|
tbp posted:I didn't confuse it at all. Ok, so would you mind informing us all on your definition of socialism then?
|
# ? May 23, 2014 22:02 |
|
|
# ? May 21, 2024 18:47 |
|
Nessus posted:I think the relevant words were "Hey, can I be rendered immune to probation so I can see if I can top the ignored-list chart" I keep forgetting those very important words.
|
# ? May 23, 2014 22:02 |
|
AstheWorldWorlds posted:Yeah that is fine, care to give your opinion on what socialism is? Common control of production, robust redistribution of wealth, of course the core tenants of a decent life provided (healthcare, transportation, food, etc.) by a central organization, a planned economy, any many more but I'm sure you can see where I am going here.
|
# ? May 23, 2014 22:04 |
|
tbp posted:Common control of production, robust redistribution of wealth, of course the core tenants of a decent life provided (healthcare, transportation, food, etc.) by a central organization, a planned economy, any many more but I'm sure you can see where I am going here. So I am assuming you have conceded that it is not necessarily classless which further distinguishes it from communism? Also, on the criteria: Yes, yes but the form varies wildly, not necessarily by a central organization, and market socialism is a thing.
|
# ? May 23, 2014 22:09 |
|
tbp posted:Common control of production, robust redistribution of wealth, of course the core tenants of a decent life provided (healthcare, transportation, food, etc.) by a central organization, a planned economy, any many more but I'm sure you can see where I am going here. What makes any of that unsustainable or impractical?
|
# ? May 23, 2014 22:13 |
|
AstheWorldWorlds posted:So I am assuming you have conceded that it is not necessarily classless which further distinguishes it from communism? A quick google search indicates that many definitions of socialism include classlessness. And, should we be returning to my original point, even if that specification removed, I still think it is wildly unlikely we will see any robust socialist states during any of our lifetimes (especially ones that fulfill that criteria and continue to move toward the "ideal" rather than away into deregulation, etc.) Though I think socialism is better than the alternatives I do think there are definitely dangers associated with it that I've not seen properly addressed, but I would be very willing to have that opinion changed should anyone be interested in speaking on it.
|
# ? May 23, 2014 22:13 |
|
SedanChair posted:What makes any of that unsustainable or impractical? I don't think the class consciousness will manifest. There is always that "Black Skin, White Masks" effect as well.
|
# ? May 23, 2014 22:18 |
|
tbp posted:A quick google search indicates that many definitions of socialism include classlessness. And, should we be returning to my original point, even if that specification removed, I still think it is wildly unlikely we will see any robust socialist states during any of our lifetimes (especially ones that fulfill that criteria and continue to move toward the "ideal" rather than away into deregulation, etc.) Well in a traditional sense classlessness is the goal of left socialism but it doesn't mean that it is necessarily classless. Like I said earlier it is usually considered to be an overarching goal of socialism that the society works to achieve. As far as dangers go literally any social and economic system will have potential dangers, but would you mind elaborating on what specific angers you think are present?
|
# ? May 23, 2014 22:19 |
|
This conversation reminds me of a 1990's chatbot. The quibbling is endless. Here, the highest-rated Amazon review for a biography of Mises: quote:Great lives make great biographies. If only this were always true. One problem is that many biographies, including very long books, are written about the mediocre, or even the boring (think of politicians). Another problem is that so often a hash is made of the effort to explain an interesting life. I am happy to report that Mises: The Last Knight of Liberalism by Jörg Guido Hülsmann is a great biography of a great life. More precisely, this book tells the story of the great ideas, generated by a great mind, in the context of the life of a very good man, Ludwig von Mises. I'm impressed, actually; that's a lot of typing to do one-handed.
|
# ? May 23, 2014 22:25 |
|
AstheWorldWorlds posted:Well in a traditional sense classlessness is the goal of left socialism but it doesn't mean that it is necessarily classless. Like I said earlier it is usually considered to be an overarching goal of socialism that the society works to achieve. As far as dangers go literally any social and economic system will have potential dangers, but would you mind elaborating on what specific angers you think are present? My primary concern would be with the overarching nature and power of the state.
|
# ? May 23, 2014 22:35 |
Out of these types of libertarians, which ones typically support (And supported before it was politically acceptable) gay marriage? I'm pretty sure the libertarian conservatives just want to leave it up to the states to decide, but I'm not sure about the others.
|
|
# ? May 23, 2014 22:58 |
|
Based on what I've seen at the handful of rallies, protests, and parades I've personally been too? None. Excusing the occasional white college student who is himself (always men, never lesbians) gay. You're more likely to see a southern baptist fundamentalist church supporting (in the actual sense) gay rights than loving libertarians. But they don't support the other side, outside of voting straight ticket republican most of the time, I guess.
|
# ? May 23, 2014 23:17 |
|
Sublimer posted:Out of these types of libertarians, which ones typically support (And supported before it was politically acceptable) gay marriage? I'm pretty sure the libertarian conservatives just want to leave it up to the states to decide, but I'm not sure about the others. The ones that don't want to call themselves liberals, I suspect.
|
# ? May 23, 2014 23:20 |
|
Chalets the Baka posted:How can you be unsure of what the "correct" answer is in a situation where there is no correct answer? You already confused socialism with communism earlier (even despite claiming you knew what they were) so perhaps the issue here is that you're just regular old "unsure". The type of socialism bandied about in D&D is usually democratic socialism, which is a fairly conservative form of socialism and isn't outside the realm of reality; a lot of the OECD member countries have in fact successfully implemented socialist policy, proving that not only does it look good on paper, it looks good in practice too. D&D soi-disant socialists generally distinguish democratic socialism from social democracy, with social democracy referring to the successful policies you seem to be talking about, and democratic socialism referring to policies that have never been implemented in an actual democracy. Tpb seems to be saying that social democracy is workable but democratic socialism isn't. This doesn't excuse tpb's arguing style, which is pretty annoying.
|
# ? May 23, 2014 23:37 |
|
Sublimer posted:Out of these types of libertarians, which ones typically support (And supported before it was politically acceptable) gay marriage? I'm pretty sure the libertarian conservatives just want to leave it up to the states to decide, but I'm not sure about the others. They tend to side-step it with "Well, the government should get out of marriage altogether," and then don't think about it for any longer.
|
# ? May 24, 2014 00:59 |
|
Hey America, thanks for spreading your drat Freeman crap up north. On the plus side, you've given us some great decisions as a result.
|
# ? May 24, 2014 01:53 |
|
tbp posted:pedantic
|
# ? May 24, 2014 02:11 |
|
El Scotch posted:Hey America, thanks for spreading your drat Freeman crap up north. Holy crap the way the second one is written is wonderful. Are a lot of Canadian court opinions like this? quote:“You should get out of town”, the man said.
|
# ? May 24, 2014 02:11 |
|
TheQat posted:Holy crap the way the second one is written is wonderful. Are a lot of Canadian court opinions like this? I wish; they're usually a lot more dry. That one is one of the best ones written in years. I now feel like quoting the opening section, to aid in the amusement of the casual SA browser. quote:“You should get out of town”, the man said. Wistful of Dollars fucked around with this message at 02:19 on May 24, 2014 |
# ? May 24, 2014 02:13 |
|
tbp posted:My primary concern would be with the overarching nature and power of the state.
|
# ? May 24, 2014 02:16 |
|
rudatron posted:Power structures will still exist sans a strong state, because power vacuums don't stay vacuums for long. The alternative to the 'tyranny of the majority' isn't some society of total liberty (which is ten times as utopian as communism), but a 'tyranny of a minority'. I don't know about tbp, but I'm not quite cynical enough to think that relative balance between majority rule and minority rights, or between power structures in general, is impossible. A strong state is necessary, but only to a point. (Talking in generalities here because others seem to be.)
