mindstalk: (Default)
So I've posted messages to this filk discussion list. I seem subscribed; I got my messages. But after the second one the list owner sent me an invitation suggesting I join so my messages go through faster. Ok. I click on the link and it says I'm subscribed now. I click again, and it says I'm already subscribed. So maybe I only saw my messages as a side-effect of manual approval.

But I can't access the list home page. It's all on Google Groups, and the mail address I'm signed up with is not my Google account, and there seems no way of interacting sensibly with Google Groups without a Google account. You WILL use gmail to use Google mailing lists, like it or not, I guess.

*checks*

No, I guess you can associate other addresses with your account, too, like Yahoo. Hrmph. I don't feel like canceling this rant.
mindstalk: (riboku)
Aaargh. Libertarianism is not about robber barons, people. It's not about selfishness or low taxes. Yes, robber barons may find it useful to espouse libertarian ideals, just as control freaks may find it useful to espouse communist ones. Yes, some people who hate taxes or are selfish bastards may be drawn to libertarianism for narrow reasons. But that's not the core, any more than becoming aparatchniks was what drew lots of people to communism. I've *been* a libertarian, stopping, ironically, only when I started having income worth taxing, I hung out with lots of libertarians in a community on the net for years, and with a few in person, so I claim superior knowledge to anyone who's only had random arguments and not actually been inside, or close to an insider.

Libertarianism, at least at its core and best, and why judge it by less if you don't do that normally? is as much a burning idealism as communism. When you join the Libertarian Party you sign the Non-Coercion Principle, forswearing the initiation of force, or forswearing fraud, and force except in self-defense. A not stellar but classic libertarian science fiction series had an alternate history splitting on a Declaration of Independence which talked about the "unanimous consent of the governed" (the real one lacks 'unanimous'.) Just as it is morally obvious to a communist that people in need should be helped or that goods should be distributed fairly (meaning evenly, to the communist), and obvious to an anarchist that property and capital should be made available to those who can use it, not sequestered in "ownership", it is morally obvious to a libertarian that people should not initiate force against each other (and that this is fair). Not having taxes flows from that (taxes are, ultimately, collected by force) but it's not the point. The point is that people shouldn't be forced, should be left alone if they wish to be, should be free to associate as they choose and to make voluntary contracts. The point is that voluntary association and exchange should be the basis of society, not force.

You can say the idea is impractical; you can argue the ideas are incoherent when looked at critically, but it's no more all about avoiding taxes or social Darwinism than gaming is all about fat smelly cat-piss men or killing imaginary people and taking their imaginary stuff.

Profile

mindstalk: (Default)
mindstalk

May 2025

S M T W T F S
    123
45678910
11 121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031

Most Popular Tags

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Style Credit

Page generated 2025-05-22 23:17
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios