbell
>>>In a message dated 11/6/2012 8:32:30 A.M. Eastern 
>>>Standard­ Time, [address removed] writes:
>>>How could anyone know that what ails our economy couldn’t 
>>>be  fixed by libertarian solutions?    Libertarian 
>>>solution­s  have never been used for more than ten minutes 
>>>before they were corrupted  by people with  
>>> principles.         ­                    ­             
> --
> Please 
> Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to 
>everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
> This 
> message was sent by Mark R. Orel 
>([address removed]) from The Cleveland 
> To learn more about Mark R. Orel, visit his/her member 
> profile
> Set my mailing list to email me As they 
> are sent | In one 
> daily email | Don't send 
> me mailing list messages 
> Meetup, PO 
> Box 4668 #37895 New York, New York[masked] | 
>[address removed]  
> --
> Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be 
>sent to everyone on this mailing list 
>([address removed])
> This message was sent by Russell Stanton 
>([address removed]) from The Cleveland 
> To learn more about Russell Stanton, visit his/her 
>member profile
> Set my mailing list to email me As they are sent | In 
>one daily email | Don't send me mailing list messages 
> Meetup, PO Box 4668 #37895 New York, New York[masked] 
>| [address removed]

Our Sponsors

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy