behavioralcognivitist
-
M
- United States
I love it how I have yet to recieve one answer to my question: why debate politics if you refuse to learn economics?
2
level
Loudmouth
Was Jennifer Aniston Wrong to Say the R-Word?
No, Jennifer was just joking aro...
Do You Want to See an 'Avatar' Sequel?
Yes, I can't wait for "A...
Opinion:
...But define "successful".
Should Soldiers Be Allowed to Smoke?
Yes, soldiers should be able to ...
Is Calling Jewish Donors Jewish a Fireable Offense?
Yes. This should not have happened.
Can Newt Gingrich Provide 'Intellectual' Leadership fo...
No, his time has come and gone.
Are You Racist? You Must Be A Conservative
No. We are not a more racist nat...
Are You Too Old For Short Shorts?
More
Yes, if they have the legs for it.
likes & interests
About Me
Going to school to be an educator. How ironic.
I'd like to meet
Mario Rizzo, Bryan Caplan, Peter Boettke, Paul Krugman, Noam Chomsky, Poul Nyrup Rasmussen, Bernie Sanders, Victor Aguilar
Interests
Like all political and economics junkies, I have the bug of "having to explain myself."
I am somewhere inbetween a left-Libertarian and progressive; a non-collectivist (as opposed to "anti") pro-liberty mostly-free marketeer with sympathy towards Rothbard-lite anarcho-capitalism (see here), mutualism (see Benjamin Tucker), some social democracy (see Clement Attlee and Poul Nyrup Rasmussen), New Institutional economics (see about) and a reasonable synthesis of New & Post-Keynesianism (see about), Monetarism, Neo-classical economics and Austrianism (see about). All of these words really just boil down to some theoretical construct put into action that can increase the responsibility of workers, open up avenues for entrepreneurship, and produce an overall equitable distribution of wealth without having to so much actively take it out of one group and give it to another. They're calling me utopian right now.
See natural rights for a comprehensive look on what you deserve.
On issues of ethical procedure, the most proper explanation can be found here: John Stuart Mill i.e. Utilitarianism.
I am in no way opposed to a system of capitalism in which there is the most liberty.
I am a not a subscriber to market socialism. I generally think that the best real-world social equity (not equality, see here) can be achieved through individualization of production along with conservative applications of Keynesian fine-tuning on macroeconomic conditions, flexible labor markets, austere social spending policies, free trade (Ideally, without cartelization i.e. "special trade status"), promoting incentives i.e. pay inequality and harmonizing the financial practices of governments and central banks on the world economy.
Promoting inequality and individualism are not inherent to most market socialist theories that I am aware of.
I am very incensed by Marxists, for disclaimer. Socialism to Marxists is a hegemonic blanket term covering both politics and economics. I am specifically stating this because most socialists themselves still hold Marxist economics as their mainstay, whereas I believe that Marxism, although it may shed some interesting light on a few subjects like the labor theory of value, is altogether is an aberration and corrupting influence on intellectual framework. Marxists (see these guys) do not own the term "socialist". And while some Marxists can be reasonable, most are just fanatics. When I refer to myself as a socialist, I use it in a different sense than in the modern and commonly understood definition of socialism. Do not be confused and do not assume I am trying to deceive you. Read.
Oh, and I'm also incensed by traditionalists. But that doesn't need nearly as much explaining.
My worldview is concerned primarily with the most Utilitarian fulfillment of Berlin-Fromm liberties (see positive liberties). Political science and economic theory are merely a means to an end. Altogether I am closest to the modern definition of a progressive, but with soft-right divergencies.
I am somewhere inbetween a left-Libertarian and progressive; a non-collectivist (as opposed to "anti") pro-liberty mostly-free marketeer with sympathy towards Rothbard-lite anarcho-capitalism (see here), mutualism (see Benjamin Tucker), some social democracy (see Clement Attlee and Poul Nyrup Rasmussen), New Institutional economics (see about) and a reasonable synthesis of New & Post-Keynesianism (see about), Monetarism, Neo-classical economics and Austrianism (see about). All of these words really just boil down to some theoretical construct put into action that can increase the responsibility of workers, open up avenues for entrepreneurship, and produce an overall equitable distribution of wealth without having to so much actively take it out of one group and give it to another. They're calling me utopian right now.
