Libertarianism: what are some good books?

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I am in Rome and will call the Roman Legion if you try to live in my house. I assume you answered as you did because there is no inalienable right to property, right? And what about my other questions?

A man can consider his own that which he takes with him after a ship wreak. A saying

No, there is no inalienable right to property. There is, however, an inalienable right to life, of which property is closely tied to. If you have food, which is thus your property, and I steal this your property, you might starve. If you have a shelter, also your property, or if you have clothes, once again your property, and I steal those, then you might die of exposure. Either way, by denying you your property, I deny you your right to life.

Your utopia, Moonie, will only work in a world of unlimited resources. Were there unlimited food, unlimited shelter, etc., then perhaps sharing could occur easily and without strife. But that's not ever going to happen. In our real world, there are limited resources, and people have to labor to create what limited property they have.

All your wealth and property were made possible by the communal labor of others, by a society which redistributed wealth to a thriving middle class. Your world is only possible where intelligence is applied to increasing the common good, no?

You need to stop deifying society as though it were an actual thing, rather than the abstract that it is. Everything that society does, has, is, etc. is determined at individual levels. Therefore, it is self-evident that society is not of one mind or vision, and that things like "common good" are simply an individual opinion, and not anything you can point to or define with certainty.

Well my dear Sir, when man could not intellectualize, abstract or reason with words, he was sharing his food with his neighbors. The role he played in relationship to others took precedence over the self. In fact the self, the person, individuality, the ego, are every bit as big of fictions as society. In primates social structure is primary over individuality as specimens die for the group. Perhaps Libertarians are not socialized properly as children and have a neurotic fear of being dominated by others.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno


The Libertarian Party has recently reworked itself to become more mainstream. No longer are they a party of near minarchism but they do still believe the government should be reduced and have less of a role in the economy.

In other words another republican party that gutted libertarianism core values and philosophy.

No wonder Dissapate is so hopping mad.

These new Libertarians = Republican that now use now meaningless words like "Freedom" and" Individualism"a lot instead of "Terra".

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I am in Rome and will call the Roman Legion if you try to live in my house. I assume you answered as you did because there is no inalienable right to property, right? And what about my other questions?

A man can consider his own that which he takes with him after a ship wreak. A saying

No, there is no inalienable right to property. There is, however, an inalienable right to life, of which property is closely tied to. If you have food, which is thus your property, and I steal this your property, you might starve. If you have a shelter, also your property, or if you have clothes, once again your property, and I steal those, then you might die of exposure. Either way, by denying you your property, I deny you your right to life.

Your utopia, Moonie, will only work in a world of unlimited resources. Were there unlimited food, unlimited shelter, etc., then perhaps sharing could occur easily and without strife. But that's not ever going to happen. In our real world, there are limited resources, and people have to labor to create what limited property they have.

All your wealth and property were made possible by the communal labor of others, by a society which redistributed wealth to a thriving middle class. Your world is only possible where intelligence is applied to increasing the common good, no?

You need to stop deifying society as though it were an actual thing, rather than the abstract that it is. Everything that society does, has, is, etc. is determined at individual levels. Therefore, it is self-evident that society is not of one mind or vision, and that things like "common good" are simply an individual opinion, and not anything you can point to or define with certainty.

Well my dear Sir, when man could not intellectualize, abstract or reason with words, he was sharing his food with his neighbors. The role he played in relationship to others took precedence over the self. In fact the self, the person, individuality, the ego, are every bit as big of fictions as society. In primates social structure is primary over individuality as specimens die for the group. Perhaps Libertarians are not socialized properly as children and have a neurotic fear of being dominated by others.

I strongly suggest that you study primate social structure more closely, particularly that of Chimps. It might disavow you of these primate utopist notions.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: fitzov
You need to make a point after you quote--otherwise I'm not sure what your point is.

Don't mind Vic. He is an authoritarian on par with the worst communist dictators and fascists the world has ever seen.

Someone steal your account?

No, not at all. Just think about your belief system and how despotic it really is. You believe in: collectivized security, forced funding of bureaucratic school systems, transportation systems etc.

Hence, you are a mini-dictator who wouldn't think twice about taking power and maintaining dictatorial control over all kinds of economic and social activities.

Hey man, if you want total anarchy, go move to one of the warlord states in Africa. That's what anarchy looks like.

 

[AAjax]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

The most fundamental problem with libertarianism is very simple: freedom,

OMG.


Yeah, freedom is a problem for those who fear it, and have not the heart for it.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno
The Libertarian Party has recently reworked itself to become more mainstream. No longer are they a party of near minarchism but they do still believe the government should be reduced and have less of a role in the economy.

This is not correct. The LP has not reworked itself, much less recently. FFS, they ran Badnarik in '04, and he refuses to even get a drivers license.

Do radical anarchists like Dissipate feel less at home in the LP than maybe they used to in the past? Sure, I suppose, but they never represented the views of the LP in the first place. There has been no change or reworking.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: AAjax

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

The most fundamental problem with libertarianism is very simple: freedom,

OMG.


Yeah, freedom is a problem for those who fear it, and have not the heart for it.

Yes, but the problem with freedom and libertarianism is that there is no way to define where ones freedoms end when it impedes on anothers.

It's a selfish free-for-all with no workable soloution to create a working society except for a few tyrants with power.

Take away the anarcho- part and you have a totalitarian authoritarian state.

But then welcome to the "new" libertarianism, all the worst parts of republican greed populated by self-centered social outcasts.

I want my way! I want my cake all for me! waaah your taking away my freedom!

Sounds more to me like spoiled children then "individualists"

A responsible adult realizes he must sacrifice for the community, a gentleman and a useful member of a community goes out of his way to make others lives better, not to enrich himself.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno


The Libertarian Party has recently reworked itself to become more mainstream. No longer are they a party of near minarchism but they do still believe the government should be reduced and have less of a role in the economy.

In other words another republican party that gutted libertarianism core values and philosophy.

No wonder Dissapate is so hopping mad.

These new Libertarians = Republican that now use now meaningless words like "Freedom" and" Individualism"a lot instead of "Terra".

Really? Then how do explain the fact that I vote Democrat more often than not?

Oh, that's right, you're just full of sh!t again as usual.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: AAjax

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

The most fundamental problem with libertarianism is very simple: freedom,

OMG.


Yeah, freedom is a problem for those who fear it, and have not the heart for it.

Yes, but the problem with freedom and libertarianism is that there is no way to define where ones freedoms end when it impedes on anothers.

It's a selfish free-for-all with no workable soloution to create a working society except for a few tyrants with power.

Take away the anarcho- part and you have a totalitarian authoritarian state.

But then welcome to the "new" libertarianism, all the worst parts of republican greed populated by self-centered social outcasts.

The only "selfish free-for-all" rot is your belief that your own personal opinion of the common good should be forced onto everyone whether they like it or not.

BTW, just because you're sociopathic is no excuse to keep up your constant lying even after they are exposed. There is no "new" libertarianism. You're a bitter moron, desperate to force your bitter world on everyone else. I have a term for losers like you, "misery loves company."

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: AAjax

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

The most fundamental problem with libertarianism is very simple: freedom,

OMG.


Yeah, freedom is a problem for those who fear it, and have not the heart for it.

Yes, but the problem with freedom and libertarianism is that there is no way to define where ones freedoms end when it impedes on anothers.

It's a selfish free-for-all with no workable soloution to create a working society except for a few tyrants with power.

Take away the anarcho- part and you have a totalitarian authoritarian state.

But then welcome to the "new" libertarianism, all the worst parts of republican greed populated by self-centered social outcasts.

The only "selfish free-for-all" rot is your belief that your own personal opinion of the common good should be forced onto everyone whether they like it or not.

BTW, just because you're sociopathic is no excuse to keep up your constant lying even after they are exposed. There is no "new" libertarianism. You're a bitter moron, desperate to force your bitter world on everyone else. I have a term for losers like you, "misery loves company."

Vic, your acting like a bitter ass with the personal attacks, you are just reinforcing the stereotype of looneytarians, congrats.

Why Libertarianism makes you stupid (A great read to see how people becomes such pompous asses like Vic)

 

[HombrePequeno]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno
The Libertarian Party has recently reworked itself to become more mainstream. No longer are they a party of near minarchism but they do still believe the government should be reduced and have less of a role in the economy.

This is not correct. The LP has not reworked itself, much less recently. FFS, they ran Badnarik in '04, and he refuses to even get a drivers license.

Do radical anarchists like Dissipate feel less at home in the LP than maybe they used to in the past? Sure, I suppose, but they never represented the views of the LP in the first place. There has been no change or reworking.

http://mises.org/story/2309

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno


The Libertarian Party has recently reworked itself to become more mainstream. No longer are they a party of near minarchism but they do still believe the government should be reduced and have less of a role in the economy.

In other words another republican party that gutted libertarianism core values and philosophy.

No wonder Dissapate is so hopping mad.

These new Libertarians = Republican that now use now meaningless words like "Freedom" and" Individualism"a lot instead of "Terra".

I don't know many Republicans that support gay marriage, are anti-war, are anti-farm subsidy, and pro-separation of church and state. Stop spewing BS. Libertarians may praise the free market (actual free market, not the crap Republicans try to play off as free market) but they also realize civil liberties and social freedoms are extremely important too. How is that similar to Republicans who helped pass the Patriot Act and were trying for a gay marriage ban in the constitution?

Can you stop with the retarded sensationalism? You do realize you can have a decent debate without childish tactics, right?

 

[BarneyFife]

Libertarians are only about money. They are worse than Republicans.

 

[flavio]

The main issue I have with Libertarian ideals comes from a couple people I've spoke to who advocate the complete deregulation of business.

They would want no restrictions on pollution, no worker safety requirements, no FDA, no inspection of meat.

That part is completely unworkable.

 

[HombrePequeno]

Originally posted by: BarneyFife
Libertarians are only about money. They are worse than Republicans.

Many Republicans are fine with using your tax money to support corporations. I don't know of many libertarians that would agree with that.

 

[Flyback]

Thanks to everyone who has shared some wisdom with me.

I'm not certain that the Libertarian philosophy is what I'm aiming for, but it seems to be moving in the right direction:

I'm actually Canadian which means that not everything in Libertarianism (mostly the references to classic liberalism) is applicable to me.

What I DO believe is that there is too much cruft in the government. Not so much the spending (it's not taxes I fear)--but the limitations on freedom that are imposed.

I think that there is far too much law on the books. Too much telling you when you can and cannot piss. I have a great dislike for things such as the outright ban of smoking in privately owned businesses. Also, land expropriation is a MASSIVE thing I am against. In fact, the right to property here in Canada is more important than most Americans can imagine--in Canada you don't "own" land like you do in the USA. The government can take it from you.

Also, the stupidity of most municipalities around here and the by-laws and such bother me. They can say what can and cannot be done with property you have purchased. So much trouble and pettyness that they can exercise which disgusts me.

I'm not exactly a big supporter of social wellfare, but the fiscal element is the lesser (much lesser) of my concerns with regard to government. I want much less involvement of lawyers, politicians and insurers in my life. In Canada, lawyers have far too much power and involvement in your life. My family has had countless trouble with them and the law society of Canada sits around and protects all their slimeball cronies.

It seems that Libertarianism approaches that, even if it isn't an exact fit for where I want to be.

I didn't touch on social freedoms and civil liberties much but they are of utmost importance to me.

Thanks again and I look forward to more discussion (since this thread has descended into debate...it's fine by me )

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I am in Rome and will call the Roman Legion if you try to live in my house. I assume you answered as you did because there is no inalienable right to property, right? And what about my other questions?

A man can consider his own that which he takes with him after a ship wreak. A saying

No, there is no inalienable right to property. There is, however, an inalienable right to life, of which property is closely tied to. If you have food, which is thus your property, and I steal this your property, you might starve. If you have a shelter, also your property, or if you have clothes, once again your property, and I steal those, then you might die of exposure. Either way, by denying you your property, I deny you your right to life.

Your utopia, Moonie, will only work in a world of unlimited resources. Were there unlimited food, unlimited shelter, etc., then perhaps sharing could occur easily and without strife. But that's not ever going to happen. In our real world, there are limited resources, and people have to labor to create what limited property they have.

All your wealth and property were made possible by the communal labor of others, by a society which redistributed wealth to a thriving middle class. Your world is only possible where intelligence is applied to increasing the common good, no?

You need to stop deifying society as though it were an actual thing, rather than the abstract that it is. Everything that society does, has, is, etc. is determined at individual levels. Therefore, it is self-evident that society is not of one mind or vision, and that things like "common good" are simply an individual opinion, and not anything you can point to or define with certainty.

Well my dear Sir, when man could not intellectualize, abstract or reason with words, he was sharing his food with his neighbors. The role he played in relationship to others took precedence over the self. In fact the self, the person, individuality, the ego, are every bit as big of fictions as society. In primates social structure is primary over individuality as specimens die for the group. Perhaps Libertarians are not socialized properly as children and have a neurotic fear of being dominated by others.

I strongly suggest that you study primate social structure more closely, particularly that of Chimps. It might disavow you of these primate utopist notions.

What? Something like this?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: AAjax

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

The most fundamental problem with libertarianism is very simple: freedom,

OMG.


Yeah, freedom is a problem for those who fear it, and have not the heart for it.

Yes, but the problem with freedom and libertarianism is that there is no way to define where ones freedoms end when it impedes on anothers.

It's a selfish free-for-all with no workable soloution to create a working society except for a few tyrants with power.

Take away the anarcho- part and you have a totalitarian authoritarian state.

But then welcome to the "new" libertarianism, all the worst parts of republican greed populated by self-centered social outcasts.

The only "selfish free-for-all" rot is your belief that your own personal opinion of the common good should be forced onto everyone whether they like it or not.

BTW, just because you're sociopathic is no excuse to keep up your constant lying even after they are exposed. There is no "new" libertarianism. You're a bitter moron, desperate to force your bitter world on everyone else. I have a term for losers like you, "misery loves company."

Vic, your acting like a bitter ass with the personal attacks, you are just reinforcing the stereotype of looneytarians, congrats.

Why Libertarianism makes you stupid (A great read to see how people becomes such pompous asses like Vic)

I'm only did what you've been doing with your every post. I was just getting sick of it so I gave you back some of you own medicine. So now you know what you look like, except I look smart whereas you look like a stupid child.

Oh no, I bet you're gonna make another little childish comeback based on a total and obvious lie again, supported by some wimpy piece of socialist propaganda... wheee.. :roll:

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I am in Rome and will call the Roman Legion if you try to live in my house. I assume you answered as you did because there is no inalienable right to property, right? And what about my other questions?

A man can consider his own that which he takes with him after a ship wreak. A saying

No, there is no inalienable right to property. There is, however, an inalienable right to life, of which property is closely tied to. If you have food, which is thus your property, and I steal this your property, you might starve. If you have a shelter, also your property, or if you have clothes, once again your property, and I steal those, then you might die of exposure. Either way, by denying you your property, I deny you your right to life.

Your utopia, Moonie, will only work in a world of unlimited resources. Were there unlimited food, unlimited shelter, etc., then perhaps sharing could occur easily and without strife. But that's not ever going to happen. In our real world, there are limited resources, and people have to labor to create what limited property they have.

All your wealth and property were made possible by the communal labor of others, by a society which redistributed wealth to a thriving middle class. Your world is only possible where intelligence is applied to increasing the common good, no?

