Democratic Marxism

[Pargat Perrer]

I would like to clarify something re my posts on Libertarianism, as a Democratic Marxist.

One should always be more knowledgeable about what one is opposing than the proponents.

It seems that Libertarianism most recently has emerged from the shadows.

NOT Dilip's version of UtopiaLibertarianism!!!!

The Libertarianism that is organized into political parties in the developed world does NOT include the two main pillars of Dilip's version:
- no mention of Natural Law
- no mention of offering easy access to capital for anyone with a business idea

and of course, we know why: both ideas are unworkable.

It has taken time and many posts to put together a clear framework for Dilip's version of Libertarianism. It seems Dilip approves of my last version of his position (Post # 290 - 24/4/24).

Now it is time for opponents to clearly state to Dilip why his version is not implementable on the ground, if it is not.

We have also noted the Libertarian Government of Argentina......what version of Libertarianism is being followed there? And what are its downsides?

There exists the Libertarian Party of Canada - Pargat Perrer has presented some posts outlining where it differs from Dilip's version.

Argentina has been done here already with my posts about

- police using water cannons on citizens who are protesting the lack of FOOD -- Argentina becoming a police state.
- no easy access to capital offered to the 70,000+ fired government workers
- no Natural Law

The unworkability of Dilip's UtopiaLibertarianism has also been covered by me:

- Natural Law "Do No Harm To Others, No Exceptions" would require immediate cessation of all use of fossil fuels and toxic "forever chemicals". Society would shut down

Dilip in his latest post now admits that even under Natural Law there would be "unavoidable" harm done to others. Ha!
- ANY EXCEPTION to Natural Law would allow anyone to LEGALLY challenge Natural Law! No one could be prevented from doing harm to others.

So there you have it. Argentina becoming a police state with no easy capital for businesses, and UtopiaLiberianism being unworkable because of exceptions granted to Natural Law in effect making the law moot, and because of inability to just hand easy loans to any shmuck with a business idea (a repeat of the dot-com crash would result).

Ok, Bob A? Please stop saying this has not been covered!

Lastly, MP Pierre Polievre, Leader of the Conservative Party, Canada's opposition party, has described his personal politics as "Libertarian-leaning". So what elements of Libertarianism will become Conservative Party policy when the Conservatives win the next Canadian federal election and become government (As indicated absolutely by all continuing polls; a majority government?; continuing the tradition of Stephen Harper?)?

Bob A

I have stated in this thread that i believe what we have now -- constant swinging back and forth between MODERATE right- and left-wing administrations -- is the best we can hope for. Polievre would be just another chapter in that story. He would not institute Natural Law, nor offer easy loans / grants to any person of any background, even no business experience whatsoever, who has a business idea.

Therefore with Polievre we just continue the cyclic nature of our system, as we have had for decades now.

[Sid Belzberg]

Depopulation/World Control "Conspiracy" Theory

A movement of people assert that this is NOT a "theory".

For them, a partly clandestine/partly public coalition of evil forces are a "fact", AND, this is their mission. This coalition is bent on depopulating Earth, and then asserting dictatorial control over the humans left.They have formal papers and videos interpreting world events as evidence of their evaluation.

In terms of this coalition's strategies, they point to their view on:

1. the recent COVID-19 pandemic.
2. the use of lethal medications.
3. a false presentation of negative climate change.

This evil coalition has in its strategy the use of both private and public international bodies: World Economic Forum (WEF - private organization - President: Klaus Schwab - has convinced a number of current politicians in various countries to adopt their policies); United Nations (Public); UN Agencies such as the World Health Organization (Public). Please see the Post # 295 (24/4/27) above by Sid Belzberg, one of the proponents of this coalition.

First of all, have I captured adequately the position of those concerned about this coalition on this mission?

If so, Sid has challenged those opposed to bring forward specific objections, and evidence, that shows their position to be fanciful, merely another "conspiracy" theory.

Let's start off with: How many CT'ers support Sid's position? Are we dealing with a "real" concern of many humans, or just a very few?

Bob A

For the sake of accuracy, "3. a false presentation of negative climate change" This is a false presentation of the cause and extent of negative climate change, as evidenced by the fact that the IPCC includes urban hotspots that only take up 4% of the Earth's land surface in their global temperature estimates.

[Dilip Panjwani]

Hi Dilip:

All laws are based on the moral/ethical dicta: treat others as you would have them treat you; Help the stranger; do no harm.

The plethora of laws are to make clear and precise what not to do......because.........failing to follow the law has great risk of harm to others .......so we have signal lights to lower the risk of accidents. Laws must be precise and clear, since it is a successful argument that one cannot be convicted where the law is "vague".

As a lawyer, I predict a plethora of cases involving all kinds of citizens' different interpretations of situations trying to apply your one proposed Natural Law. It is because, though the general concept is clear, its application on the ground is vague, and subject to all kinds of competing arguments as to its application in a particular situation. The systems of police, lawyers, judges and prisons will be overwhelmed.

I believe this is why the other versions of Libertarianism we have investigated, have not repealed all laws, and make no mention of the fundamental, to you, Natural Law.

Bob A

Bob, today, all courts from the supreme court down to the small claims courts, are overwhelmed by a plethora of complicated cases leading to huge costs and unacceptable delays in the delivery of justice. If it were not for the suffering involved, it would have been called 'a comedy of errors'! As an example, politicians first create the erroneous system of progressive taxation; next, to please their capitalist donors, they create a myriad of laws to enable these oligarchs to avoid paying taxes (you very well know how Trump legally has avoided paying personal taxes over the years), and to prevent the common man from competing with them; then when they realize that their tax collections are falling short of their also erroneous socialist give-away policies, the politicians create more laws to try and restrict the use of tax loopholes they themselves created, and so on and so forth this comedy of errors continues to generate cases like Trump's hush money trial in which a guy makes a handsome payment to a prostitute, which his wife does not mind, and his political opponents find complicated, inherently self-contradicting laws to charge him, criminally, timing the court proceedings with the campaigning season for the guy's presidential bid, wasting taxpayers money for something which had harmed no one to speak of, and had only helped the prostitute make a decent amount of money, etc. etc. ...

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Dilip:

All laws are based on the moral/ethical dicta: treat others as you would have them treat you; Help the stranger; do no harm.

The plethora of laws are to make clear and precise what not to do......because.........failing to follow the law has great risk of harm to others .......so we have signal lights to lower the risk of accidents. Laws must be precise and clear, since it is a successful argument that one cannot be convicted where the law is "vague".

As a lawyer, I predict a plethora of cases involving all kinds of citizens' different interpretations of situations trying to apply your one proposed Natural Law. It is because, though the general concept is clear, its application on the ground is vague, and subject to all kinds of competing arguments as to its application in a particular situation. The systems of police, lawyers, judges and prisons will be overwhelmed.

I believe this is why the other versions of Libertarianism we have investigated, have not repealed all laws, and make no mention of the fundamental, to you, Natural Law.

Bob A

[Dilip Panjwani]

I would like to clarify something re my posts on Libertarianism, as a Democratic Marxist.

One should always be more knowledgeable about what one is opposing...

Bob A

Hopefully, that knowledge will make you embrace it, rather than keep on opposing it! Just keep an open mind...

[Sid Belzberg]

Depopulation/World Control "Conspiracy" Theory

A movement of people assert that this is NOT a "theory".

For them, a partly clandestine/partly public coalition of evil forces are a "fact", AND, this is their mission. They have formal papers and videos interpreting world events as evidence of their evaluation.They point to their view on the recent COVID-19 pandemic. They point to the use of lethal medications. This coalition is bent on depopulating Earth, and then asserting dictatorial control over the humans left.

This evil coalition has in its strategy the use of both private and public international bodies: World Economic Forum (WEF - private organization - President: Klaus Schwab - has convinced a number of current politicians in various countries to adopt their policies); United Nations (Public); UN Agencies such as the World Health Organization (Public). Please see the Post # 295 (24/4/27) above by Sid Belzberg, one of the proponents of this coalition.

First of all, have I captured adequately the position of those concerned about this coalition on this mission?

If so, Sid has challenged those opposed to bring forward specific objections, and evidence, that shows their position to be fanciful, merely another "conspiracy" theory.

Let's start off with: How many CT'ers support Sid's position? Are we dealing with a "real" concern of many humans, or just a very few?

Bob A

What the hell does how many CTers have to do with the correctness of my position? An evil coalition is a group of elite oligarchs that, in actuality, are "controligarchs" that control both governments as well as NGOs you described. Here is an excellent best-selling book on this

https://www.amazon.com/Controligarch...s%2C276&sr=8-1

[Bob Armstrong]

Depopulation/World Control "Conspiracy" Theory

A movement of people assert that this is NOT a "theory".

For them, a partly clandestine/partly public coalition of evil forces are a "fact", AND, this is their mission. This coalition is bent on depopulating Earth, and then asserting dictatorial control over the humans left.They have formal papers and videos interpreting world events as evidence of their evaluation.

In terms of this coalition's strategies, they point to their view on:

1. the recent COVID-19 pandemic.
2. the use of lethal medications.
3. a false presentation of negative climate change.

This evil coalition has in its strategy the use of both private and public international bodies: World Economic Forum (WEF - private organization - President: Klaus Schwab - has convinced a number of current politicians in various countries to adopt their policies); United Nations (Public); UN Agencies such as the World Health Organization (Public). Please see the Post # 295 (24/4/27) above by Sid Belzberg, one of the proponents of this coalition.

First of all, have I captured adequately the position of those concerned about this coalition on this mission?

If so, Sid has challenged those opposed to bring forward specific objections, and evidence, that shows their position to be fanciful, merely another "conspiracy" theory.

Let's start off with: How many CT'ers support Sid's position? Are we dealing with a "real" concern of many humans, or just a very few?

Bob A

[Bob Armstrong]

I would like to clarify something re my posts on Libertarianism, as a Democratic Marxist.

One should always be more knowledgeable about what one is opposing than the proponents.

It seems that Libertarianism most recently has emerged from the shadows.

It has taken time and many posts to put together a clear framework for Dilip's version of Libertarianism. It seems Dilip approves of my last version of his position (Post # 290 - 24/4/24).

Now it is time for opponents to clearly state to Dilip why his version is not implementable on the ground, if it is not.

We have also noted the Libertarian Government of Argentina......what version of Libertarianism is being followed there? And what are its downsides?

There exists the Libertarian Party of Canada - Pargat Perrer has presented some posts outlining where it differs from Dilip's version.

Lastly, MP Pierre Polievre, Leader of the Conservative Party, Canada's opposition party, has described his personal politics as "Libertarian-leaning". So what elements of Libertarianism will become Conservative Party policy when the Conservatives win the next Canadian federal election and become government (As indicated absolutely by all continuing polls; a majority government?; continuing the tradition of Stephen Harper?)?

Bob A

[Dilip Panjwani]

Understanding Various Forms of Government

Libertarianism (As elaborated in multiple CT threads)

Recently, a Libertarian Party in Argentina was elected to government, with President Javier Milei. He describes himself as an "anarcho-capitalist". There are in the literature, various forms of Libertarianism around the world.

An advocate of one form of Libertarianism is CT'er Dilip Panjwani. Over the years, Dilip has fleshed out his basic ideas, and they have become clearer in discussion. In my words, I made an executive summary of the main characteristics of Dilip's Libertarianism. I asked Dilip to make any necessary revisions. He made no comment. So I am satisfied that Dilip does agree with my basic framework of his Libertarianism.

It is set out below (From another thread):


Dilip's Libertarianism in Canada
(In my own perception, based on his Post # 130 (24/4/23) in the CT thread, "Life - How Should We View It?", and some prior comments. Note that Canada has its own federal Libertarian Party)



1. A Libertarian National Government

- will be very limited compared to current capitalist governments of the world (Will not provide many current supportive programs; these will be downloaded to the private, and private charitable, sectors; it is not yet clear if some of these will be taken up by the local circle governments)
- will maintain international relations with other governments and legitimate international organizations, but on a very low budget.

