|
spoon0042 posted:That misses the part where the evil government can't do a thing if a parent lets their kid starve. The counter to this is that if a guardian were letting the child starve or were otherwise dangerously negligent, one could argue that they had abandoned the claim to guardianship and the child would be free to be "rescued". In a broad sense this is not too much different than current child welfare systems.
|
# ? May 23, 2014 17:39 |
|
|
# ? Jun 8, 2024 07:22 |
|
I think the libertarian philosophy opens up too much potential for "decentralized" violence. While in the other direction, too strong of a state clearly has the potential for "centralized" violence. There must be a balance, in my opinion.
|
# ? May 23, 2014 17:40 |
|
IMJack posted:I've always thought the funny thing about the "non-aggression principle" is that in order for it to work for you, you need to be a credible enough threat in yourself that nobody dares be aggressive against you. People who hold to this either don't understand that bit and assume people are capable of peace-and-love coexistence that they otherwise deride; or they believe money will buy them muscle and that the muscle is uninterested in turning against them; or they have a fantasy about their own ability to kill anyone who challenges them. Pretty similar to how Libertarians view the civil rights issue. From the prospective of a business owner being forced to do business with black people, not the black person being excluded from participating in the economy.
|
# ? May 23, 2014 17:41 |
|
tbp posted:Socialism similarly will not work in the real world but it's a more admirable goal I suppose. You mean like Medicare and Social Security?
|
# ? May 23, 2014 17:43 |
|
LogisticEarth posted:The counter to this is that if a guardian were letting the child starve or were otherwise dangerously negligent, one could argue that they had abandoned the claim to guardianship and the child would be free to be "rescued". In a broad sense this is not too much different than current child welfare systems. Sure, you could argue that. Rothbard didn't though.
|
# ? May 23, 2014 17:43 |
|
SedanChair posted:You mean like Medicare and Social Security? Those are somewhat socialist programs yes.
|
# ? May 23, 2014 17:48 |
|
tbp posted:Those are somewhat socialist programs yes. Did you mean communism, then? Socialism is quite a bit different.
|
# ? May 23, 2014 17:49 |
|
AstheWorldWorlds posted:Did you mean communism, then? Socialism is quite a bit different. No I meant socialism.
|
# ? May 23, 2014 17:49 |
|
Arri posted:Anarchism is inherently rooted in lack of hierarchy and acceptance of collectivism. One of these capitalism is unable to survive without and the other capitalism opposes. There is no such thing as an AnCap no matter how much they want to try to distort anarchism to fit their fygm world view. tbp posted:No I meant socialism. BrutalistMcDonalds fucked around with this message at 17:58 on May 23, 2014 |
# ? May 23, 2014 17:50 |
|
tbp posted:No I meant socialism. So elements of socialism are workable in your opinion or do you mean to say you disagree with things like social security and medicare?
|
# ? May 23, 2014 17:51 |
|
AstheWorldWorlds posted:So elements of socialism are workable in your opinion or do you mean to say you disagree with things like social security and medicare? You're not going to see a classless society.
|
# ? May 23, 2014 17:56 |
|
tbp posted:You're not going to see a classless society. Again, are you sure you are talking about socialism, and not communism?
|
# ? May 23, 2014 17:56 |
|
My Koch thread has kind of died off, but this is relevant here: "Fred was among the John Birch Society's national leaders; Charles joined in due time Birchers who grew enamored with a colorful anti-government guru named Robert LeFevre, creator of a libertarian mecca called the Freedom School in Colorado's Rampart mountain range. From here, Charles fell in with the fledgling libertarian movement, a volatile stew of anarchists, devotees of the "Austrian school" of economics, and other radical thinkers who could agree on little besides an abiding disdain for government." From "Sons of Wichita" Charles Koch isn't just the kid of a Bircher he is a Bircher. So the money behind one of the Libertarian factions / Tea Party, is straight from a John Birch Society member.
|
# ? May 23, 2014 17:56 |
|
archangelwar posted:Again, are you sure you are talking about socialism, and not communism? Yes
|
# ? May 23, 2014 17:57 |
|
archangelwar posted:Again, are you sure you are talking about socialism, and not communism? Are you sure you're talking about socialism and not a social democratic mixed economy?
|
# ? May 23, 2014 17:59 |
|
tbp posted:Yes Thennn what's unworkable about socialism? Because socialist programs tend to work pretty well with good administration.
|
# ? May 23, 2014 18:03 |
|
tbp posted:You're not going to see a classless society. The classless society is communism, the state working towards achieving that is socialism hth.
|
# ? May 23, 2014 18:04 |
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:The classless society is communism, the state working towards achieving that is socialism hth. No.
|
# ? May 23, 2014 18:05 |
|
Omi-Polari posted:but I have never been able to endorse the left-anarchist view that an AnCap is not a form of anarchism, as the standards left-anarchists apply to AnCaps can easily be turned right back around on them. The moment left-anarchism becomes coercive and hierarchical is when it encounters people who don't accept collectivism, which is inevitable in any case. No they can't. The sum of the anarchist critique of AC is that anarchism is BOTH opposition to illegitimate state coercion and capitalism. Anarchism grew from the communist labour movement of the 1880s, and using the label for anti-socialist viewpoints make little sense. Incidentally, this is also why "socialist anarchists" don't consider Stirner, Tolstoy, Godwin etc. anarchists. Also, there is not necessarily basis for claiming that anarchism is coercive when "encountering" people who do not share their views on collectivism. Sure, they would not cooperate with non-collectivists, but after that the only coercion would happen when the individualists attempted to convince them by force, and they retaliate.
|
# ? May 23, 2014 18:06 |
|
SedanChair posted:Thennn what's unworkable about socialism? Because socialist programs tend to work pretty well with good administration. Read Tocqueville if you want a decent understand as to why too much centralization is a problem.
|
# ? May 23, 2014 18:06 |
|
tbp posted:No. No actually he is right, socialism says nothing about actually having the classless society merely that it is an overall goal in a way similar to "liberty" in liberal capitalist republics. You really are specifically referring to communism when you speak of a society (not state) that is classless.
|
# ? May 23, 2014 18:09 |
|
tbp posted:Read Tocqueville if you want a decent understand as to why too much centralization is a problem. No you loving tell me what you got out of Tocqueville, if you please.
|
# ? May 23, 2014 18:11 |
|
AstheWorldWorlds posted:No actually he is right, socialism says nothing about actually having the classless society merely that it is an overall goal in a way similar to "liberty" in liberal capitalist republics. You really are specifically referring to communism when you speak of a society (not state) that is classless. This is not the case. SedanChair posted:No you loving tell me what you got out of Tocqueville, if you please. A very simple issue that we can start off with is the tyranny of the majority that comes with an excessively centralized society.
|
# ? May 23, 2014 18:11 |
|
tbp posted:This is not the case. Ok, why isn't it the case?
|
# ? May 23, 2014 18:16 |
|
Why is a centralized welfare state more problematic than a centralized defense state? What does the centralization of services have to do with the tyranny of the majority? Is centralization a unique property of socialism?
|
# ? May 23, 2014 18:17 |
|
tbp posted:This is not the case. This is the case.
|
# ? May 23, 2014 18:21 |
|
SedanChair posted:Why is a centralized welfare state more problematic than a centralized defense state? It's not, accountability to the masses leads to it, and no.
|
# ? May 23, 2014 18:23 |
|
tbp posted:A very simple issue that we can start off with is the tyranny of the majority that comes with an excessively centralized society. Oh no not Bob le Moche fucked around with this message at 18:30 on May 23, 2014 |
# ? May 23, 2014 18:23 |
|
tbp posted:A very simple issue that we can start off with is the tyranny of the majority that comes with an excessively centralized society. "States' Rights!"
|
# ? May 23, 2014 18:25 |
|
Bob le Moche posted:Oh no not That's a lovely image you have there but I fail to see a salient point.
|
# ? May 23, 2014 18:25 |
|
tbp posted:It's not, accountability to the masses leads to it, and no. So you seem to have more of a beef with democracy than with socialism. What do you think is the best way to remove "accountability to the masses" from our system?
|
# ? May 23, 2014 18:30 |
|
tbp posted:Read Tocqueville if you want a decent understand as to why too much centralization is a problem. So we should instead invade a country, crush their social structure through raids and destruction of crops, suspend all political freedoms and impose racial segregation? Should we assert our dominance in the world through overwhelming force for it's own sake and destroy all civillian homes in our enemy's territory? Don't loving pretend Alexis de Tocqueville was anything but a horrifying lunatic and tyrant.
|
# ? May 23, 2014 18:31 |
|
Tias posted:No they can't. The sum of the anarchist critique of AC is that anarchism is BOTH opposition to illegitimate state coercion and capitalism. Anarchism grew from the communist labour movement of the 1880s, and using the label for anti-socialist viewpoints make little sense. Incidentally, this is also why "socialist anarchists" don't consider Stirner, Tolstoy, Godwin etc. anarchists. Well, not to belabor the distinction but I'd argue left-wing anarchism would be inherently coercive regardless. It shares a similar paradox native to anarcho-capitalism, in that both remove government and also the system of checks and balances by which government polices itself. Essentially this means both systems (so to speak) abolish the liberal state but also abolish the system that serves to correct against any one group from establishing too much power. In the libertarian case, this paves the way for the rule of private tyranny and coercion by proxy -- hired guns paid for by a landowner, just to use a general example. In the left-wing anarchist case, this paves the way for rule by private conspiracies and assassins.
|
# ? May 23, 2014 18:31 |
|
SedanChair posted:So you seem to have more of a beef with democracy than with socialism. This is not the case. Foxrunsecurity posted:So we should instead invade a country, crush their social structure through raids and destruction of crops, suspend all political freedoms and impose racial segregation? Should we assert our dominance in the world through overwhelming force for it's own sake and destroy all civillian homes in our enemy's territory? Don't loving pretend Alexis de Tocqueville was anything but a horrifying lunatic and tyrant.
|
# ? May 23, 2014 18:33 |
|
tbp posted:This is not the case. You said that the unsustainability of socialism comes from "accountability to the masses." Elaborate please.
|
# ? May 23, 2014 18:35 |
|
SedanChair posted:You said that the unsustainability of socialism comes from "accountability to the masses." Elaborate please. "Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude."
|
# ? May 23, 2014 18:37 |
|
tbp posted:"Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." This is not the case.
|
# ? May 23, 2014 18:37 |
|
Regardless of my personal opinions on the matter my initial point was that you will not see a socialist society during any of our lifetimes, and I'd suspect for some vastly significant amount of time afterward.
|
# ? May 23, 2014 18:38 |
|
tbp posted:"Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." Use your words. Quoting somebody else without comment reinforces my impression that you don't have any fully formed ideas of your own.
|
# ? May 23, 2014 18:39 |
|
|
# ? Jun 8, 2024 07:22 |
|
tbp posted:Regardless of my personal opinions on the matter my initial point was that you will not see a socialist society during any of our lifetimes, and I'd suspect for some vastly significant amount of time afterward. This is not the case.
|
# ? May 23, 2014 18:39 |