Has the American Government become Tyrannical?

[Dr Kynes]

Anywhere outside the U.S. if you call yourself a libertarian people will think you're a socialist. The Americans made a perversion of the word. It's basically Anarchism and socialism or syndicalism.

no. it's not.

you are making the same assumptions as abandonconflict does.

socialism anarchy libertarianism liberalism and capitalism have VERY specific meanings. these meaning do not change from nation to nation or language to language any more than math changes.

the words are used differently by populists and demagogues in various countries and languages because in some regions some words come with more baggage, but each of these words themselves have a specific meaning and that meaning is not up for debate.

in any university in the world these things hold true

Socialism
In Socialist systems, all property, capital and infrastructure (the means of production and distribution) are owned by the state, and administered by the state. Each person in the nation receives what the state believes he deserves based on his needs.
It is NOT intended to be fair or equitable. Marx imagined Socialism as a stepping stone, a halfway point where the proletariat (the peoples) would be instilled with zeal for communist theory, and eventually the state would naturally evolve into a communist state.

Communism
envisioned by Marx as the ultimate form of society, in which all capital, property, and infrastructure would be "held in common" (owned by no-one, and administered by the people without the need for direction) and every person would take whatever he required from the common resources and no more (again without government direction) and contribute to the common resources whatever he could produce by his labours (again without government direction) Under a perfect communist society, government's internal role would be largely advisory, and externally, it would act as the main arm of efforts to share the ideology of communism with any non-communist societies, while protecting the security of the state from external threats.

Capitalism
a system of economic action whereby property, capital, resources and infrastructure are owned by individual entities (natural and corporate) and operated for a profit at the discretion of the owner

Laissez Faire
from the french, literally allow to act. An economic system whereby the actions of entities which own capital property and infrastructure are unrestrained and unregulated, they may operate in whatever manner they wish. An absolutely free market

Democracy
A political form whereby actions of government are solely decided by popular vote

Republic
a political system in which individuals are selected by popular vote to represent the electorate, and in some cases appoint representatives to act on the electorate's behalf in a larger body

Constitution
a form of legal and governmental establishment whereby a body of foundational principles or precedents are established as a framework for governance or organization

Dictatorship
A form of government wherein a single person holds absolute unquestioned authority

Monarchy
A form of government which places extensive, or total authority in the hands of a single family lineage

Oligarchy
a form of government where authority is concentrated in the hands of a few powerful individuals

Plutocracy
A governmental form wherein power is controlled by the wealthy

Anarchy
a complete lack of all social structure from the Greek, Literally: No Rules

Fascism
A secondary form of socialism wherein ownership of capital property and infrastructure may be privately owned, and operated for a profit, but the method of operation is dictated by the state.

Nazism
A secondary form of socialism only superficially distinct from Fascism

Marxism
Pertaining to the theories of Karl Marx Predominantly his theories of Communism Socialism and Proletarian Revolution.

Maoism
A secondary form of Socialism focusing on agrarian uprising, and radical reformation of society based on agrarian priorities, rather than that of urban and industrial workers.

Left Wing
Parties, coalitions and political pressure groups primarily concerned with issues of social change, social justice/injustice, unions, collectivism, and Marxist theory (also called Progressives and Liberals)

Right Wing
Parties, coalitions and political pressure groups primarily concerned with capitalist theory, social stability, tradition and rejection of change (also called Conservative)

 

[cannabineer]

Well then look harder. If you go to Europe and call yourself a Libertarian (where the word originated) you'd be considered a socialist or a syndicalist. You're only going to run into it when you talk politics with foreigners. Canada is included in the American view of Libertarian ism, but it's not as common.

Can you show me a link that backs that up? The core of libertarianism, here or there, is focus on the individual, which is opposite to the socialist concept.

I just spent some minutes on Google and cannot find a treatment of libertarianism in Europe. When I googled "libertarianism Austria", I got sent to a webpage about von Mises, who afaik was a definite proponent of socialism. cn

 

[RyanTheRhino]

NO

The USA has not been taken over by force, so no there is no tyrant here.

misleading yes, but tyrant by definition no.

 

[Canna Sylvan]

Can you show me a link that backs that up? The core of libertarianism, here or there, is focus on the individual, which is opposite to the socialist concept.

I just spent some minutes on Google and cannot find a treatment of libertarianism in Europe. When I googled "libertarianism Austria", I got sent to a webpage about von Mises, who afaik was a definite proponent of socialism. cn

Only garbage I can find which backs up God and Abandon, is Wikipedia. But the origins of libertarianism was the Roman Republic. Romans would even let women be head of household. AFAIK libertarianism's foundation comes from the Roman way of law.

If anything, the term libertarian socialism is the bastardization term. The idea of socialism was around a lot longer than Plato, but the name only came after Marx, because others didn't want to be affiliated with him and pretend their communism was unique.

 

[kpmarine]

Can you show me a link that backs that up? The core of libertarianism, here or there, is focus on the individual, which is opposite to the socialist concept.