2. Law

Only one national law, The Natural Law (Though at times Dilip has said that all other laws would not necessarily be repealed; some might remain for societal "guidance"). It is generally phrased:

"One cannot harm anyone else by their actions; but one can suffer legal harm if suffered in the context of "fair competition"."

3. The Law Enforcement

There will be enforcement of the law by police, as now. The Attorney General will determine charges, through a local Crown attorney. Charges will be heard in court, as now. The main penalty for breach of the Natural Law will be by monetary compensation for the loss suffered by the victim.

4. Payment of Taxes

Taxes - to run the above government, taxes will mainly be "indirect" - for example, on what one spends (Goods & Services Tax).
To run the local community circle governments, I have not yet inquired of Dilip, what taxing powers they will have to cover local government, policing, etc.

Of course, comments on this system are invited. One common comment so far has been that the concept of there being only one "general" law, The Natural Law, is not workable on the ground.The police and courts will be overwhelmed by cases, each with there own interpretation of such a general law.

As well, future investigation is required to clarify the extent to which Dilip's version of Libertarianism may differ from that of the Libertarian Party of Canada.....we know that there are distinguished in the literature, different "versions" of Libertarianism.

CT'er Pargat Perrer had done some research on this. He has stated that a fundamental difference is that the Libertarian Party of Canada makes no mention on its website of a role for The Natural Law.

Do other CT'ers have information on how Dilip's Libertarianism differs from that of the Libertarian Party of Canada.

Bob A

---

Hi Bob,
Your post on Libertarianism is quite timely, as Canada is likely to be moving in that direction in the next election. The growing support for the self-proclaimed Libertarian Pierre Poilievre shows that people are realizing that the alternatives are not in keeping with human nature. While fair competition outcome can cause some unavoidable harm to those who lose the fair competition, humans generally accept that as a fact of life (like losing a game of Chess!). Keep it up...

[Sid Belzberg]

On Another Tac about how to view life.....

Some believe there is a conspiracy of evil forces bent on depopulating the Earth, and then exercising absolute control over the humans left (This has come up in another CT thread).

What do CT'ers think of this alleged "fact" about the world we live in?

If it exists, what are governments elected across the world doing about it?

If it exists, Democratic Marxism must take a position on it!

Bob A

"believe there is a conspiracy" "alleged "fact"

Bob, I gave you a peer-reviewed paper that is very rare to even get published as medical science
has, for the most part, been hijacked by a corrupted medical-political complex. If you think this is wrong
why don't you tell us where we are wrong?
In case you haven't noticed elected governments around the world have been infiltrated by "young global leaders"
including our very own Justin Trudeau and his deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland who is/was a director of
the unelected WEF.
Instead of treating this like a fucking political campaign why don't you tell me where you think I am wrong and why!
This is not about politics! This is about Good vs Evil. That's right, it's that simple. Science is not a political campaign!!!!

[Pargat Perrer]

Understanding Various Forms of Government

Libertarianism (As elaborated in multiple CT threads)

Recently, a Libertarian Party in Argentina was elected to government, with President Javier Milei. He describes himself as an "anarcho-capitalist". There are in the literature, various forms of Libertarianism around the world.

An advocate of one form of Libertarianism is CT'er Dilip Panjwani. Over the years, Dilip has fleshed out his basic ideas, and they have become clearer in discussion. In my words, I made an executive summary of the main characteristics of Dilip's Libertarianism. I asked Dilip to make any necessary revisions. He made no comment. So I am satisfied that Dilip does agree with my basic framework of his Libertarianism.

It is set out below (From another thread):


Dilip's Libertarianism in Canada
.....
Only one national law, The Natural Law (Though at times Dilip has said that all other laws would not necessarily be repealed; some might remain for societal "guidance"). It is generally phrased:

"One cannot harm anyone else by their actions; but one can suffer legal harm if suffered in the context of "fair competition"."

WRONG. One cannot suffer harm at all under "fair competition" because Dilip defined "fair competition" as using no means to harm others.

Please correct your definition of Natural Law to state only: "Do no harm to others."

