carmenc 0 #26 June 22, 2009 Quote en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_List Appears you are wrong. which is the bit which says i'm wrong Minor royals don't get money from the government. Only Liz and Phil do. And even that is much less than the money the crown estates give the Treasury. In aggregate the Royals more than support themselves. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #27 June 22, 2009 Quote Quote en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_List Appears you are wrong. which is the bit which says i'm wrong Minor royals don't get money from the government. Only Liz and Phil do. of course the minor royals get money from the government - who pays for the police protection and all the council houses they use stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #28 June 22, 2009 Yes, of course. Why just today I made my daughter a crown from a cracker box and some aluminum foil. I'm grooming her to assume the throne of England after we invade. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #29 June 22, 2009 The traitor Cromwell, would be proud of youGod Save the Queen. (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #30 June 22, 2009 Quote Yes, of course. Why just today I made my daughter a crown from a cracker box and some aluminum foil. I'm grooming her to assume the throne of England after we invade. Quote The reoccuring theme of the right-libertarians appears to reduce to a total indifferance to or denial of the degree to which the status quo of the economy is warped and exploitative in its nature. When the left-libertarian insists on rejecting the currently existing structure of the economy and accepting the anti-corporatist position that it entails, the right-libertarian knee-jerkedly acts as if the left-libertarian is defending state-socialism or mob violence. At best, the right-libertarians tend to be kind of ambiguous, granting that there are state interventions that may warp the structure of the economy in a corporatist or plutocratic way and simultaneously denying the exploitative reality of the economic structure itself and the relevancy of the synergy that may exist between the state and various "private" interest groups. What is most strange about the matter, however, is that the left-libertarians are generally actually being consistant with Murray Rothbard, while the right-libertarians are not (or by the very least, they clearly selectively draw from Rothbard's later, more conservative years). To my knowledge, while Murray Rothbard did defend a sort of contractual concept of limited liability, he didn't support limited liability as a state construct or as it is today, and he largely diagnosed the status quo in the west as a sort of corporatist socialism. It is of course true that Rothbard changed his views later in life in a more conservative direction (click link for biased right-libertarian perspective on the matter), but from around the late 60's and throughout the 70's he was quite solid and full of ideas that are conductive to left-libertarianism. http://polycentricorder.blogspot.com/2008/12/left-libertarian-vs-right-libertarian.htmlstay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #31 June 22, 2009 Where do you dredge up these bizarre caricatures of Libertarianism to use as straw men? (my own position is that government should not be involved in business in any way, which includes the massive corporate welfare of today, but then you're more concerned with what you want me to think) -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #32 June 22, 2009 Quote Where do you dredge up these bizarre caricatures of Libertarianism to use as straw men? (my own position is that government should not be involved in business in any way, which includes the massive corporate welfare of today, but then you're more concerned with what you want me to think) i've asked you what the right-libertarian position is on monarchies.stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #33 June 22, 2009 I have never resided in a monarchy, so why should I bother to have a position? (but if you like you can make up whatever position you want to argue against) -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #34 June 22, 2009 Could you explain the difference between your right-Libertarianism and your left-Libertarianism? (I'm pretty sure that there isn't much functional difference, but rather just an effort to confuse) -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #35 June 22, 2009 Quote I have never resided in a monarchy, so why should I bother to have a position? (but if you like you can make up whatever position you want to argue against) as i've already said - right-libertarianism is a peculiar us construct with no real application either there or anywhere else.stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerryzflies 0 #36 June 22, 2009 Quote Quote I have never resided in a monarchy, so why should I bother to have a position? (but if you like you can make up whatever position you want to argue against) as i've already said - right-libertarianism is a peculiar us construct with no real application either there or anywhere else. Your left-libertarianism appears to involve killing geese that lay golden eggs. You seem pissed that Charles made money in legitimate business deals during the recession - well, I wish I had his acumen late last year. You seem in denial that the Royals contribute way more to the Treasury than they take from it. All on account of your socialist ideology. (I thought I had socialist tendencies until I read your posts)If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #37 June 22, 2009 Quote Could you explain the difference between your right-Libertarianism and your left-Libertarianism? (I'm pretty sure that there isn't much functional difference, but rather just an effort to confuse) your right-libertarianism says it's ok for a feudal monarchy to grab thousands of hectares of land and then tax and tax for centuries to pay for its upkeep. your left-libertarianism says each individual has equal inherent value (thereby making the idea of an 'inherited' monarchy anti-libertarian nonsense)stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #38 June 22, 2009 Who are these "right-Libertarian" Monarchists of yours? (I don't seem to know of them) -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SivaGanesha 2 #39 June 22, 2009 QuoteOn Monday June 28 Buckingham Palace will also publish the annual report into the cost of the monarchy which last year was £40 million... I'm not clear with whether the issue here is--the thing that libertarians might have an issue with--is the inherited wealth of the royals or the inherited power of the royals. In general I don't think libertarians have a problem with people making their own free choices as to who will inherit their money--even if the wealth was originally acquired a few generations ago via not-so-libertarian mechanisms. However I think most libertarians would claim that within a generation or two the dominant force determining wealth distribution would be libertarian market forces and not "old money" staying with "old families". Basically I don't think libertarians would especially like "old money" staying with "old families" indefinitely but they would prefer to let free market forces even things out over time rather than introducing new government intervention to rectify past government intervention. When it comes to the power exercised by royals, it is actually rather small in a constitutional monarchy, and well within the limited role that libertarians allow government. In practice the UK/commonwealth queens's primary role is to decide whether to dismiss the government and call an election or allow the existing parliament to try to work through a crisis. I think libertarians would consider that a legitimate role but they'd prefer the role be exercised by an elected, not an inherited, official."It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
winsor 236 #40 June 23, 2009 "It's good to be the King!" Mel Brooks Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #41 June 23, 2009 Quote Quote On Monday June 28 Buckingham Palace will also publish the annual report into the cost of the monarchy which last year was £40 million... I'm not clear with whether the issue here is--the thing that libertarians might have an issue with--is the inherited wealth of the royals or the inherited power of the royals. In general I don't think libertarians have a problem with people making their own free choices as to who will inherit their money--even if the wealth was originally acquired a few generations ago via not-so-libertarian mechanisms. However I think most libertarians would claim that within a generation or two the dominant force determining wealth distribution would be libertarian market forces and not "old money" staying with "old families". Basically I don't think libertarians would especially like "old money" staying with "old families" indefinitely but they would prefer to let free market forces even things out over time rather than introducing new government intervention to rectify past government intervention. When it comes to the power exercised by royals, it is actually rather small in a constitutional monarchy, and well within the limited role that libertarians allow government. In practice the UK/commonwealth queens's primary role is to decide whether to dismiss the government and call an election or allow the existing parliament to try to work through a crisis. I think libertarians would consider that a legitimate role but they'd prefer the role be exercised by an elected, not an inherited, official. wow, a decent libertarian response. one would think though that after seven hundred years those fabled 'market forces' would have meant the duchy of cornwall estate would have been sold off to its hundreds of peasant/tenant farmers - but no, there it still is after all this time stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #42 June 24, 2009 Quote Could you explain the difference between your right-Libertarianism and your left-Libertarianism? (I'm pretty sure that there isn't much functional difference, but rather just an effort to confuse) tom paine is/was a left-libertarian... Quote Paine not only laid bare the roots of monarchy, but provided a brilliant insight into the nature and origins of the State itself. He had made a crucial advance in libertarian theory upon the social-contract doctrine of the origin of the State. While he followed Locke in holding that the State should be confined to the protection of man's natural rights, he saw clearly that actual states had not originated in this way or for this purpose. Instead, they had been born in naked conquest and plunder. Another vital contribution of Common Sense to libertarian thought was Paine's sharp quasi-anarchistic distinction between "society" and "government." Indeed, Paine opened his pamphlet with these words: Some writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants and governed by our wickedness…. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher. Society in every state, is a blessing, but government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer … the same miseries by a government, which we might expect in a country without government, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer. Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built upon the ruins of the bowers of paradise. In addition to limning brilliantly the nature and origins of monarchy and the State, calling boldly for independence, and attacking George III, Paine set forth the proper foreign policy for an independent America. Here he argued that the connection with Great Britain entailed upon Americans burdens rather than rewards. The Americans should not be tempted by the prospect of Anglo-American domination of the world; on the contrary, America would vastly benefit from throwing open its trade and ports freely to all nations. http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard179.htmlstay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #43 June 24, 2009 Can you contrast Paine with another Libertarian thinker to illustrate? (it seems to me that Paine was "libertarian" with no further sub-label needed) -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #44 June 24, 2009 Quote Can you contrast Paine with another Libertarian thinker to illustrate? Quote Conclusion While all of this may seem no more than an intellectual curiosity, it has extremely important ramifications for the general public, as well as for minarchists. What better way of delegitimizing democracy than to show people that democracy is the destroyer of civilization and even worse than monarchy? People in democratic countries are deeply indoctrinated with a quasi-religious faith in democracy, so this is an explosive subject, but if used carefully it could ruin democracy forever in many minds. Democracy is the last remaining bastion of statism, and by attacking democracy we strike at the very heart of statism. As for minarchists, if they are truly interested in limited government, then they must grapple with the fact that public government is prone to cancerous growth and that private government is the only sustainable form of limited government. Since they generally believe that democracy is legitimate while monarchy isn’t, this forces them into an awkward choice: either limited government through private government ownership (i.e., monarchy); or democracy (i.e., constitutional republic) and its inevitable big government. The cognitive dissonance is delicious! Perhaps most importantly, Hoppe’s insight is the key to understanding and interpreting the 20th century. We now have the answer to the previously baffling question of why civilization is in decline despite enormous scientific and technological progress. It is public government that causes a vicious cycle of rising time preference, and is responsible for the accelerating destruction of society. It is public government that inexorably pushes mankind from civilization back to the jungle. Practically all social ills can be traced back to the effects of the democratic state, from war and poverty to dysfunctional families and widespread bad health. Happily, we also have the solution to this problem: a market anarchist society based on universal private property rights. Only by abandoning democracy and statism will we be able to reap the enormous increases in prosperity that we should expect from such incredible progress in science and technology. http://libertariananarchy.com/2009/06/monarchy-vs-democracy-and-the-decline-of-civilization/stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #45 June 24, 2009 Quote(it seems to me that Paine was "libertarian" with no further sub-label needed) QuoteSome people think that FDR invented the progressive income tax when he raised income tax rates on the super-rich to 90 percent. Some believe that LBJ invented anti-poverty programs when he more than cut in half severe poverty in the US by introducing Medicare, housing assistance, and food-stamp programs in the 1960s. Some believe that Jack Kennedy was the first president to seriously talk about international disarmament, a conversation that Richard Nixon carried on in pushing through and getting ratified the anti-ballistic missile (ABM) treaty so recently discarded by George Bush Jr. Some believe that Teddy Roosevelt - the Republican Roosevelt - was the first to seriously discuss the "living wage," or ways that corporate "maximum wage" wink-and-nod agreements could be broken up. Some believe the inheritance tax to prevent family empires from taking over our nation was the idea of Woodrow Wilson, or that FDR was the first to think up old-age pensions as part of a social safety net known today as Social Security. But it was actually Thomas Paine who first developed all these themes in their modern political context. He did so in his book "The Rights of Man." http://www.buzzflash.com/hartmann/05/05/har05005.htmlstay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dutton 0 #46 June 25, 2009 "What would a libertarian do about a prince?" Assassinate him. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #47 June 26, 2009 Quote "What would a libertarian do about a prince?" Assassinate him. i believe the courts would take a dim view of such an option (and they'd quickly replace him with one of their spare princes)stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #48 June 26, 2009 Quote "What would a libertarian do about a prince?" Assassinate him. I was thinking that "ignore him" ought to be sufficient.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dutton 0 #49 June 26, 2009 I suppose for the average Egghead Libertariarian that would suffice. Personally, while I give money to the Libertarian party, its just out of a personal urge to do something to oppose the current two parties' political dominance. In practice I am a Rational Anarchist. To quote Heinlein... “A rational anarchist believes that concepts such as ‘state’ and ‘society’ and ‘government’ have no existence save as physically exemplified in the acts of self-responsible individuals. He believes that it is impossible to shift blame, share blame, distribute blame . . . as blame, guilt, responsibility are matters taking place inside human beings singly and nowhere else. But being rational, he knows that not all individuals hold his evaluations, so he tries to live perfectly in an imperfect world . . . aware that his effort will be less than perfect yet undismayed by self-knowledge of self-failure.” Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