I just spent some minutes on Google and cannot find a treatment of libertarianism in Europe. When I googled "libertarianism Austria", I got sent to a webpage about von Mises, who afaik was a definite proponent of socialism. cn

In America (Where this discussion is relevant.), the Libertarian party states in their FAQ: "Libertarians believe in, and pursue, personal freedom while maintaining personal responsibility.". I'd say you're good, neer. In a discussion of American politics, Austrian definitions of libertarianism are irrelevant; as is any other country's political definition of said term. Origination is irrelevant unless you're debating the validity of the word as it is used, not the underlying concepts' validity. The principles of Libertarianism may be a misnomer by European standards, it does not change what it means in the US.

 

[newworldicon]

capitalism is not the villain in this.

our problems as a nation were not spawned by too much freedom in our markets or too much freeedom in our everyday lives, it is TOO LITTLE fredom.

take your marxist claptrap and go sell it on twatter or face space. nobody here is buying it, unless they are already sold.

Sounds like you are the one sold...on capitalism!

 

[kpmarine]

Sounds like you are the one sold...on capitalism!

What's wrong with capitalism? It's not perfect; it is the most free though, from an idealistic perspective.

 

[newworldicon]

*bilderberg

This sums up uncleschmucks views, bilderbergs are a loser in a basement, keep dreaming merican..

 

[RyanTheRhino]

Only garbage I can find which backs up God and Abandon, is Wikipedia. But the origins of libertarianism was the Roman Republic. Romans would even let women be head of household. AFAIK libertarianism's foundation comes from the Roman way of law.

If anything, the term libertarian socialism is the bastardization term. The idea of socialism was around a lot longer than Plato, but the name only came after Marx, because others didn't want to be affiliated with him and pretend their communism was unique.

everyone is socialist... it just depends on how socialist you want to be.


We live in a world of socialism, many tiny bubbles of socialism that some times collide and become larger.


As a family you look after each other in a socialist way. Father or mother may make all the money , but at the end of the day the wealth is spread to make everyone happy & put food on the table.

Now take one step back. You have your entire family, your grand parent, parents, & kids . You as a collective look out for each other. Your grandmother may send you a card and gifts for your birth day while you would gladly shell out the dough for a hip replacement if she needed one.

and again take a step out further , people donate to charities trying to share the wealth as seen needed.


To say socialism is a form a government is ignorant. It is how we act naturally. People just don't like to be told what to do.

 

[newworldicon]

so.. the green party is not affiliated with the world socialist worker's party, and the international workers world party?

or are you attempting to imply that the green party is not eco-driven?

the green party is a marxist enviornmentalist party. if you are unaware of this you are a fool, if you are not, then you are a liar. i suspect you are a liar.

actual anarchists are ENTIRELY INCOMPATIBLE with socialism, and real socialists are NOT ANARCHISTS. you need to learn what these words really mean, not some obsolete definition from the 1850's

if you want to be an 1850's style anarchist then youll need a long black cape and a big iron bomb with a sizzling fuse sticking out the top. anarchists in the 1850's to the 1920's were engaged in all manner of violence and attempted assassinations. like for example, shooting Theodore Roosevelt and the arch-duke ferdinand.

meanwhile after the third communis international the definition of a socialist was solidified as a marxist ideology wherein a strong central government de-radicalizes the proletariate, and re-educates them into the glory of communist theory, and "scientific marxism", and eventually leads the now properly communist proletarians into the communist worker's paradise.

if you want to be a pre- 3rd international pre-marxist socialist then you will be a classical liberal in favour of free markets and individual liberty.

that doesnt sound like you at all.

dont try to play word games with me, you havent the skill.

Your skill is all in your head, your own little ego boost, which is why you call yourself DR..keynes, you label yourself as a philosophical gangsta. Your ego precedes you, you zionist supporting pig fucker.

 

[kpmarine]

My god you are a fucking moron. Eco Marxists? Are you fucking retarded? Did you even bother to wiki the green party before you decided to make that asinine statement? This is why this place is such a shithole all the time. Eco-marxists..

As for the other part about anarchists not being socialists... Go read a history book dumbass. They're either communists, socialists, or syndicalists. I don't know how you fit so much stupidity in that little head of yours.

I was inclined to read up on Jill Stein due to your endorsement. I see she is strongly in favor of direct election of the president. How is direct election beneficial? Most states require their electors to comply with popular vote anyways.

 

[kpmarine]

everyone is socialist... it just depends on how socialist you want to be.


We live in a world of socialism, many tiny bubbles of socialism that some times collide and become larger.


As a family you look after each other in a socialist way. Father or mother may make all the money , but at the end of the day the wealth is spread to make everyone happy & put food on the table.

Now take one step back. You have your entire family, your grand parent, parents, & kids . You as a collective look out for each other. Your grandmother may send you a card and gifts for your birth day while you would gladly shell out the dough for a hip replacement if she needed one.

and again take a step out further , people donate to charities trying to share the wealth as seen needed.


To say socialism is a form a government is ignorant. It is how we act naturally. People just don't like to be told what to do.

