Layoffs coming...

[Carthoris]

Libertarianism doesn't exists over here, so most of the time it means "What?" to most Europeans.

Socialism means "We'll spend your money for you whilst you drone daily for scraps, don't worry, we're smarter than you".

Libertarian Socialism makes about as much sense as trying to impregnate someone throught their asshole, so a definition is retarded.

Hope this helps.

Don't tell my wife that, she might not let me put it in her ass anymore:/

 

[Carthoris]

When did I ever say anything like this?

You seemed to justify force in taking peoples private property a few pages back. Keeping private property is a choice. If someone else makes it for you, then they took away your choice. Your ideology was fine with me until you did that. If you force people to be socialists then what is the difference between it and regular socialism? The entire point in your philosophy is that people wanted to be socialists and so there need not be any government. If they don't want to be and you force them, you become the government and you are just regular socialism as that point.

 

[Carthoris]

Socialism is coming whether you like it or not. Get used to it, you can have the GOP version or the Democrat version. If you get a free-market libertarian, you will then see a proletarian revolution when the the 47% of people living on welfare are cut off.

Make no mistake, Socialism is in your future in the US. Do you want some violence with it?

I think I would prefer the violence with it, yes.

 

[abandonconflict]

You seemed to justify force in taking peoples private property a few pages back. Keeping private property is a choice. If someone else makes it for you, then they took away your choice. Your ideology was fine with me until you did that. If you force people to be socialists then what is the difference between it and regular socialism? The entire point in your philosophy is that people wanted to be socialists and so there need not be any government. If they don't want to be and you force them, you become the government and you are just regular socialism as that point.

I wasn't trying to justify it, I was explaining it. I would actually like to avoid it.

 

[Dr Kynes]

Hitler(Centrist Statist), Stalin (Left Statist), and Mussolini(Right Statist)

describing these three marxist socialist despots as being different by their position on the left/right scale is ridiculous.

if your left/right scale is Completely Controlled Economy on the far left -----> Completely free Markets on the far right, then all 3 are on the left side of the center line, as all three nationalized (collectivized ha ha ha ha!) various industries and institutions resulting in the same sort of controlled and planned economy as the others, with stalin being the farthest over towards total control, and hitler being the "moderate" in the bunch. but ALL 3 decided who could doo what based on their own personal and political goals. and thats left.

if your left/right scale is The Purity of an Ant Colony on the left ----------> Total Personal Freedom on the far righ, then the deck chairs move a little bit. stalin is still the farthest left, hitler takes a close second in despotism stakes, and mussolini shows third just to the left of the centerline.

if your left right scale is Nations Are A "Social Construct", And Thus Completely Invalid on the far left ------------> Absolute Nationalism on the far right, then all 3 are snuggled up on the far right edge of the graph in a creepy menage au trois of ultra nationalism.
bu then only a real fool would think nationalism is a "right/left" issue. thats as much a non-issue as Religion -----> Atheism or Gay marriage ----> Forced Closetification Of All Gays.

 

[abandonconflict]

Hitler(Centrist Statist), Stalin (Left Statist), and Mussolini(Right Statist) /QUOTE]

describing these three marxist socialist despots as being different by their position on the left/right scale is ridiculous.

if your left/right scale is Completely Controlled Economy on the far left -----> Completely free Markets on the far right, then all 3 are on the left side of the center line, as all three nationalized (collectivized ha ha ha ha!) various industries and institutions resulting in the same sort of controlled and planned economy as the others, with stalin being the farthest over towards total control, and hitler being the "moderate" in the bunch. but ALL 3 decided who could doo what based on their own personal and political goals. and thats left.

if your left/right scale is The Purity of an Ant Colony on the left ----------> Total Personal Freedom on the far righ, then the deck chairs move a little bit. stalin is still the farthest left, hitler takes a close second in despotism stakes, and mussolini shows third just to the left of the centerline.

if your left right scale is Nations Are A "Social Construct", And Thus Completely Invalid on the far left ------------> Absolute Nationalism on the far right, then all 3 are snuggled up on the far right edge of the graph in a creepy menage au trois of ultra nationalism.
bu then only a real fool would think nationalism is a "right/left" issue. thats as much a non-issue as Religion -----> Atheism or Gay marriage ----> Forced Closetification Of All Gays.

The way I see it, on the left there is a smaller gap between rich and the rest economically, and on the right a larger gap.

 

[Dr Kynes]

I wasn't trying to justify it, I was explaining it. I would actually like to avoid it.

so forced "collectivization" of other people's property is a necessary evil, but it's for our own good?

expound please.

what is the upper limit that separates "Respected Private Property Ownership" (~your own wikipedia source authority) and "Collectivized Means Of Production" (~your own wikipedia source authority).

where does the collectivization hammer come down? or is it more of a sickle?

 

[Dr Kynes]

The way I see it, on the left there is a smaller gap between rich and the rest economically, and on the right a larger gap.

which would place all three persons on the far end of the scale, on whichever orientation you place the extremes, since all 3 actively enriched themselves and their cronies at the expense of the peasantry and the proles.

i presume this is where you will claim they were all "right wing" on your personal re-imagining of the scale.



and again, where is the baseline, what "optimum level of wealth" represents the ideal, separating those who deserve to be raised up from those who deserve to be brought down?

or is the line simply a self-leveling horizon, where nobody can rise above anyone else, no matter how hard they work or how stupid and lazy they are.

in that kind of system, pathetic leeches on the non-existent (presumably) government are just as successful as doctors and engineers. since the end result would always be the same, why bother?

or can some elevate themselves above the teeming masses through personal achievement, and if so, you just created a new capitalist society which must then be destroyed again.

 

[abandonconflict]

so forced "collectivization" of other people's property is a necessary evil, but it's for our own good?

expound please.

what is the upper limit that separates "Respected Private Property Ownership" (~your own wikipedia source authority) and "Collectivized Means Of Production" (~your own wikipedia source authority).

where does the collectivization hammer come down? or is it more of a sickle?

This is a very good question, the most relevant imo. I can only give opinion.

As far as finite natural resources that are essential, like energy, food and water, there should be collectivization and definitely not consolidation into few private hands for hereditary ownership. I would not trust the state with these resources, as we have seen time and again the state will attempt to use them for expansion. This, in my opinion requires continual challenges, constantly challenging the legitimacy of control. As far as means of production of goods that are not essential (eg iphones), workers should be compensated proportionally to their contributions and there should be some option for an employment contract that includes tradeable stock in the company upon termination of the contract.

The matter of home ownership is cloudy, and I'm not sure how to handle it. On the one hand, I think of how much I have paid into my house while the housing market has caused prices to fall, basically robbing me of value. I wish I could sell and I am tempted to allow it to be foreclosed. However, I do see the benefit of owning. I don't know how to fix this. I don't have any irrational fears of there one day being too many people on earth for everyone to have an opportunity to own. The way I see it, much private property is already owned that should be occupied.

 

[abandonconflict]

which would place all three persons on the far end of the scale, on whichever orientation you place the extremes, since all 3 actively enriched themselves and their cronies at the expense of the peasantry and the proles.

i presume this is where you will claim they were all "right wing" on your personal re-imagining of the scale.



and again, where is the baseline, what "optimum level of wealth" represents the ideal, separating those who deserve to be raised up from those who deserve to be brought down?

or is the line simply a self-leveling horizon, where nobody can rise above anyone else, no matter how hard they work or how stupid and lazy they are.

in that kind of system, pathetic leeches on the non-existent (presumably) government are just as successful as doctors and engineers. since the end result would always be the same, why bother?

or can some elevate themselves above the teeming masses through personal achievement, and if so, you just created a new capitalist society which must then be destroyed again.

I always here the liberty argument. How much liberty does one have with no money?

Maybe something more New-Deal-esque is in order. When I start seeing emaciated people in the streets, my patriotism will be tested. I don't agree that it is necessary to trade a great deal of liberty for some wealth redistribution.