You need to stop deifying society as though it were an actual thing, rather than the abstract that it is. Everything that society does, has, is, etc. is determined at individual levels. Therefore, it is self-evident that society is not of one mind or vision, and that things like "common good" are simply an individual opinion, and not anything you can point to or define with certainty.

Well my dear Sir, when man could not intellectualize, abstract or reason with words, he was sharing his food with his neighbors. The role he played in relationship to others took precedence over the self. In fact the self, the person, individuality, the ego, are every bit as big of fictions as society. In primates social structure is primary over individuality as specimens die for the group. Perhaps Libertarians are not socialized properly as children and have a neurotic fear of being dominated by others.

I strongly suggest that you study primate social structure more closely, particularly that of Chimps. It might disavow you of these primate utopist notions.

What? Something like this?

All that said is that chimps share much the same empathic emotions that humans have. Like humans, chimps also wage terrifying warfare with their neighboring "tribes," and 1 out of every 2 chimp males is murdered.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I am in Rome and will call the Roman Legion if you try to live in my house. I assume you answered as you did because there is no inalienable right to property, right? And what about my other questions?

A man can consider his own that which he takes with him after a ship wreak. A saying

No, there is no inalienable right to property. There is, however, an inalienable right to life, of which property is closely tied to. If you have food, which is thus your property, and I steal this your property, you might starve. If you have a shelter, also your property, or if you have clothes, once again your property, and I steal those, then you might die of exposure. Either way, by denying you your property, I deny you your right to life.

Your utopia, Moonie, will only work in a world of unlimited resources. Were there unlimited food, unlimited shelter, etc., then perhaps sharing could occur easily and without strife. But that's not ever going to happen. In our real world, there are limited resources, and people have to labor to create what limited property they have.

All your wealth and property were made possible by the communal labor of others, by a society which redistributed wealth to a thriving middle class. Your world is only possible where intelligence is applied to increasing the common good, no?

You need to stop deifying society as though it were an actual thing, rather than the abstract that it is. Everything that society does, has, is, etc. is determined at individual levels. Therefore, it is self-evident that society is not of one mind or vision, and that things like "common good" are simply an individual opinion, and not anything you can point to or define with certainty.

Well my dear Sir, when man could not intellectualize, abstract or reason with words, he was sharing his food with his neighbors. The role he played in relationship to others took precedence over the self. In fact the self, the person, individuality, the ego, are every bit as big of fictions as society. In primates social structure is primary over individuality as specimens die for the group. Perhaps Libertarians are not socialized properly as children and have a neurotic fear of being dominated by others.

I strongly suggest that you study primate social structure more closely, particularly that of Chimps. It might disavow you of these primate utopist notions.

What? Something like this?

All that said is that chimps share much the same empathic emotions that humans have. Like humans, chimps also wage terrifying warfare with their neighboring "tribes," and 1 out of every 2 chimp males is murdered.

I see, so individual chimps hire other enterprising chimp individuals who in the pursuit of profit have developed combat skills and these units of enterprise called tribes hone their skills as a fighting team to rid their area of other corporations of chmps who are working through their individual development and monitary advancement in similar units called tribes. What a fascinating notion of conscious development this tribal thingi is.

And the chimps most genetically similar to humans do not or rarely engage in warfare or conflict. Link

 

[Satchel]

Back on topic. Not a book, but a short flash movie.

This is the true philosophy of Classic Liberalism, aka Libertarianism. Not to be confused with Modern Liberalism, aka Socialism.

 

[fitzov]

From the wiki on CL:

"that libertarianism?s resemblance to liberalism is superficial; in the end, libertarians reject essential liberal institutions. Correctly understood, libertarianism resembles a view that liberalism historically defined itself against, the doctrine of private political power that underlies feudalism. Like feudalism, libertarianism conceives of justified political power as based in a network of private contracts. It rejects the idea, essential to liberalism, that political power is a public power, to be be impartially exercised for the common good."--Samuel Freeman

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Satchel
Back on topic. Not a book, but a short flash movie.