|
# ? May 24, 2014 02:45 |
|
Well lets have a NEW discussion brought from a favorite hang out, my facebook wall! We have a libertarian on here talking about the Non Agression Principal. Some snippets: My OP: An interesting point on Libertarianism and also on folks that advocate guns, is that they claim violence is the worst thing possible. Violent action or coercion is of the utmost evil. Yet these gusn rights and self defense activists fail to see the very contradiction in their position-the very position of authority they wish to defend is based upon the threat of violence. The entire idea of "an armed society is a safe society" isn't that guns inherently make you safer by virtue of them being present. Its the imminent threat of violence (called coercion WHO KNEW?!) is what enforces "safety". This is why Libertarianism is closer to a religion than a political ideology. Response: Incorrect representation of libertarianism, the non-aggression principle states that initiation of violence or coercion is immoral and thus aggression is immoral, self-defense is not aggression. As libertarians would not commit such an act, but statists do on a daily basis. Having the means of violence is not coercion if used solely for defense of your natural rights. Or rights by objective reasoning, it doesn't matter how you get there, but it is fairly universal that you have the right to your life, your liberties and the fruit of your labor. Encroaching on one's land is trespassing and a form of aggression, using a weapon to defend your property is once again, not a form of aggression. I just like poking Libertarians. It always goes in circles, but its public, so people get exposed to it. I think that is important.
|
# ? May 24, 2014 04:15 |
|
That's not a very good argument. Are you saying that the ability to defend yourself is somehow "the imminent threat of violence"? e: I mean without the obligatory "property" reference I would basically agree with that guy.
|
# ? May 24, 2014 04:20 |
|
Silver2195 posted:I don't know about tbp, but I'm not quite cynical enough to think that relative balance between majority rule and minority rights, or between power structures in general, is impossible. A strong state is necessary, but only to a point. (Talking in generalities here because others seem to be.) This is generally what I agree with, however I believe I am unable to effectively speak to the specificities unfortunately and would very much so like to discuss such a thing. I don't think I've been especially pedantic in this thread nor any other in this subforum to be honest.
|
# ? May 24, 2014 04:25 |
|
SedanChair posted:That's not a very good argument. Are you saying that the ability to defend yourself is somehow "the imminent threat of violence"? No, i'm not saying the ability to defend yourself is the threat of violence. I'm saying the open display of force is a threat of violence. If I walk around with guns pointed everywhere and say "Hey, can I have your last Pepsi, SedanChair?" are you more likely to give it to me or tell me to gently caress off?
|
# ? May 24, 2014 04:26 |
|
Jastiger posted:No, i'm not saying the ability to defend yourself is the threat of violence. I'm saying the open display of force is a threat of violence. To gently caress off, I suppose. But you didn't mention anything about open carry in your statement, just guns.
|
# ? May 24, 2014 04:28 |
|
SedanChair posted:To gently caress off, I suppose. But you didn't mention anything about open carry in your statement, just guns. Well its open carry, but is really about guns in general. The main reason folks that I hear in the gun debate that claim they are Libertarian is that they want to be able to shoot and kill anyone that they deem threatens their property. They want to be able to defend themselves. Got it. The trouble is when they want a small armory in order to defend against the government or some sort of paramilitary organization like the Ironborn intent on taking their daughters as Saltwives. It becomes less about defense of their selves, and more about a show of force to deter anyone from messin' with em. That is different.
|
# ? May 24, 2014 04:30 |
|
Jastiger posted:It becomes less about defense of their selves, and more about a show of force to deter anyone from messin' with em. That is different. That's a weird definition of "force." But I mean other than open carry (which is just impolite) and brandishing (which is illegal) what's wrong with showing that you're not worth messing with? I mean it's OK to lift weights and be strong, isn't it? In any case, regardless of where you fall on the issue of guns I don't see what this has to do with critiques of libertarianism.
|
# ? May 24, 2014 04:35 |
|
You can't really rely on self-defence though, because you could just be taken by surprise. For effective deterrence, you'll need someone to at least 'avenge' your death, and that leads to fun things like blood feuds.tbp posted:This is generally what I agree with, however I believe I am unable to effectively speak to the specificities unfortunately and would very much so like to discuss such a thing. Silver2195 posted:I don't know about tbp, but I'm not quite cynical enough to think that relative balance between majority rule and minority rights, or between power structures in general, is impossible. A strong state is necessary, but only to a point. (Talking in generalities here because others seem to be.) rudatron fucked around with this message at 04:44 on May 24, 2014 |
# ? May 24, 2014 04:37 |
|
The fundamental disconnect is that the gun-carrying libertarian "knows" that they won't flip out and go on a murder spree, but the people around them generally do not. Furthermore, carrying a weapon may well indicate that a person is more likely to lose their temper and become violent than average. e: I say "knows" in scarequotes because it turns out that most people don't plan on outbursts of explosive anger. It is sort of like Google Glass wearers: they say that they're not a danger to others, but there's no way to be sure. Except whereas it's good to harass and shun Glassholes and break their toys, doing so to a gun carrier is dangerous. Mornacale fucked around with this message at 04:40 on May 24, 2014 |
# ? May 24, 2014 04:37 |
|
SedanChair posted:That's a weird definition of "force." But I mean other than open carry (which is just impolite) and brandishing (which is illegal) what's wrong with showing that you're not worth messing with? I mean it's OK to lift weights and be strong, isn't it? I say it has a lot to do with it because showing that you have a massive force with which to defend yourself is in and of itself a form of force. A gun on the table is an object on a table. A gun in the hand is a weapon that can kill. It fundamentally changes the person holding it and the gun itself because it is no longer a stagnant object, but a characteristic of a person.
|
# ? May 24, 2014 04:58 |
|
rudatron posted:
Times I have tried to in the past have led directly to South Park quotes. Though I suppose it doesn't hurt to try again. I think that the mockable part of internet libertarianism (the bizarrely idealistic and naive kind derided in this thread) shares many similarities with the same kind of socialism expressed in this subforum (see the relatively recent "We must kill all bankers!" thing).
|
# ? May 24, 2014 05:21 |
|
tbp posted:Times I have tried to in the past have led directly to South Park quotes. Contemplate why.
|
# ? May 24, 2014 05:32 |
|
tbp posted:Times I have tried to in the past have led directly to South Park quotes.
|
# ? May 24, 2014 05:40 |
|
Pope Guilty posted:Contemplate why. To be honest I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that many folks, not just consigned to any given forum (and in fact, more numerous in real life discussions) have already made their mind up regarding certain issues and would prefer that not to be challenged at all. It is easier to shout at something nonsensically than to respond thoughtfully.
|
# ? May 24, 2014 05:41 |
|
rudatron posted:Umm...I don't agree? I also don't think that 'idealistic' is a descriptive term, because anyone can say that about their opponents on any economic issue (the other is unreasonable, I am reasonable etc. etc.). Hm, perhaps it would be better if I were more clear, apologies. When I wrote idealistic, I meant in sort of a wish-fulfillment way. In this sense, the libertarian would like a government-less society (for the most part) in order to have what he believes would be, simply, a better society for the people. I think these statements are not surreptitious for the most of them, and it comes from a genuine place however misguided. The naive error here lies with the method of achieving this, which is repealing all the hallmarks they perceive as threatening to this ideal (social safety nets always chief amongst them, which to be honest I would place down to rhetoric more than any meaningful examination) The socialism espoused often here also has a similarly idealistic tone in that the end result is simply a much better society for the people. Instead of repealing social programs, the avenue discussed seems always to be some sort of mass violence and wish-fulfillment. Again, while I think the goal itself is noble and genuine, I think there is an immature amount of examination done on the route to that end goal. Identifying possible pitfalls in the process seems particularly washed over. Were I able to steer the world in any reasonable direction I would like to enforce incremental, but accelerated social programs that would, in a relatively useful/realistic timeframe, increase the QoL of those amongst our own that have it the worst. Unfortunately I am also a bit soured from the past few years, especially the relatively tepid end-results that come from what seem like Herculean efforts in my own country. I can see the appeal in both the libertarian and the D&D socialist for some sort of revolution, but I would posit that in this stage any such event would be dangerous and likely ineffective for reaching that originally specified end goal.
|
# ? May 24, 2014 05:50 |
|
Yes and no, obviously it's possible to argue that the appeal of revolution is a kind of rapture narrative or whatever, where all wrongs are righted and so on. But I think that narrative itself, of the crazy radical, is used as a device to ignore actual reality: failure on the part of incremental reform to achieve progress, especially seeing reform and progress being rolled back effortlessly. The dynamics of the system right now are not towards are more equal society, but a more unequal one, and thus a break with the current dynamics, and therefore fundamental structure, are in some way necessary. A violent revolution represents an obvious way to do this. But you're right in that civil wars aren't exactly cut and dry affairs: there's always a certain amount of uncertainty as to the ultimate outcome, and what will happen in the mean time. The main issue against reform is that it's by definition hard to take power from the powerful while not thoroughly disassembling those power structures - which necessitates the application of force. I don't really think there's an alternative. I don't agree that libertarianism and socialism are somehow similar because they both what to create a society that doesn't currently exist - you could do that for any non-standard political ideology, your choice here is arbitrary. I therefore don't think that that comparison is informative. Whether 'pitfalls' are ignored or effectively dealt with depends entirely on your opinion of the pitfall though! I mean everyone who's not a libertarian has got what they think is a 'fatal flaw' for libertarians, ditto with socialists, but you can do the same thing with the society we have now. If you don't like it, then you think it has a flaw that is either present and ignored or will manifest at some point. You can again play these relativism games with any political ideology. So if you're going to compare political ideologies, you have to start with their conception of the person and society, and not necessarily how they hope to achieve that - their own opinions of the method will be informed by that perspective, because it acts as the foundation from which methods and outcomes are evaluated. rudatron fucked around with this message at 06:24 on May 24, 2014 |
# ? May 24, 2014 06:14 |
|
tbp posted:Hm, perhaps it would be better if I were more clear, apologies. When I wrote idealistic, I meant in sort of a wish-fulfillment way. In this sense, the libertarian would like a government-less society (for the most part) in order to have what he believes would be, simply, a better society for the people. I think these statements are not surreptitious for the most of them, and it comes from a genuine place however misguided. The naive error here lies with the method of achieving this, which is repealing all the hallmarks they perceive as threatening to this ideal (social safety nets always chief amongst them, which to be honest I would place down to rhetoric more than any meaningful examination) So wait, when I asked "like medicare and social security?" couldn't you have said "that's not the kind of socialism that's unrealistic or unsustainable, in fact we should fight for it"? I think we got off on this whole jag because you're not drawing a clear enough distinction between half-satirical lf-posting and social democracy. You sound like a big fan of social democratic reform, though an understandably dejected one.
|
# ? May 24, 2014 06:21 |
|
SedanChair posted:So wait, when I asked "like medicare and social security?" couldn't you have said "that's not the kind of socialism that's unrealistic or unsustainable, in fact we should fight for it"? I think we got off on this whole jag because you're not drawing a clear enough distinction between half-satirical lf-posting and social democracy. You sound like a big fan of social democratic reform, though an understandably dejected one. Understandable and I'll attempt to be more clear regarding that in the future.
|
# ? May 24, 2014 06:58 |
|
|
# ? May 21, 2024 18:47 |
|
Jastiger posted:I say it has a lot to do with it because showing that you have a massive force with which to defend yourself is in and of itself a form of force. If everyone has a gun with them at all times then it does become a stagnant object. Like underwear. The guns aren't supposed to be in your hand, it's just that everybody is supposed to know (or really it is just implied) that you have one. I'd think that if everyone had a gun that there's be some slacker out there that always left his at home because "Hey everybody else has theirs, right?" and it would become a burden to most. It would be like if you had to carry a hammer around with you all the time "just in case". There are people who do it but most don't feel the need. Then out of the ones who did want to carry their hammer, there'd be the ones who chose the "pound o'matic" super sledge with attachments and the ones who choose to carry their little rock hammer. Just like the gun, the hammer would be good to have around in certain circumstances, but most of the time would be extra weight. All in all I guess, just keep your hammer at home folks, I have one too. I don't want to see yours. In any case the whole gun thing always seemed silly to me because of all that. If everyone has a gun and is willing to use it, besides the level of violence implied by using a gun, how is it that different than nobody at all having a gun but willing to stop crime with physical violence? This also goes back to the libertarian idea of everyone being a rational person.
|
# ? May 24, 2014 10:19 |