[MD] The New Socialism - Wired Magazine

[blue-jay maple]

Ron:
> You do not seem to be here to "discuss" you seem to be here to prove
> yourself with an either/or proposition for us.
> Your argument is loaded.

Nick:
My argument is not loaded.  I am using a principle that has been around 
for ages.  I came out with the hammer to show how far this principle can 
go.  This principle has enormous implications - that's what I said in the 
first post.  This isn't about me not discussing.  This is about everybody 
here is faced with something new in their life and they don't know how to 
handle it.  DQ can be disorienting.  Now that everybody understanding how 
far this principle can go I can drop the part about government is coercive.  
Everybody knows it is according to this principle.  Nobody has been able 
to show otherwise.  I have many professional writings to back me up if need 
be.  I have many sources that I can point out for further reading if need be.  
Now I'll simply point out errors, but I will not sit back and accept arbitrary 
definitions.  I've been watching and nobody here can really define what 
socialism is or the free market, yet, these are old concepts, well, socialism 
only since 1800's, but old enough.  They are defined and have been defined.  So 
to say otherwise is to be misleading about the nature of these two.  So I 
don't need to be as forthcoming on some issues, but now you know how far this 
principle goes.  Now you know how far peace extends.

Ron:
> I know you spent a long time on this and your intentions are well meaning
> but when you start to make arguments in absolute terms, thats not standing
> for liberty thats aggressive coercion, may not be physical, but 
> it's aggressive coercion non the less.

Nick:
No Ron.  That's an error in what liberty means.  Liberty is only the absence of 
physical coercion.  You see people don't know what these concepts mean.  Liberty 
is a centuries old concept used this way by numerous people, professional and layman.
Principled people are well - principled.  I will pull back my stance as I said, but now 
everybody understands how far this goes.  I understand liberty is hard for people 
to fully accept.  I'm not being a smart ass.  It really is challenging for people.  It's 
why this country started out with Natural Law principles and fell apart from the very 
beginning - very beginning.  This has been a slow eroding of what liberty is all about.  
And now a days hardly anybody understandings what real freedom is all about.  DQ is 
liberty, let's say, and the only downward force that is legitimate, the only lawful force 
to keep certain events at bay is to stop physical coercion.  All else is to flourish.  Liberty 
is about diversity.  It is about minimizing conflict so each person can live their life in 
the best way possible without physically inflicting upon others.  It's the open door to 
the pursuit of intellectual excellence.  I was not being "aggressive".  I am showing 
people how far this principle goes and what liberty really means.  It's scary for people 
sometimes, but I'll not be so scary now, I hope.  Cause liberty is my life now, but I'll 
tolerate.

Ron:
> You say you want ideas, but you don't want our ideas, you want your own
> ideas repeated to you as confirmation.
> That's not liberty.
> "Aggression"
> -Wiki:
> Aggression takes a variety of forms among humans and can be 
> physical, mental, or verbal.

Nick:
No Ron.  Liberty is about no initiation of physical coercion.  Not mental or verbal.  
Liberty has clear boundaries.  It is not arbitrary.  I will listen to your ideas, but 
don't falsify information.  I don't need confirmation here.  These ideas are well-
established and have been for centuries.  It is challenging that people are only 
willing to accept liberty when it fits their moral value agenda.  That molds a bias 
on human flourishing.  I'm stating facts.  I'm not saying you do this or others 
necessarily try to do this.  I'm simply pointing out how far liberty goes.  This is why 
it has been such an historical difficulty to fight for liberty.  It scares people to 
think if they really want liberty and to be therefore personally responsible they look 
around and notice how far off-course they have gone.  Liberty has always been 
a scary concept.  Think how radical this statement is in light of all that I've said 
now:  "Give me liberty or give me death!"  Whoever said that might be considered 
a crazy nut now a days.

Nick





-- 
Be Yourself @ mail.com!
Choose From 200+ Email Addresses
Get a Free Account at www.mail.com