[Gobbler]

How?

[Spoon Poetic]

My family actually does barter quite often and I <3 it. My dad barters with web services. We get all kinds of different stuff this way, stuff we need or want. You'd be surprised what kind of awesomeness you can get just by making a simple nice-looking webpage for a small company. It definitely helps out to be able to barter. And I don't think any standardization would be required. Both people involved in the deal come to terms they both are happy with. Just like haggling with money. Except for the bigger purchases, you might need to trade some of your pottery for vegetables and porn, and then trade a mix of pottery, veggies, and porn for that flat-screen television...

But unfortunately, some people don't have anything to offer. In many cases it's their own damn fault... But in others, it's not. I guess this could be compensated for with government programs like the ones we already have in place, welfare etc.

Okay, I'm just being silly, really. But it does make me uncomfortable that there's not even anything physical anymore.

And I never have understood the deal with countries being in huge debts to one another and never ever paying them off. When I was a kid I used to wonder, did a giant airplane full of billions of dollar bills fly over to wherever when they asked to borrow 20 billion dollars? Or whatever. Even though I am past that... I still wonder why it's just a number people throw around. The nation is such and such in debt. Okay... Now what? Has anyone ever heard, "Oh, we paid off 1 mil of that debt this month?" Or anything? And if we're that much in debt, why are we spending a few billion dollars on helicopters to give to Mexico? I dunno. I don't know enough about it. But I do think we need to restructure the way our government spends all our money. My taxdollars went to a friggin' rodeo museum in South Dakota? WTF?

Let's go back to isolationism... At the very least, we don't have to go sending all our money to help everyone else right now - we're not God, and the citizens of the country don't even get to decide where and how that money is spent. That's what charities are for... Give us some time to get our own people back on their feet, then we can start pouring billions of taxpayers' dollars into other countries again without even asking us.

Ugh, I'm all over the place today, not enough sleep, sorry. But I think this is a debate about the economy in general now so at least I'm all over the place about the economy.

[Gobbler]

And I never have understood the deal with countries being in huge debts to one another and never ever paying them off.

I used to have my problems with that as well. Basically, banks will give governments their little allowance like they normally would - meaning only if the governments in question are creditworthy. Creditworthiness is determined by the GDP. True, you normally don't hear much about debts being repaid that way, but theoretically it would be very much possible, provided that you don't spend your money in any other way and tax the shit out of the population. And I guess that's the part where it all deviates into politics, power plays and convenience, since the banks own the government's balls but practically also own their responsibility for upholding social harmony. Then one protective measure leads to another and you reach our current status, with a big red number on your balance sheet that no one ever really cares about.

Let's go back to isolationism...

Only if you let me choose with whom exactly I want to be isolated with, please.

[civilian_number_two]

A lot of the money, too, is owed to the citizens of the country. Much of a nation's debt derives from public investment in government savings bonds.

[J m HofMarN]

As for how socialism works, its basically just a matter of tax and spending prioritization. It may not work perfectly, but it works a lot better than rampant capitalism or bartering, or communalismarchy.

[Jordan]

Civillian, it seems you're talking about a specialized group of libertarians, which isn't the general consensus of what it means to be one. As I see it, they practice conservative government, while endorsing very liberal social ideals. Less government intrusion on the market and in personal lives (same sex marriage, pro-choice, etc..). To be a libertarian doesn't mean you don't want public facilities or services like police force and parks board. The kind your discussing seems more pro-anarchy.

[civilian_number_two]

Maybe, Jordan. Ayn Rand in her essays decried the notion of city planning because she felt that every city planning board was made up of rump-fed freeloaders looking to drain bisiness dry for personal gain. That's really exactly how her essays read: she names something she doesn't like, the piledrives you with well-poisoning, fearmongering, slippery sllopes and straw men. She never actually says what she would prefer, or how that would work, apart from some notion that pure laizes-faire would be best for all no matter what.

We are building a civilization; we are not setting ground rules for a free-for-all.

You're probably right that most libertarian idealists are not as extreme as her writing was, becuase probably most people aren't as stupid as she was. But when talking about Ayn Rand I generally choose to pick away at her writing, rather than deal with the intelligent and nuanced opinions of her descendents (with whom I still in many ways disagree). Because I'm here to criticize Ayn Rand, not Libertarianism.

[J m HofMarN]

Though we did do some harcore stomping in the libertarian thread because a bunch of Randian ideas popped up there...

[Deucaon]

I've never read Rand and I've never read Marx. (Though I've tried reading both when I was in my early teens. How anyone can read that literacy diaherea is anybody's guess.) Political manifestos, and quasi-political manifestos, are for people who are too stupid to form their own opinions.

[civilian_number_two]

Deucaon, on 26 March 2010 - 08:52 PM, said:

I've never read Rand and I've never read Marx. (Though I've tried reading both when I was in my early teens. How anyone can read that literacy diaherea is anybody's guess.) Political manifestos, and quasi-political manifestos, are for people who are too stupid to form their own opinions.

No. That's not who they're for.

[Deucaon]

civilian_number_two, on 28 March 2010 - 03:15 PM, said:

No. That's not who they're for.

Yes, they are. Times infinity, divide by zero.

[J m HofMarN]

If you look through history you will find that everyone who formed their own ideas read. A lot. You could probably directly trace Marx all the way back as far as Plato just by looking on the bookshelves of his fore bearers. To indicate that those who study the SCIENCE of politics are weak minded and yadda yadda is just like saying that an ice cream maker is weak minded for reading books about ice cream making. And if he is? Well, granted, but I'd rather eat his ice cream than the guy who has no idea how ice cream is made and ends up producing frozen anchovy gelatti.

[Spoon Poetic]

You say that like there's something wrong with frozen anchovy gellato!

[Deucaon]

J m HofMarN, on 29 March 2010 - 05:36 AM, said:

If you look through history you will find that everyone who formed their own ideas read. A lot. You could probably directly trace Marx all the way back as far as Plato just by looking on the bookshelves of his fore bearers. To indicate that those who study the SCIENCE of politics are weak minded and yadda yadda is just like saying that an ice cream maker is weak minded for reading books about ice cream making. And if he is? Well, granted, but I'd rather eat his ice cream than the guy who has no idea how ice cream is made and ends up producing frozen anchovy gelatti.

Political manifestos are fiction based on reality. "Based" being the key word there. I've read books. I've read a lot of books. Most of them have been non-fiction. I understand that even non-fiction books are dictated and influenced by the opinion of the author so I keep that in mind while I read several books on the same subject from varying authors of varying views in order to get a clear picture. Ultimately, you can learn more about a person by what they did, rather than what they spouted. You can learn more about reality by reading about what others did before you than by reading the ideas of those same people.

[J m HofMarN]

It might shock you to know that pretty much everyone ever does the same thing (though maybe without the focus on what people did, since a lot of theorists never do much of anything but their work is still valid). People dont just pick up a political thesis and decide it's gospel.