 

[Carthoris]

describing these three marxist socialist despots as being different by their position on the left/right scale is ridiculous.

if your left/right scale is Completely Controlled Economy on the far left -----> Completely free Markets on the far right, then all 3 are on the left side of the center line, as all three nationalized (collectivized ha ha ha ha!) various industries and institutions resulting in the same sort of controlled and planned economy as the others, with stalin being the farthest over towards total control, and hitler being the "moderate" in the bunch. but ALL 3 decided who could doo what based on their own personal and political goals. and thats left.

if your left/right scale is The Purity of an Ant Colony on the left ----------> Total Personal Freedom on the far righ, then the deck chairs move a little bit. stalin is still the farthest left, hitler takes a close second in despotism stakes, and mussolini shows third just to the left of the centerline.

if your left right scale is Nations Are A "Social Construct", And Thus Completely Invalid on the far left ------------> Absolute Nationalism on the far right, then all 3 are snuggled up on the far right edge of the graph in a creepy menage au trois of ultra nationalism.
bu then only a real fool would think nationalism is a "right/left" issue. thats as much a non-issue as Religion -----> Atheism or Gay marriage ----> Forced Closetification Of All Gays.

My left/center/right thing was in reference to the test that was being discussed as that is how they are ranked on the test. I think left and right are horseshit. People who truly believe in freedom can believe in all different thing, people who believe in state control can believe in all different things. The end result is the same. Statists believe they should impose their will, and Anarchists believe the state can suck a ball and everyone should do what the fuck they want. Most of us are somewhere in between that or dead, though the dead would probably be considered Anarchists, they do whatever they want and don't give a fuck what others do.

I think the point I was making was personal belief has little to do with your actions and that the difference in people is their decision to impose their will rather than mind their business.

Did you bump your head? I never said they were different, I said they were the same.

 

[Carthoris]

This is a very good question, the most relevant imo. I can only give opinion.

As far as finite natural resources that are essential, like energy, food and water, there should be collectivization and definitely not consolidation into few private hands for hereditary ownership. I would not trust the state with these resources, as we have seen time and again the state will attempt to use them for expansion. This, in my opinion requires continual challenges, constantly challenging the legitimacy of control. As far as means of production of goods that are not essential (eg iphones), workers should be compensated proportionally to their contributions and there should be some option for an employment contract that includes tradeable stock in the company upon termination of the contract.

The matter of home ownership is cloudy, and I'm not sure how to handle it. On the one hand, I think of how much I have paid into my house while the housing market has caused prices to fall, basically robbing me of value. I wish I could sell and I am tempted to allow it to be foreclosed. However, I do see the benefit of owning. I don't know how to fix this. I don't have any irrational fears of there one day being too many people on earth for everyone to have an opportunity to own. The way I see it, much private property is already owned that should be occupied.

I would rather take my chances with capitalism. You are discussion regular socialism again. If the state/society forces socialism on the people/minority then explain how it is anarchist/libertarian and different from regular socialism. The reason I put state/society together is because in order for society to force this, they would have to create rules/laws and a state/government to oversee them. Where is this different than the path we are on now, and what Europe has?


Accordingly, libertarian socialists believe that "the exercise of power in any institutionalized form—whether economic, political, religious, or sexual—brutalizes both the wielder of power and the one over whom it is exercised".[SUP][18][/SUP] Libertarian socialists generally place their hopes in decentralized means of direct democracy such as libertarian municipalism, citizens' assemblies, trade unions, and workers' councils.[SUP][19][/SUP]

Can you please explain what the difference between a government and a union/council is? How is a direct democracy any different than a government like we have now? People would still be making decisions and forcing others to follow them. I don't know about you, but I don't see any difference in who gets to boss me around and control my life.

 

[Carthoris]

I always here the liberty argument. How much liberty does one have with no money?

Maybe something more New-Deal-esque is in order. When I start seeing emaciated people in the streets, my patriotism will be tested. I don't agree that it is necessary to trade a great deal of liberty for some wealth redistribution.

They have the liberty to make a decision: Keep doing what they are doing and have no money, or change what they are doing and get money. People who are driven and motivated rarely have no money.