This is the true philosophy of Classic Liberalism, aka Libertarianism. Not to be confused with Modern Liberalism, aka Socialism.

Hehe, the first principle is that you own your life and that to deny it is to admit that somebody else has a higher claim to it than you do. But if you look closely at your self you will see that you, what you call yourself, is a memory, a fragment, a piece of your self remembering, looking back in thought, at you in the past. You is yesterday, dead and gone. You are a million fragments of ever collecting tape looped and replayed over and over as triggered by current events. Nothing is ever new, nothing is ever experienced fresh, without the past, to tell you, guide you in how to react. 'You' is the prison of a machine which you proudly announce if free and primary because you are not. You are a pattern, a role, a tape, a program. Life is only real when this 'you' is not.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Satchel
Back on topic. Not a book, but a short flash movie.

This is the true philosophy of Classic Liberalism, aka Libertarianism. Not to be confused with Modern Liberalism, aka Socialism.

That is exactly it. It is the philosophy of peace and mutual cooperation and exchange with your fellow humans, treating each and every one of them as sovereign equals, endowed withe same inherent rights that you have, and the steadfast refusal to abuse the rights of your fellow human beings, to initiate force against them, or to ask someone else to initiate force against them, except in cases of rightful and just application of the rule of law.

That's the philosophy of liberty. That's classical liberalism. Any other discussion is plain bullsh!t. You want "OMG no man is an island!" that's Dissipate and his anarchy. You want sociopaths, look to rot and fitzov with their megalomaniacal aspirations of forcing their person utopist vision on the world.

Why do so many people make baseless attacks against this philosophy of liberty? Two words: fear and hate. When you hate and are unhappy in your own life, and fear and blame other people for your state rather than the choices that you yourself have made, you do not want to relinquish the ability to initiate force on others in order to punish them for what you have done to yourself. You have a vision of the way you think the world should be, a personal opinion of the "common good," and you are gonna punish those evil people for daring to have a different vision and a different personal opinion, if it's the last thing you do. And that's the nice side. The other alternative is that you know what an evil sh!t you are, and knowing what you would do, fear what likeminded others might do to you.

This next bit is for Moonie. You know how the mind works. Anything you want to do to me is something you really want to do to yourself (or more properly, that part of yourself that I represent to you). When you want me to join the group, what you really mean is that you want that part of yourself that I represent to you to make peace with the other parts of yourself within your consciousness. Please resolve that internal issue of yours first, then come back to us and consider the external.

 

[fitzov]

That's the philosophy of liberty. That's classical liberalism.

If you want to talk about CL that's fine, but don't confuse it with modern libertarianism. The only reason why libertarians say that they are just relabeling an older political philosophy is for the very superficial reason that CL has a good reputation, whereas anyone who even looks into libertarianism realizes that it is a philosophy for wealthy people who don't want to pay any taxes.

For someone who points and yells "Personal Attack!" all the time, you sure do make a lot of them.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: fitzov

That's the philosophy of liberty. That's classical liberalism.

If you want to talk about CL that's fine, but don't confuse it with modern libertarianism. The only reason why libertarians say that they are just relabeling an older political philosophy is for the very superficial reason that CL has a good reputation, whereas anyone who even looks into libertarianism realizes that it is a philosophy for wealthy people who don't want to pay any taxes.

For someone who points and yells "Personal Attack!" all the time, you sure do make a lot of them.

I've already disproven your earlier statement and proven how the philosophies are both based from the same starting principles. If they were identical, they wouldn't have different names, but they are however, very closely related and are equivalent.
Are there people who are libertarians solely for the anti-tax stance? Sure, but there are some people who are Democrats solely for the pro-choice stance. You're trying to make a ridiculous generalization, and of course, generalization are always wrong.
And when I think wealthy, I think Old Money. There are pretty much zero Old Money libertarians. It's not a philosophy that attracts Old Money.

My previous post was not a personal attack. It was a logical philosophical critique of the insecure collectivist mind. You are free to counter it with your own logical arguments, or to STFU with your childishness.