Astroturf libertarians a threat to internet democracy

[vanlose kid]

I am a loyalist to language, as is every true scotsman.

The Cool Web
by Robert Graves
(1895-1985)

------------------------------------

Children are dumb to say how hot the day is,
How hot the scent is of the summer rose,
How dreadful the black wastes of evening sky,
How dreadful the tall soliers drulling by,

But we have speech, to chill the angry day,
And speech, to dull the roses's cruel scent,
We spell away the overhanging night,
We spell away the soldiers and the fright.

There's a cool web of language winds us in,
Retreat from too much joy or too much fear:
We grow sea-green at last and coldly die
In brininess and volubility.

But if we let our tongues lose self-possession,
Throwing off language and its watery clasp
Before our death, instead of when death comes,
Facing the wide glare of the children's day,
Facing the rose, the dark sky and the drums,
We shall go mad, no doubt, and die that way.

thanks.

brilliant. "...way up to Caledonia. Lookin' for a brand new start."

*

[JackRiddler]

.

oh, vanlose!

Let's get some things straight:

1) I think you're great.

2) I never remotely thought you were TD and certainly not vigilant. (vigilant!? no way!)

3) By "quote buddy" I did not mean to suggest you were literally a buddy of TD, or even a committed fan or follower. Merely that you quote him a lot, which you do, and which I usually find interesting. (The passage you quoted here -- or wait, was in Strawman? -- about the size of the federal government did seem to be an endorsement of what TD was saying. But I don't think you endorse all that you quote, any more than I do. Also, this would be impossible since (like me and others) you sometimes quote contradictory things.)

4) I'm an anarchist (well, honestly? a lapsed one) and familiar with the stuff you've been putting into your left-libertarian thread. I don't really mind the loss of "libertarian," in part (as I've said) because unlike other ideological terms, it is generally applied to people who actually accept it as a descriptor of themselves. It has come to mean (in the main) what it now means. I'd rather recuperate a positive connotation for anarchist -- and knock over all the bogus "moderate" terminology that legitimates establishment views.

5) Semantics can be very important.

6) That was a very good post. Thank you.

So, hope that's good then.

Best, N

.

[vanlose kid]

.

...

So, hope that's good then.

Best, N

.

it's all good bro.

ps: you now have three pre-orders for your book. get to it.

*

[wintler2]

..
you know the list of people that think the system can be fixed? Assange is on it.

You sure about that/got a cite?


Thanks all for resolving the semantics. It seems clear to me that Monbiot wasn't intending to attack all libertarians, just those who call themselves libertarians after getting their pro-fascist talking points from supposedly libertarian sources. To try and resuscitate the topic tho, what can we do about them?

[Joe Hillshoist]

Shoot em?


Maybe thats not the best response...

[vanlose kid]

..
you know the list of people that think the system can be fixed? Assange is on it.

You sure about that/got a cite?


Thanks all for resolving the semantics. It seems clear to me that Monbiot wasn't intending to attack all libertarians, just those who call themselves libertarians after getting their pro-fascist talking points from supposedly libertarian sources. To try and resuscitate the topic tho, what can we do about them?

no, not really, you're right. shouldn't assume. but he seems to think that things can be fixed. that's just in my view though.

and re the OP, "supposedly libertarian" is good. i think M's points should be addressed. cheers.

*

[Joe Hillshoist]

I get the impression from everything Assange writes that he believes in 'the system" ie democracy (of a sort) separation of powers, government transparency, human rights etc, etc

In short all the things we associate with our cultures, and the things that are ok when our culture works. Haneef in 07 wintler, remember that? Now although it didn't appear to be the case, the system worked. It didn't stop the individual abuses of power that led to his detention, but the judicial review worked. Its easy to see what happened to him as a case of govt oppression and miss the bit where the court overturned its obvious dodginess.

In that sense I think VK was referring to Assange as believing the system can be fixed.

With a committed population and open government/transparency.

hence wikileaks.

[vanlose kid]

I get the impression from everything Assange writes that he believes in 'the system" ie democracy (of a sort) separation of powers, government transparency, human rights etc, etc

In short all the things we associate with our cultures, and the things that are ok when our culture works. Haneef in 07 wintler, remember that? Now although it didn't appear to be the case, the system worked. It didn't stop the individual abuses of power that led to his detention, but the judicial review worked. Its easy to see what happened to him as a case of govt oppression and miss the bit where the court overturned its obvious dodginess.

In that sense I think VK was referring to Assange as believing the system can be fixed.

With a committed population and open government/transparency.

hence wikileaks.

yeah to that, and there's this:

Would you call yourself a free market proponent?

Absolutely. I have mixed attitudes towards capitalism, but I love markets. Having lived and worked in many countries, I can see the tremendous vibrancy in, say, the Malaysian telecom sector compared to U.S. sector. In the U.S. everything is vertically integrated and sewn up, so you don’t have a free market. In Malaysia, you have a broad spectrum of players, and you can see the benefits for all as a result.

How do your leaks fit into that?

To put it simply, in order for there to be a market, there has to be information. A perfect market requires perfect information.

