No it is not. Barter is not a “medium” of exchange. It is the act of exchange. But it is a very poor act of exchange in a civilization since it may be difficult to trade half a cow for a car, for example. Hence why currency (exchange medium such as gold/silver/fiat) was invented.

What Weary Citizen said. Well written.

On September 5th, 2008 at 10:55 am, RabbidSquirrel said:

No it is not. Barter is not a “medium” of exchange. It is the act of exchange. But it is a very poor act of exchange in a civilization since it may be difficult to trade half a cow for a car, for example. Hence why currency (exchange medium such as gold/silver/fiat) was invented.

Money: the exchange medium through which two free individuals agree to perform / accept labor or goods.

Is barter considered ‘money’ in this definition?

We might be in general philosophical agreement. Hard to say. Let’s try this on for size:

Money: the exchange medium through which two free individuals agree to perform / accept labor or goods.

State: An organization of people that enforces its will through force of arms over people living within a given geographic area.

This definition of State is simple in nature, encompassing all ends of the spectrum, from Khazikstan to the U.S.

Can we agree on these two simple and brief definitions?

do you look at what each citizen has, and stamp them into the ‘right sort’, or do you believe in a longer, less… abrupt shift?

Well, I’m against ordering people around at gun-point. But lets be honest – there is a degree of coercion involved in any society, and in any political theory.

I would think that each political philosophy would tend to create the sort of citizen that believed its tenets.

You would think so, but the evidence of the Republican party suggests that it just ain’t so. The evidence of the libertarian movement suggests that it just ain’t so. A lot of people seem to have no conception of the relationship between ends and means.

The goal of the GOP leadership seems to be the creation of some sort of “classical liberal” economic man. That can’t end well.

Here’s an excerpt from “The Conscience of a Conservative”.

Conservatism is not an economic theory, though it has economic implications. The shoe is precisely on the other foot: it is Socialism that subordinates all other considerations to man’s material well-being. It is Conservatism that puts material things in their proper place— that has a structured view of the human being and of human society, in which economics plays only a subsidiary role.

The root difference between the Conservatives and the Liber-als of today is that Conservatives take account of the whole man, while the Liberals tend to look only at the material side of man’s
nature. The Conservative believes that man is, in part, an economic, an animal creature; but that he is also a spiritual creature with spiritual needs and spiritual desires. What is more, these needs and desires reflect the superior side of man’s nature, and
thus take precedence over his economic wants. Conservatism therefore looks upon the enhancement of man’s spiritual nature as the primary concern of political philosophy. Liberals, on the
other hand,—in the name of a concern for “human beings”—regard the satisfaction of economic wants as the dominant mission of society. They are, moreover, in a hurry. So that their
characteristic approach is to harness the society’s political and economic forces into a collective effort to compel “progress.” In this approach, I believe they fight against Nature.

Todays libertarians look a lot like Goldwaters liberals.

The practical problem is to “create” (for lack of a better word) the “right” sort of citizens.

Certainly, but my concern lies in the approach to do this. You certainly have an image of the ‘right sort of citizen’. This is good. However, do you look at what each citizen has, and stamp them into the ‘right sort’, or do you believe in a longer, less… abrupt shift?

It is my argument that what is called “social conservatism” does a better job of creating that sort of citizen than does anything else which has been discovered.

I would think that each political philosophy would tend to create the sort of citizen that believed its tenets. It would otherwise be self-defeating.

Liberals are quite aware of this and much of their social engineering is dedicated to to defeat of social conservatism for just that reason. If you want a liberal society then you need a sheep-like mass of people conditioned to depend on it.

Quite so. This is a very good statement, and one I fully agree with.

First, I am a conservative. As such, your labels are mislaid. To take your responses in somewhat opposite order…

‘Money’ is not a contract. A _price_ is a contract. Money is the medium by which the price is negotiated. I said that money is not a political tool because it has no place in this discussion. I was under the impression that we were discussing politics, not economics.

BTW, the above definition comes straight from classically liberal (i.e., free market) economics. The price of a good or service is where the supply curve meets the demand curve. Money is simply the medium.

If you wish, I can answer them directly.

1) A state exists to serve its members. And yes, if we are discussing philosophies, feudalism and monarchy are simply other philosophies, as is collectivism. A representative democracy is generally considered superior to any of the others mentioned (and I certainly consider it so), but you cannot deny that they exist.

2) The state is that construct that is brought into being by those it serves to perform the functions that the individuals cannot perform themselves. (As I said before.) In an absolutist monarchy, for example, the state is a single individual. In a pure democracy (ancient Greek city-states), the state was equal to the entire citizenry. In a representative democracy such as the US, the state would be federal/state/local governments that are voted into office to care for such things as the common defense.

3) What rights the states have is entirely dependent on what rights it was granted upon its creation. If you wish to examine the United States, then the state has limited powers to do what you ask, normally in cases of conviction of persons under criminal law by due process of law. Again, as I stated before.

I’ve already mentioned the whole money thing. I might suggest you reread an introductory Economics text.

And I perfectly agree that redistribution of wealth that goes beyond the powers granted to the state violates the contract between the state and those that created it. That is a very basic Libertarian principle, and if you have read almost anything else here that I’ve said on the subject, you would have realized that I am in perfect agreement with you.

Attempting to enslave someone through words and pettifoggery is just as disgusting, despicable, and evil as through the chain and whip.

Go try to enslave someone else. I’m not buying.

Collectivism is not a disease, though you may think it one. It is an alternative to conservative political philosophy.

When hive-mind wants to look intelligent, it intentionally misunderstands analogies (collectivism = disease) with a serious description.

I suppose you would then consider feudalism or monarchy as merely another “alternative” to conservative political philosophy?

If I may answer your questions for myself:

By all means.

1) A society exists to serve its members…

Wrong. I didn’t ask about society. I asked if Irish Rose believed mankind exists to serve the state or vice-versa.

2) Could you please be more specific? This normally refers to that part of society that…

Wrong again. I didn’t ask about society. Hive-mind has problem understanding simple question and tries to make complex so it will look smart!

3) Again, this depends on the form of society and state…

Buzz. I did not ask about society, hive-mind.

4) Money is a tool for simplifying market transactions. As such, it is an economic tool and not a political one.

Ahhh, and there it is, hive-mind revealed in all its ultimate evil. Why, hive-mind, did you leap to say money is not a political tool? I didn’t mention anything about money being a political tool in my question.

Poor hive mind. Always reveals itself when it doesn’t mean to.

Money is a contract between two free-willed human beings. When you buy something you are telling that person, “Here is the labor of my brow that I give you freely for your goods or services.”

It is the greatest technological invention of mankind. As with any technological invention (guns, nuclear power, etc.) money can be used for good or evil, because money is ultimately a highly portable concentration of a man or woman’s time, labor, wisdom, ability.

As such it can be and often IS a political tool.

If one CONFISCATES money through the STATE for purposes other than those that are directly REQUIRED for a STATE TO PROTECT ITS CITIZENS, then the STATE is practicing…

Drum roll please.

…SLAVERY.

And hive-mind is the slave master.

Sorry, I came late to this party.

LOL HA! I just got it… no pun intended. Its obviously too late early for me to be doing this. I’m hitting the rack – please talk amongst yourselves…

I do not vote based on a popularity contest. This isn’t High School and its not the Homecoming Court. If you want me to vote for YOU(or your candidate) then you had better represent ME.

And by “ME” that may also mean “for the good of the country”.

And my job is to know what “YOU” stand for and then to vote accordingly.

Think of me as the sitting on the scales of Lady Justice. The Dem base is one plate and the GOP base is the other plate. I sit in the middle towards one side. Prove to me you have earned my vote and I will vote with the Base. If not then I will vote to the center on a case by case basis AND I do NOT have to vote on EVERY BALLOT LINE either. This isnt the SATs where you get points for filling in every line.

Please feel free to correct my misinterpretation of ‘the Base’

On September 4th, 2008 at 6:44 pm, Ron Rockstar said:

The Republican base is any group or individual who “usually” votes for Republicans.

The folks who are not the base are the folks who vote over stupid stuff like, what your hair looks like, or if you are an alpha male wearing a brown suit. They may vote Republican this time, but the next time the candidate may be bald so they will vote democrat.

Sorry, I came late to this party.

Perhaps I have always misunderstood what the term “base” always meant. To me the ‘base’ is the group of individuals who will always vote a straight-line party ticket. They would have no reason to ever look at the ballot because they are always going to vote for the party, no matter the stance of the party itself.