|
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. Both are ridiculous and not suited to the real world.
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 16:31
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 30, 2024 10:00 |
|
|
Smiling Knight posted:I have a friend in college who is a) a radical libertarian and b) a staunch environmentalist. His Facebook page is the weirdest mix of "end the income tax" and reminders to turn off the bathroom lights to save energy. The way he rationalized it to me is that pollution does damage to the property of others. Companies should be forced to pay for these externalities. I didn't delve further; no point in getting with a possibly heated argument with someone I was living with for a year. I don't see a lot of contradiction there to be honest.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 16:35
|
|
|
Arri posted:Thank you grandpa, now tell me how "socialism sounds good on paper. " Socialism similarly will not work in the real world but it's a more admirable goal I suppose.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 16:40
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:You mean like Medicare and Social Security? Those are somewhat socialist programs yes.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 17:48
|
|
|
AstheWorldWorlds posted:Did you mean communism, then? Socialism is quite a bit different. No I meant socialism.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 17:49
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:Again, are you sure you are talking about socialism, and not communism? Yes
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 17:57
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:The classless society is communism, the state working towards achieving that is socialism hth. No.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 18:05
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Ernie Muppari posted:This is not the case. Please, elaborate. To be honest I think I'd personally welcome the advent of one such society perhaps my quality of life would improve. I'm not terribly sure though either which way.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 18:40
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:This is wrong. Heh
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 18:49
|
|
|
I understand if you are uninterested in discussing the idea. It seems to be a lot of rhetoric and memes rather than discussion around here. Both libertarianism and socialism in their "pure" forms are untenable and unlikely to ever occur.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 18:57
|
|
|
Bob le Moche posted:Are you advocating for some kind of "Third Position" by any chance? Critiquing one thing is not advocating for another.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 19:01
|
|
|
Brevity doesn't indicate rhetoric, and from past experience saying any more than the necessary opens up very long and pedantic avenues.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 19:08
|
|
|
Augustin Iturbide posted:Couldn't you solve this by simply making your own position clear? You can't argue from a phantom non-position without sounding like an absolute tool. I think it's a folly to rush into a position, and while I admire socially focused policies I am extraordinarily wary of the socialism commonly endorsed in this subforum. I am unsure what the correct answer would be.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 19:20
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Well. This thread went places fast. It seems a bit masturbatory to continuously pose ridiculous theoretical libertarian societies and then have everyone claim how bad they'd be.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 19:30
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Brevity's great. But what you're doing isn't brevity, it's just fragments of an incoherent whole. The reason you get ripped apart when you elaborate is because you put incoherent ideas right next to each other in the same post instead of spreading them out. I'd hardly call any response I've ever received "ripped apart", and I think it speaks volumes that you would consider a discussion an arena wherein people need to be "ripped apart".
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 19:37
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Why wouldn't you want to be "ripped apart"? You should be coming here to have your ideas harshly challenged, not coddled like it was babby's first discussion. Fair enough, I'd be glad to if there were discussion rather than goofball responses and cheerleading. But what is, I suppose a bit frustrating is that there is, at times, wholesale invention of events. For example, in the US Politics thread, I believe the only positions I've stated outright I support are ending the war on drugs, a GMI, and support for gay marriage. I don't think any of those have been debated, never mind "ripped to shreds", but if they have and I have not read the posts I figure I'll be unconvinced afterward because my support for those three mentioned is very strong.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 21:50
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Then shut the gently caress up and I'll state my opinion on anything I don't mind.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 21:55
|
|
. If you're not here to state your position and have it evaluated then you're worthless. No one gives a poo poo for you to come in and say "hey guys, I like thing and don't care what anyone else thinks about it."
|
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. I didn't confuse it at all.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 21:59
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 30, 2024 10:00 |
|
|
Smiling Knight posted:Who is going to measure these externalities? Are they the enforcers or merely observers? If the latter, who actually enforces them? What about the fact that corporations can afford far better lawyers and experts that the people of some random small town who might be affected? What organization is going to be proactively testing how new technologies affect the environment, as opposed to simply reacting after things go wrong? And so on and so forth. I didn't say that the idea wasn't flawed, I said it wasn't contradictory.
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2014 06:43
|
|