 

[Dr Kynes]

How much liberty does one have with no money?

and what use all the money in the world if you are not allowed to spend it, or worse, if there is nothing to buy?

Maybe something more New-Deal-esque is in order. When I start seeing emaciated people in the streets, my patriotism will be tested. I don't agree that it is necessary to trade a great deal of liberty for some wealth redistribution.

when you redistribute somebody else's shit you are automatically robbing everyone of their liberty, the liberty to reach for the skies, the liberty to dream of a time when you can simply not go to work any more, and sit on your ass on a white sand beach with a hot supermodel girlfriend and a luxury yacht at anchor in the harbour.

or tyhe liberty to simply provide for your kids and grandkids by busting your ass for 80 years. but nope, we gotta redistribute the wealth to be "fair" so my grandfather's farm had to be sold off to pay the taxes resulting in a huge discrepency between assessed value ($$$$$$ demanded tax) and the actual sale price ($$ with which to pay the tax), and then there was nothing left. nope, no liberty lost there.

 

[abandonconflict]

People would still be making decisions and forcing others to follow them.

We at least agree that the balance of power is currently skewed away from the average citizen?

So if a system were implemented, let's say, because shit continued the way it is going and millions of hungry occupy protestors were suddenly joined by millions of hungry rednecks with guns. They decide to take for themselves, what they need.

By some miracle, they decide to share power amongst eachother.

Will you participate in decision making? Or will you be silent and then say, "HE FORCED HIS WILL UPON ME!"?

The reality is, if things got that bad, it would be even worse after the revolution.

What is the irrational fear that you have? That revolutionaries will think you own something they need and take it from you? You don't.

Capitalism on the other hand has robbed me of all my wealth, with this housing bubble.

 

[abandonconflict]

They have the liberty to make a decision: Keep doing what they are doing and have no money, or change what they are doing and get money. People who are driven and motivated rarely have no money.

What about the people with no money?

 

[Carthoris]

We at least agree that the balance of power is currently skewed away from the average citizen?

So if a system were implemented, let's say, because shit continued the way it is going and millions of hungry occupy protestors were suddenly joined by millions of hungry rednecks with guns. They decide to take for themselves, what they need.

By some miracle, they decide to share power amongst eachother.

Will you participate in decision making? Or will you be silent and then say, "HE FORCED HIS WILL UPON ME!"?

The reality is, if things got that bad, it would be even worse after the revolution.

What is the irrational fear that you have? That revolutionaries will think you own something they need and take it from you? You don't.

Capitalism on the other hand has robbed me of all my wealth, with this housing bubble.

The rednecks and the OWS might join together to fight someone in some way I suppose, but I think in the end the rednecks would kill the OWS protestors out of disgust. I would participate by shooting everyone who came within range.

My possessions aren't that important to me. What is important to me is my ability to decide what to do with my labor - which is my possessions. If I want to sell it to some d-bag for minimum wage then that is my decision. If I want to take the proceeds from selling my labor and buy a TV, a car, land, guns, or crack, then I should be able to. I should also be able to buy a lemon tree and sell lemonade. In your utopia they would kill me and take my tree, wouldn't they? There is no difference between having a lemonade stand and a brewery/factory/ect except the scale.

You chose to put your money into housing. The housing bubble made me money, but I knew it was a bubble and waited to buy. I can't imagine why someone would think housing was a sound investment when rent was less than owning.

Let us be honest here. Socialism is about not having to be responsible for your life, right? It is about everyone being equally shitty so that no one is better than anyone else. Only the unproductive would seriously want to poor all resources and take equal shares with people they didn't know, everyone else wants their share untouched.

 

[Carthoris]

What about the people with no money?

They need to get money. They can trade their labor for it - that is how it works.

 

[abandonconflict]

They need to get money. They can trade their labor for it - that is how it works.

 

[Carthoris]

Any person who wanted a job this week could go get one. It might not be their dream job, but they could get one. Anyone who doesn't get one doesn't get one because it is easier to not get one.