There’s the famous lemon example in the used car market. It’s hard for buyers to tell lemons from good cars, and sellers can’t get a good price, even when they have a good car.

By making it easier to see where the problems are inside of companies, we identify the lemons. That means there’s a better market for good companies. For a market to be free, people have to know who they’re dealing with.

You’ve developed a reputation as anti-establishment and anti-institution.

Not at all. Creating a well-run establishment is a difficult thing to do, and I’ve been in countries where institutions are in a state of collapse, so I understand the difficulty of running a company. Institutions don’t come from nowhere.

It’s not correct to put me in any one philosophical or economic camp, because I’ve learned from many. But one is American libertarianism, market libertarianism. So as far as markets are concerned I’m a libertarian, but I have enough expertise in politics and history to understand that a free market ends up as monopoly unless you force them to be free.

WikiLeaks is designed to make capitalism more free and ethical.

http://blogs.forbes.com/andygreenberg/2 ... assange/5/

...

*

[wintler2]

Thanks VK, interesting, maybe troubling. I'd like to think JA is just playing to the mainstream, as "more free and ethical" does sound horribly reformist.

[yathrib]

I have no objection if you as a left wing anarchist want to call yourself a libertarian. Good luck being distinguished from the other folks in the popular mind, though. From the reading I did on the topic a long time ago, you're probably right about the origin of the term. Indeed, the ideological ancestors of today's right wing libertarians may have started referring to themselves by this term in their efforts to emphasize commonality with certain aspects of the New Left in the late 1960s/early 1970s. Strange, but true. Google Jerome Tuccile and Karl Hess for more about this strange and (to us today) alien period of American radical history.

Anyway, I would need a lot of convincing before I would believe anarchism of any kind is in any way practical or workable. I'm quite happy to be a plain, boring Social Democrat, but that's just me. Even as such, I favor the maximum amount of individual freedom and choice possible within a pro-social framework. What I'm trying to say is that you're not my enemy.

But if you're suggesting that there are grounds for cooperation or alliance between any group of leftists and the anarcho-sociopaths (all so-called "right wing anarchists" or libertarians, IMO), seemingly only on the basis that both sides have some history WRT the term "libertarian," I just keep walking. If I'm misinterpreting, I'm open to correction.

[23]

"But if you're suggesting that there are grounds for cooperation or alliance between any group of leftists and the anarcho-sociopaths (all so-called "right wing anarchists" or libertarians, IMO), seemingly only on the basis that both sides have some history WRT the term "libertarian," I just keep walking. If I'm misinterpreting, I'm open to correction."

Ralph, or anyone else who supports such an alliance for that matter, has never stated that that ought to be the reason for the alliance. That "both sides have some history WRT the term libertarian", as you say. Where did you get that notion?

Rather, the basis for such a coalitional effort would be to further those issues that both sides have in common. If you review Ralph's video where he discusses the alliance, you'll see that he mentions what some of them are.

[vanlose kid]

...

But if you're suggesting that there are grounds for cooperation or alliance between any group of leftists and the anarcho-sociopaths (all so-called "right wing anarchists" or libertarians, IMO), seemingly only on the basis that both sides have some history WRT the term "libertarian," I just keep walking. If I'm misinterpreting, I'm open to correction.

don't know if this is addressed to me, but if it is, then no i wasn't suggesting anything like that. it wouldn't make sense.

let me break it down for you in a very (if not stupidly: in the sense that oversimplification eliminates a lot of stuff) simplified form. say there are four groups:

1) statist-capitalists

2) anarcho-capitalists

3) statist-socialists

4) anarcho-socialists

i wouldn't "cooperate" as you say (broad term that, a thorn bush really, easy to get caught on) with 1 and 2 for reasons of capitalism and with 1 and 3 for reasons of statism. you're in 3 i think, being a social democrat, which doesn't make you my enemy, we just don't agree.

but if 1-3 were my neighbors and we had to build something that benefitted the community as such i wouldn't have a problem cooperating at all. and if they asked me to help them out with something that harmed no one would and solved some of our problems i would.

we even play futbol together and some are friends.

it ain't simple.

*

[JackRiddler]

.

So now vanlose you must also say ianeye's not your enemy and not a blowhard (cos he's not). I command you both to kiss in public.

.

[23]

"but if 1-3 were my neighbors and we had to build something that benefitted the community as such i wouldn't have a problem cooperating at all. and if they asked me to help them out with something that harmed no one would and solved some of our problems i would."

I.e. remove our imperialist armed forces from overseas, and significantly reduce funding for
the military industrial complex.

I.e. abolish the unjust war on drugs, and castrate the prisoner industrial complex

Just to name a couple of significant issues that capitalist "libertarians" and libertarian socialists have in common.

I would certainly link arms with them (the greedy ones) to affect the above two changes.

My daughter's future would be significantly brighter if the above two policy changes were to be affected.

[vanlose kid]

Thanks VK, interesting, maybe troubling. I'd like to think JA is just playing to the mainstream, as "more free and ethical" does sound horribly reformist.

yeah, or maybe he's not entirely clear about it himself.

doesn't detract from wikileaks though.

*