.....
Do other CT'ers have information on how Dilip's Libertarianism differs from that of the Libertarian Party of Canada.

Bob A

---

https://www.libertarian.ca/statement_of_policy

This statement of Libertarian Party policy makes no mention of "easy access to capital" for anyone with a business idea. Yet Dilip has repeatedly stated that this is part of HIS Libertarian policy. It is just another layer of his sheep's clothing.

No Libertarian system will be providing any easy access to capital equally applied to any business idea. Business ideas will go through the same review process under Libertarianism as they do currently, WITH THE SAME REJECTION RATES FOR LOANS OR GRANTS.

I URGE BOB A. TO STOP ALL "SUPPORT" (i.e. appearance of legitimacy) OF DILIP PANJWANI'S PROPAGANDA FOR HIS UTOPIALIBERTARIANISM. Please Bob A. stop giving any credence at all to Dilip's ideas. They are not official Libertarianism policy, and Libertarianism is already enough on the fringe without giving credence to outlier ideas for cultist branches of Libertarianism.

[Bob Armstrong]

On Another Tac about how to view life.....

Some believe there is a conspiracy of evil forces bent on depopulating the Earth, and then exercising absolute control over the humans left (This has come up in another CT thread).

What do CT'ers think of this alleged "fact" about the world we live in?

If it exists, what are governments elected across the world doing about it?

If it exists, Democratic Marxism must take a position on it!

Bob A

[Pargat Perrer]

Understanding Various Forms of Government

Libertarianism (As elaborated in multiple CT threads)

Recently, a Libertarian Party in Argentina was elected to government, with President Javier Milei. He describes himself as an "anarcho-capitalist". There are in the literature, various forms of Libertarianism around the world.

An advocate of one form of Libertarianism is CT'er Dilip Panjwani. Over the years, Dilip has fleshed out his basic ideas, and they have become clearer in discussion. In my words, I made an executive summary of the main characteristics of Dilip's Libertarianism. I asked Dilip to make any necessary revisions. He made no comment. So I am satisfied that Dilip does agree with my basic framework of his Libertarianism.

It is set out below (From another thread):


Dilip's Libertarianism in Canada
(In my own perception, based on his Post # 130 (24/4/23) in the CT thread, "Life - How Should We View It?", and some prior comments. Note that Canada has its own federal Libertarian Party)



1. A Libertarian National Government

- will be very limited compared to current capitalist governments of the world (Will not provide many current supportive programs; these will be downloaded to the private, and private charitable, sectors; it is not yet clear if some of these will be taken up by the local circle governments)
- will maintain international relations with other governments and legitimate international organizations, but on a very low budget.

2. Law

Only one national law, The Natural Law (Though at times Dilip has said that all other laws would not necessarily be repealed; some might remain for societal "guidance"). It is generally phrased:

"One cannot harm anyone else by their actions; but one can suffer legal harm if suffered in the context of "fair competition"."

3. The Law Enforcement

There will be enforcement of the law by police, as now. The Attorney General will determine charges, through a local Crown attorney. Charges will be heard in court, as now. The main penalty for breach of the Natural Law will be by monetary compensation for the loss suffered by the victim.

4. Payment of Taxes

Taxes - to run the above government, taxes will mainly be "indirect" - for example, on what one spends (Goods & Services Tax).
To run the local community circle governments, I have not yet inquired of Dilip, what taxing powers they will have to cover local government, policing, etc.

Of course, comments on this system are invited. One common comment so far has been that the concept of there being only one "general" law, The Natural Law, is not workable on the ground.The police and courts will be overwhelmed by cases, each with there own interpretation of such a general law.

As well, future investigation is required to clarify the extent to which Dilip's version of Libertarianism may differ from that of the Libertarian Party of Canada.....we know that there are distinguished in the literature, different "versions" of Libertarianism.

CT'er Pargat Perrer had done some research on this. He has stated that a fundamental difference is that the Libertarian Party of Canada makes no mention on its website of a role for The Natural Law.

Do other CT'ers have information on how Dilip's Libertarianism differs from that of the Libertarian Party of Canada.

