|
Ron Jeremy posted:Libertarians traditionally have been those who were equally distrustful of the draft as well as civil rights for black peoples. Both of these were actions of the federal government, therefore statism is bad.
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2019 21:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 09:16 |
|
|
Guavanaut posted:Ah, the "statism is bad, I support states' rights" crew. *turns chair around* lemme tell you bout a real tyrant by the name of Abraham Lincoln.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2019 21:42
|
|
|
I sum up basically every type of "right" libertarianism that isn't market deification as "Anything I make you do that you don't want to do is freedom, anything that you make me do that I don't want to is oppression". To put it another way, I could sum up libertarianism in two words: vae victis... assuming of course that I win. If not, you're oppressing my freedom. To clarify, I mean "right" as in on the economic spectrum, not as in correct. Secondly, I genuinely believe that some market worship libertarians are well-meaning but colossally naïve. Thirdly, I don't really see the feasibility of "left" libertarianism, but I appreciate what they are trying to do and the spirit behind it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2019 23:30
|
|
|
JustJeff88 posted:"left" libertarianism 
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2019 23:36
|
|
|
Well anarchism is exactly as stupid as libertarians, so it's appropriate.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2019 23:39
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Well anarchism is exactly as stupid as libertarians, so it's appropriate.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2019 23:42
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Well anarchism is exactly as stupid as libertarians, so it's appropriate. It really isn't.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2019 00:45
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:It really isn't. Is there were you talk about how some random trust fund kid house in Norway is totally how society can handle several billion people on Earth or something?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2019 00:50
|
|
|
It's where I assert that anarchists are generally quite capable of identifying structural problems in society and formulating a response to it aimed directly if bluntly at addressing them. I don't particularly think that their approaches are necessarily the best ones but I generally do not take any issue with their analysis of the problem and it is infinitely better in both formulation and intent than anything libertarianism has produced, the comparison is idiotic.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2019 00:54
|
|
|
Golly gee, this radical critique of the state sure doesn't sound like a good way to run a country. Believing that the nation-state is the only way to organize a society is way dumber.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2019 08:53
|
|
|
A shitload of anarchists just reinvent the state but it's not a state this time because a state is a tool for one class to dominate another and we don't have classes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2019 09:03
|
|
|
Homie, you just made Bakunin's argument from the first international. To say that is a concern is an understatement.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2019 09:14
|
|
|
So I know the Right likes to call everything the government does to be socialist/Marxist, but I'm curious, did Marx ever say anything about deficit spending?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2019 11:21
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:So I know the Right likes to call everything the government does to be socialist/Marxist, but I'm curious, did Marx ever say anything about deficit spending? The Communist Manifesto posted:the modern State, which, purchased gradually by the owners of property by means of taxation, has fallen entirely into their hands through the national debt, and its existence has become wholly dependent on the commercial credit which the owners of property, the bourgeois, extend to it, as reflected in the rise and fall of State funds on the stock exchange.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2019 12:10
|
|
|
Well, the more you spend on interest payments, the less you have available for social services.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2019 18:15
|
|
|
You don't pay interest on deficit spending. In fact if you do it properly you make money from doing it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2019 18:19
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:You don't pay interest on deficit spending. In fact if you do it properly you make money from doing it. There seems to be a pretty key "if" in there. If our deficit is coming from us spending money on the military-industrial engine of American Empire, I'm not sure that's to our advantage.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2019 19:19
|
|
|
Eh, while spending money on the military is bad for a lot of reasons, economics isn't really high on the list afaik. You're throwing lots of money at lots of people to produce things. And you follow it up with policies that get you into wars that necessitate even more production. It's pretty OK as far as capitalist economics goes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2019 19:25
|
|
|
AND it does nothing to stimulate the parts of the economy that need stimulating while doing absolutely nothing to materially aid your citizens! Military spending is just the best possible spending. Those giant loving pallets of cash that disappear under the watch of military contractors or the money spent to buy preteen boys for "security" "contractors" in the Middle East; is that from "Defense" spending or part of the unaccounted trillions that disappear in the Pentagon or what?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2019 19:38
|
|
|
Babylon Astronaut posted:Golly gee, this radical critique of the state sure doesn't sound like a good way to run a country. What point are you trying to make, besides obsolete tantrums? Who says nation states are the only states? Anarchy is obsolete. reignonyourparade posted:A shitload of anarchists just reinvent the state but it's not a state this time because a state is a tool for one class to dominate another and we don't have classes. Yeah the ones who reinvent a state are ones that can build a functioning society later, since it's a state. The ones who refuse to reinvent a state get bodied hard by anyone who makes or has a state, lol.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2019 19:41
|
|
|
My point is this:fishmech posted:Well anarchism is exactly as stupid as libertarians, so it's appropriate. Anarchism is obsolete is actually a concept worth discussion. I will say that no one has detailed a system that has any chance of working.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2019 19:57
|
|
|
I mean let's not pretend anarchist societies are unique for trying to make the world better and then getting crushed. The whole "how do you build an egalitarian system that doesn't turn into a dictatorship or end with you all getting murdered by out-and-out fascists and/or the United States" question is a pretty important one in leftism!
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2019 20:26
|
|
|
Babylon Astronaut posted:My point is this: That's kind of the point, there are exactly as many "libertarian" systems with a chance of working at the global level as there are "anarchist" systems with a chance of working at the global level. And when they're not at a global level they don't stand chances of standing up against the rest of the world, or even merely neighbors.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2019 20:27
|
|
|
Which are definitely things that no anarchist has ever before considered. Nope.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2019 20:36
|
|
|
Sure. The difference to me is that left anarchism has a body of work worth engaging in because is still a reasoned critique of the state, where right libertarianism is vacuous because it only serves to justify the status quo, and those who benefit from it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2019 20:39
|
|
|
States seem bad.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2019 20:40
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Which are definitely things that no anarchist has ever before considered. Nope. So that's your defense, "well they thought up other things that also don't work"? Or is it the "no it's not a state because I call it barglefloop" solutions eg libertarian DROs?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2019 20:42
|
|
|
The idea that because anarchists have not presented a comprehensive solution means their critique is wrong is a turbo dumb take tbh. An antihierarchical analysis of society is a very good one and you don't get to just pretend it doesn't exist because it makes finding a solution harder. Look if you just pretend that there aren't any inherent problems with most forms of organization employed in society then it's actually really easy to dream up solutions so I'm gonna do that because it makes me feel big and smart.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2019 20:42
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:The idea that because anarchists have not presented a comprehensive solution means their critique is wrong is a turbo dumb take tbh. An antihierarchical analysis of society is a very good one and you don't get to just pretend it doesn't exist because it makes finding a solution harder. Anarchists are fundamentally incapable of presenting a comprehensive solution because the comprehensive solution is a state.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2019 20:44
|
|
|
fishmech posted:That's kind of the point, there are exactly as many "libertarian" systems with a chance of working at the global level as there are "anarchist" systems with a chance of working at the global level. And when they're not at a global level they don't stand chances of standing up against the rest of the world, or even merely neighbors. Fishmech is going to liberal so hard he'll loop around into trotskyism, it rules.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2019 20:48
|
|
|
Even if that were true, which neither I nor you have the ability to argue with any weight. The fundamental point of anarchist thought is that not just any state can solve the problems in society. The state is not the solution just because it's a state, they would argue that a state can only provide the solution if it is sufficiently non coercive. That you cannot build a lasting society around the notion that the state is an independent entity which can just employ force against anyone it wants to. Or perhaps even that simple democratic majorities are not enough to provide a just and stable state, and that perhaps neither can you find some happy medium of an independent bureucracy and democracy that adequately combines them. They might suggest that a long term and comprehensive solution to the suffering of humanity requires a larger change in how we make decisions. That we can't trust to either rules or majority decision making or any combination of the two to actually work because you're still just forcing people to do what you want them to do and as long as you're doing that you're creating a society that lionises the notion of coercion and power over others, you can't have a government that doesn't represent the values of the society that it's the government of, so as long as you have those values you're going to have a government that trends towards victimizing people. And no, neither I nor any anarchist I know of has really made a compelling suggestion for how that might be overcome, but it is possible to ask a question for which there is not yet a satisfactory answer. You don't get to ignore questions because you can't answer them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2019 20:54
|
|
|
Ah I see that your backpedal of choice is "I'm Just Asking Questions Here". Get thee to the Ron Paul newsletter then.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2019 20:57
|
|
|
Current medical science can't describe the human brain ergo humorism must be right.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2019 23:52
|
|
|
The difference between the anarchist body of history and the Ron Paul newsletter is that one has many examples of "the state we're in is classist/racist/homophobic as hell, let's build parallel structures that allow for liberationary expressions among oppressed groups, even if they only end up being temporary" and, even if it was only because the state couldn't be bothered crushing them that moment, or because they fought back, or because they built something akin to the state but less poo poo, they have a documented history of securing lasting change, whereas the other says "the state we're in is classist/racist/homophobic as hell, good. Now lower taxes."
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2019 23:52
|
|
|
I like fishmech's idea to form an anarchist barglefloop, tbqh.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2019 00:00
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Which are definitely things that no anarchist has ever before considered. Nope. Wow what point are you trying to make?? 
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2019 00:14
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:The difference between the anarchist body of history and the Ron Paul newsletter is that one has many examples of "the state we're in is classist/racist/homophobic as hell, let's build parallel structures that allow for liberationary expressions among oppressed groups, even if they only end up being temporary" and, even if it was only because the state couldn't be bothered crushing them that moment, or because they fought back, or because they built something akin to the state but less poo poo, they have a documented history of securing lasting change, whereas the other says "the state we're in is classist/racist/homophobic as hell, good. Now lower taxes." So your examples of anarchism being useful are.... cases that involve abandoning the main concept that links anarchist philosophies together. Yet somehow you don't see this as evidence that the main concept is a poor one to work from?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2019 00:31
|
|
|
You have a rather lacking concept of anarchism if you think they just hate organization of any sort.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2019 00:32
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:You have a rather lacking concept of anarchism if you think they just hate organization of any sort. Once again, randomly declaring a state a barglefloop does not make it not a state.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2019 00:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 09:16 |
|
|
fishmech posted:So your examples of anarchism being useful are.... cases that involve abandoning the main concept that links anarchist philosophies together. Yet somehow you don't see this as evidence that the main concept is a poor one to work from? Claiming otherwise is like the people who claim that the British NHS is socialism whenever it doesn't work and also not really socialism whenever someone asks for an example of socialism working in practice.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2019 00:39
|
|