See natural rights for a comprehensive look on what you deserve.
On issues of ethical procedure, the most proper explanation can be found here: John Stuart Mill i.e. Utilitarianism.
I am in no way opposed to a system of capitalism in which there is the most liberty.
I am a not a subscriber to market socialism. I generally think that the best real-world social equity (not equality, see here) can be achieved through individualization of production along with conservative applications of Keynesian fine-tuning on macroeconomic conditions, flexible labor markets, austere social spending policies, free trade (Ideally, without cartelization i.e. "special trade status"), promoting incentives i.e. pay inequality and harmonizing the financial practices of governments and central banks on the world economy.
Promoting inequality and individualism are not inherent to most market socialist theories that I am aware of.
I am very incensed by Marxists, for disclaimer. Socialism to Marxists is a hegemonic blanket term covering both politics and economics. I am specifically stating this because most socialists themselves still hold Marxist economics as their mainstay, whereas I believe that Marxism, although it may shed some interesting light on a few subjects like the labor theory of value, is altogether is an aberration and corrupting influence on intellectual framework. Marxists (see these guys) do not own the term "socialist". And while some Marxists can be reasonable, most are just fanatics. When I refer to myself as a socialist, I use it in a different sense than in the modern and commonly understood definition of socialism. Do not be confused and do not assume I am trying to deceive you. Read.
Oh, and I'm also incensed by traditionalists. But that doesn't need nearly as much explaining.
My worldview is concerned primarily with the most Utilitarian fulfillment of Berlin-Fromm liberties (see positive liberties). Political science and economic theory are merely a means to an end. Altogether I am closest to the modern definition of a progressive, but with soft-right divergencies.
Favorite Music
Thomas Dolby
Favorite TV Shows
Doctor Who
Favorite Movies
It's a Wonderful Life
Favorite Books
East of Eden by John Steinbeck
Favorite Quotes
"Democracy is a device that ensures we are governed no better than we deserve." George Bernard Shaw
"The mute message of the machine—could but the worker understand, and would he but heed it—child of his brain, the machine has come to free and not to enslave, to save and not to destroy the author of its being. Potent and imperious as the command of the industrial Jehovah, the machine compels the grand army of toil to rally to its tenders, to recognize its power, to surrender body breaking and soul devouring tasks, to join hands in sacred fellowship, to sub-divide labor, to equalize burden, to demand joy and leisure for all. And emancipated from the fetters of the flesh, rise to the sublimest heights of intellectual, moral, and spiritual exaltation." Eugene V. Debs
"The mute message of the machine—could but the worker understand, and would he but heed it—child of his brain, the machine has come to free and not to enslave, to save and not to destroy the author of its being. Potent and imperious as the command of the industrial Jehovah, the machine compels the grand army of toil to rally to its tenders, to recognize its power, to surrender body breaking and soul devouring tasks, to join hands in sacred fellowship, to sub-divide labor, to equalize burden, to demand joy and leisure for all. And emancipated from the fetters of the flesh, rise to the sublimest heights of intellectual, moral, and spiritual exaltation." Eugene V. Debs
Favorite Heroes
John Locke, David Ricardo, Benjamin Tucker, John Stuart Mill, Ludwig Von Mises, Leo Tolstoy, John M. Keynes, Sir Francis Bacon, Thomas Jefferson, Eugene V. Debs, Paul Samuelson, Adam Smith, Erich Fromm, C. Wright Mills, Thomas Paine, Max Stirner, Abraham Maslow, Benjamin Franklin
info
-
behavioralcognivitist
-
Male
-
United States
-
2009/10/30 12:37:31
-
2010/08/21 06:58:10
-
Aries
-
Other
-
Libertarian
comments
-
Idiot repubs
2010/07/27 18:53:05

New on the site, as soon as I can figure out how to do so I will
See conversation »
-
tagarooz
2010/07/03 12:07:20


See conversation »
-
steptotheright
2009/12/02 20:20:15

Just curious, are you a college professor? Your questions read like my final exams.
See conversation »
View all 3 comments »