Bob A

---

https://www.libertarian.ca/statement_of_policy


NO MENTION OF ANYTHING CALLED "NATURAL LAW".


Bob A. I keep telling you Dilip is a wolf in sheep's clothing (and Sid also, but Sid differs by not specifically mentioning Natural Law).

What is Dilip's sheep's clothing?

IT IS NATURAL LAW.

"Do no harm to others, except in fair competition in which you may do no harm to others."

i.e.

"Do no harm to others"

i.e.

"Burn no fossil fuels."
"Do not sell foods or beverages with high-fructose corn syrup or palm oil or artificial anything or gmo ingredients."
"Do not hire child labor."
"Do not exploit workers or force them to work extended hours."
"Pay a living wage."
"Make no false advertising claims."
"Do not falsify property or financial valuations."
"Do not break legal contracts."
"Pay contractors for their work."
"Make no false bankruptcy claims."
etc.
etc.
etc.

If you actually implemented all that, you would crash the global economy. Business the world over is BASED ON disobeying at least one of the above. Something Dilip's UtopiaLibertarianism will never acknowledge or understand.

And believe me when I tell you, DIlip's UtopiaLibertarianism will NOT do anything to stop any business from disobeying all of the above. Natural Law be DAMNED.

[Dilip Panjwani]

Pierre Poilievre, our future Prime Minister, and a self described Libertarian, understands Libertarianism better than the 'leaders' of the Libertarian Party of Canada...

[Bob Armstrong]

Understanding Various Forms of Government

Libertarianism (As elaborated in multiple CT threads)

Recently, a Libertarian Party in Argentina was elected to government, with President Javier Milei. He describes himself as an "anarcho-capitalist". There are in the literature, various forms of Libertarianism around the world.

An advocate of one form of Libertarianism is CT'er Dilip Panjwani. Over the years, Dilip has fleshed out his basic ideas, and they have become clearer in discussion. In my words, I made an executive summary of the main characteristics of Dilip's Libertarianism. I asked Dilip to make any necessary revisions. He made no comment. So I am satisfied that Dilip does agree with my basic framework of his Libertarianism.

It is set out below (From another thread):


Dilip's Libertarianism in Canada
(In my own perception, based on his Post # 130 (24/4/23) in the CT thread, "Life - How Should We View It?", and some prior comments. Note that Canada has its own federal Libertarian Party)



1. A Libertarian National Government

- will be very limited compared to current capitalist governments of the world (Will not provide many current supportive programs; these will be downloaded to the private, and private charitable, sectors; it is not yet clear if some of these will be taken up by the local circle governments)
- will maintain international relations with other governments and legitimate international organizations, but on a very low budget.

2. Law

Only one national law, The Natural Law (Though at times Dilip has said that all other laws would not necessarily be repealed; some might remain for societal "guidance"). It is generally phrased:

"One cannot harm anyone else by their actions; but one can suffer legal harm if suffered in the context of "fair competition"."

3. The Law Enforcement

There will be enforcement of the law by police, as now. The Attorney General will determine charges, through a local Crown attorney. Charges will be heard in court, as now. The main penalty for breach of the Natural Law will be by monetary compensation for the loss suffered by the victim.

4. Payment of Taxes

Taxes - to run the above government, taxes will mainly be "indirect" - for example, on what one spends (Goods & Services Tax).
To run the local community circle governments, I have not yet inquired of Dilip, what taxing powers they will have to cover local government, policing, etc.

Of course, comments on this system are invited. One common comment so far has been that the concept of there being only one "general" law, The Natural Law, is not workable on the ground.The police and courts will be overwhelmed by cases, each with there own interpretation of such a general law.

As well, future investigation is required to clarify the extent to which Dilip's version of Libertarianism may differ from that of the Libertarian Party of Canada.....we know that there are distinguished in the literature, different "versions" of Libertarianism.

CT'er Pargat Perrer had done some research on this. He has stated that a fundamental difference is that the Libertarian Party of Canada makes no mention on its website of a role for The Natural Law.

Do other CT'ers have information on how Dilip's Libertarianism differs from that of the Libertarian Party of Canada.

Bob A

---