My family wasn't very socialist. My parents went out without us kids all the time. That's the vast difference between socialism and voluntarily helping your fellow man though. One Is a choice; the other is still enforced at gunpoint.

 

[kpmarine]

Your skill is all in your head, your own little ego boost, which is why you call yourself DR..keynes, you label yourself as a philosophical gangsta. Your ego precedes you, you zionist supporting pig fucker.

You know what's interesting? When I actually debate points with Kynes (or Buck, for that matter), they actually respond like adults. If you want a grown up conversation, you have to maintain the standard.

 

[RyanTheRhino]

My family wasn't very socialist. My parents went out without us kids all the time. That's the vast difference between socialism and voluntarily helping your fellow man though. One Is a choice; the other is still enforced at gunpoint.

So that's how you treat your kids then.
With a baby sitter o my. That must just be horrible


socialism is spreading wealth as the bread maker sees fit. Not at gun point

 

[kpmarine]

So that's how you treat your kids then

I see no reason why my kids would appreciate a romantic trip with my wife and I to the place where we had our honeymoon. I'm just trying to point out the normal family model isn't really Socialist, but there is a certain social contract. Also, my parents made a choice to have me; I arguably did not choose to give birth to my fellow countrymen. While there is a certain degree of mutual support that I feel comes with a society; I do not feel I am obliged to help you. However, I do generally vote for things I feel are a benefit to my fellow man; as I don't want someone else to get the short end of the stick at my expense either.

 

[RyanTheRhino]

I see no reason why my kids would appreciate a romantic trip with my wife and I to the place where we had our honeymoon. I'm just trying to point out the normal family model isn't really Socialist, but there is a certain social contract. Also, my parents made a choice to have me; I arguably did not choose to give birth to my fellow countrymen. While there is a certain degree of mutual support that I feel comes with a society; I do not feel I am obliged to help you. However, I do generally vote for things I feel are a benefit to my fellow man; as I don't want someone else to get the short end of the stick at my expense either.

Yes the family model is socialist . Your problem with accepting that is you believe socialism =Communism where every thing is shared equally . Far from it

the one who makes the money shares it how they see fit. The kid will not like this or it's not the right place for them . Ect

 

[kpmarine]

Yes the family model is socialist . Your problem with accepting that is you believe socialism = fascism . Far from it

the one who makes the money shares it how they see fit. The kid will not like this or it's not the right place for them . Ect

Fascism is impossible at a family level. Fascism is an extreme nationalism at it's core, and that's not attainable at a family level. Your parents are benevolent tyrants; they have final say until you reach a certain age. Socialism is a form of collective ownership. I didn't have say in how the family car was used; I had no say in which bills were paid, and when; I had no say, aside from how generous my parents felt, in how money intended for me was spent. You may have had a unusual childhood, but most childhoods I have witnessed are a dictatorship, not a collective; children are lacking in common knowledge, that's why we have "child-safe" caps for things. That's also why we don't let them run shit, except for the sake of our own amusement.

 

[kpmarine]

This is a total aside, and not relevant to the discussion, but it's a pet peeve of mine. "Etc."=etcetera "Ect."=I have no clue.

 

[Canna Sylvan]

if you want to be a pre- 3rd international pre-marxist socialist then you will be a classical liberal in favour of free markets and individual liberty.

I tried telling them, including Buck, about that. It's much too wordy that there, so I just call myself a plain libertarian who leans more right.

But the rest of those fools use garbage new age to disguise their political belief as if it were a religion.

That is why I call liberals, sameness. But, this is where shit gets real bizarre. They want sameness for everyone else, but them! Wtf? If it were possible, I wouldn't even need them to accuse me of a bible thumper, everyone else the same would be hell!

Like your black cape anarchist bomber, I use old definitions. I then mix it up a bit.

Pssst, but don't tell them. I doubt they know what I'm taking about anyway.

How's the fishing?

 

[GOD HERE]

I'm at work, I don't have time to address the different comments, but wikipedia has a very basic outline of collective anarchism, it's hard to find an unbiased source (especially from the left). If you want a more in depth explanation, in the age of google it's not difficult to find. Btw, Keynes I read your posts and again you could not be more wrong. The social systems are not that simple and I think you know that, you just choose to purport the Limbaugh view of the left. Canna, we attack the right wing interpretation of "libertarian" because it's essentially an oxymoron. Capitalism and liberty (including protection from government) aren't compatible, especially with the strict idea of non interference in the economy that the libertarian right holds on to. Any economist will tell you that's an absurd idea. The economy has to be propped up by the government just to function. Not to mention, without regulation or intervention business would have no laws preventing it from exploiting its employees, which happens constantly even with these laws. How is that individual liberty? It's a form of slavery. I understand the right wing sentiment, but from my view it's misguided. It's like only getting half of the picture. Both government and business have to be strictly regulated so that they don't infringe on individual or collective rights.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism#Anarchist_schools_of_thought

^ Wage slavery is an idea that at first I thought was absurd, but after thinking about it for a while it starts to grow on you.

That being said, I don't enjoy arguing, especially when it's pointless, so take what I've said for what it's worth.