Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
LogisticEarth
Mar 28, 2004

Someone once told me, "Time is a flat circle".

spoon0042 posted:

That misses the part where the evil government can't do a thing if a parent lets their kid starve.

edit: yeah yeah that's the whole point of the free baby market where magically a less terrible person would appear to buy the child or whatever who cares.

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.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

tbp
Mar 1, 2008

DU WIRST NIEMALS ALLEINE MARSCHIEREN
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.

mcmagic
Jul 1, 2004

If you see this avatar while scrolling the succ zone, you have been visited by the mcmagic of shitty lib takes! Good luck and prosperity will come to you, but only if you reply "shut the fuck up mcmagic" to this post!

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.

woke wedding drone
Jun 1, 2003

by exmarx
Fun Shoe

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?

Polygynous
Dec 13, 2006
welp

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.

tbp
Mar 1, 2008

DU WIRST NIEMALS ALLEINE MARSCHIEREN

SedanChair posted:

You mean like Medicare and Social Security?

Those are somewhat socialist programs yes.

AstheWorldWorlds
May 4, 2011

tbp posted:

Those are somewhat socialist programs yes.

Did you mean communism, then? Socialism is quite a bit different.

tbp
Mar 1, 2008

DU WIRST NIEMALS ALLEINE MARSCHIEREN

AstheWorldWorlds posted:

Did you mean communism, then? Socialism is quite a bit different.

No I meant socialism.

BrutalistMcDonalds
Oct 4, 2012


Lipstick Apathy

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.
I think anarcho-capitalism would be horrendously destructive and oppressive when applied on a systematic scale, 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.

tbp posted:

No I meant socialism.
It depends on what you mean by socialism and workable. I would tend to define it as the state outright owning huge sectors of the economy / the state controlling the means of production. And it's workable insofar as people can and do run societies like that. But that's a different thing than desirable, which I don't think socialism is.

BrutalistMcDonalds fucked around with this message at 17:58 on May 23, 2014

AstheWorldWorlds
May 4, 2011

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?

tbp
Mar 1, 2008

DU WIRST NIEMALS ALLEINE MARSCHIEREN

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.

archangelwar
Oct 28, 2004

Teaching Moments

tbp posted:

You're not going to see a classless society.

Again, are you sure you are talking about socialism, and not communism?

Bar Ran Dun
Jan 22, 2006




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.

tbp
Mar 1, 2008

DU WIRST NIEMALS ALLEINE MARSCHIEREN

archangelwar posted:

Again, are you sure you are talking about socialism, and not communism?

Yes

Foxrunsecurity
Aug 10, 2008

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?

woke wedding drone
Jun 1, 2003

by exmarx
Fun Shoe

Thennn what's unworkable about socialism? Because socialist programs tend to work pretty well with good administration.

Raskolnikov38
Mar 3, 2007

We were somewhere around Manila when the drugs began to take hold

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.

tbp
Mar 1, 2008

DU WIRST NIEMALS ALLEINE MARSCHIEREN

Raskolnikov38 posted:

The classless society is communism, the state working towards achieving that is socialism hth.

No.

Tias
May 25, 2008

Pictured: the patron saint of internet political arguments (probably)

This avatar made possible by a gift from the Religionthread Posters Relief Fund

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.

tbp
Mar 1, 2008

DU WIRST NIEMALS ALLEINE MARSCHIEREN

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.

AstheWorldWorlds
May 4, 2011

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.

woke wedding drone
Jun 1, 2003

by exmarx
Fun Shoe

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.

tbp
Mar 1, 2008

DU WIRST NIEMALS ALLEINE MARSCHIEREN

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.

AstheWorldWorlds
May 4, 2011

tbp posted:

This is not the case.


A very simple issue that we can start off with is the tyranny of the majority that comes with an excessively centralized society.

Ok, why isn't it the case?

woke wedding drone
Jun 1, 2003

by exmarx
Fun Shoe
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?

archangelwar
Oct 28, 2004

Teaching Moments

tbp posted:

This is not the case.


This is the case.

tbp
Mar 1, 2008

DU WIRST NIEMALS ALLEINE MARSCHIEREN

SedanChair posted:

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?

It's not, accountability to the masses leads to it, and no.

Bob le Moche
Jul 10, 2011

I AM A HORRIBLE TANKIE MORON
WHO LONGS TO SUCK CHAVISTA COCK !

I SUGGEST YOU IGNORE ANY POSTS MADE BY THIS PERSON ABOUT VENEZUELA, POLITICS, OR ANYTHING ACTUALLY !


(This title paid for by money stolen from PDVSA)

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 democracy the Tyranny Of The Majority!

Bob le Moche fucked around with this message at 18:30 on May 23, 2014

Polygynous
Dec 13, 2006
welp

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!"

tbp
Mar 1, 2008

DU WIRST NIEMALS ALLEINE MARSCHIEREN

Bob le Moche posted:

Oh no not democracy the Tyranny Of The Majority!



That's a lovely image you have there but I fail to see a salient point.

woke wedding drone
Jun 1, 2003

by exmarx
Fun Shoe

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?

Foxrunsecurity
Aug 10, 2008

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.

BrutalistMcDonalds
Oct 4, 2012


Lipstick Apathy

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.

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.
Indeed, left-wing socialist anarchism grew out of the labor movement of the 1880s, but there's been a long concurrent tradition of individualistic anarchism you can't simply write off. That socialist anarchists have a different conception of anarchism doesn't particularly mean anything to me.

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.

tbp
Mar 1, 2008

DU WIRST NIEMALS ALLEINE MARSCHIEREN

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.

:rolleyes:

woke wedding drone
Jun 1, 2003

by exmarx
Fun Shoe

tbp posted:

This is not the case.

You said that the unsustainability of socialism comes from "accountability to the masses." Elaborate please.

tbp
Mar 1, 2008

DU WIRST NIEMALS ALLEINE MARSCHIEREN

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."

Polygynous
Dec 13, 2006
welp

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.

tbp
Mar 1, 2008

DU WIRST NIEMALS ALLEINE MARSCHIEREN
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.

woke wedding drone
Jun 1, 2003

by exmarx
Fun Shoe

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.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Ernie Muppari
Aug 4, 2012

Keep this up G'Bert, and soon you won't have a pigeon to protect!

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.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply