The hidden violence of the socialistic mindset

[ivwshane]

You dont know what the words mean. You tried to imply that I did not by the use of my chosen words. The way I see things there are 2 options here.

You did not know that the words were related and your comment was made out of ignorance.

The other option is that you did not know that the words were related, and you wanted to indirectly expose my ignorance.

English is a funny language. If you go by the current definitions of the words, I am completely correct. If you go by the way that most people use the word liberalism, then the definition is not correct. If you want to pick the side that I am right about the definition, but wrong in the sense of how people use it, then so be it.

Part of communicating is using language all parties understand and agree to. If you wish to use a definition that no one else is using then so be it but don't get pissy when people don't get what you are saying.

And the words being related doesn't mean they can be used interchangeably. You took nickgt's comment and turned it into something he didnt say or claim and its precisely because you seem determined to use a definition for a word no one else is using that your comment made no sense.

Poor communication or pig headed, your call.

The difference between the two, as related to this thread and as related to the post you responded to, is that libertarians believe in a limited state whereas liberals don't have such restrictions in order to achieve their goals. That's a pretty big distinction when trying to understand nickgt's comment.

The point of all this is that your comment made no sense when viewing nickgt's comment in context

 

[Brian Stirling]

The OP isn't the right. The OP is way out in some field other than left or right.

I don't know about that -- seems to me a good many righties spake the same flavor of nonsense!

Right or not he is wrong!


Brian

 

[realibrad]

Part of communicating is using language all parties understand and agree to. If you wish to use a definition that no one else is using then so be it but don't get pissy when people don't get what you are saying.

English is a living language, and as such has its definitions changing all the time. That being said, in the context of economics, the way I used them is the norm. Further, liberalism in different countries can place you on the right and in others the left. There are many different people on this forum from different countries. It seemed most logical to use the economic context as my comment was in response to that subject. The attempt to try and point out a possible mistake was not an attempt to help me see my error. I have seen enough of your posts to know it was a passive aggressive way to discredit what I said.

And the words being related doesn't mean they can be used interchangeably. You took nickgt's comment and turned it into something he didnt say or claim and its precisely because you seem determined to use a definition for a word no one else is using that your comment made no sense.

I did nothing of the sort. I used the words correctly, so how could I have taken his words out of context? He clearly brought up Libertarianism and the context was clear on my part.

Poor communication or pig headed, your call.

Nice strawman.

The difference between the two, as related to this thread and as related to the post you responded to, is that libertarians believe in a limited state whereas liberals don't have such restrictions in order to achieve their goals. That's a pretty big distinction when trying to understand nickgt's comment.

No. Liberalism has nothing to do with the size of the government directly. You could argue that a large government would likely limit freedoms and thus be in conflict when applied, but its not inherent. If you want to argue that I need to use definitions that are incorrect and not common in economics then fine, go ahead, but I will not follow that logic.

Nick's comment was to say that Libertarianism does not work in reality, and so my comment in that comment was understandable.

The point of all this is that your comment made no sense when viewing nickgt's comment in context

Nope, it made sense.

His comment is that Libertarianism does not work in practice. My response was to have him give an example when it was tried and failed, and when the counter was tried and succeeded. Perfectly rational.

 

[MongGrel]

I don't know about that -- seems to me a good many righties spake the same flavor of nonsense!

Right or not he is wrong!


Brian

The whole thread was pretty much fail from it's inception.

 

[Murloc]

The OP isn't the right. The OP is way out in some field other than left or right.

This.
He's an hermit/homesteader. Neolithic civilizations (which even built walls around villages through statute labour, which is a form of taxation) had already long abandoned this policy otherwise we'd still be stuck in the stone age.

Neoliberals want no state interference and no social safety net but they're totally fine with having a police force, so OP is not even a neoliberal, which is what the US right wing is.

 

[soulcougher73]

That tells me you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. "Anarchists"
believe in a self-governing people, not a complete lack of rules. Obviously you don't understand "Socialism" either.

They never do. Every single time one spouts off they never know what they are talking about, just the lie talking points fed by the GOP/fox

 

[WelshBloke]

This.
He's an hermit/homesteader. Neolithic civilizations (which even built walls around villages through statute labour, which is a form of taxation) had already long abandoned this policy otherwise we'd still be stuck in the stone age.

Neoliberals want no state interference and no social safety net but they're totally fine with having a police force, so OP is not even a neoliberal, which is what the US right wing is.

Anarcho capitalist?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism

 

[MovingTarget]

And this is what the left in the US ignores completely. I.e., the model that works in those Nordic nations is a model that is dependent on everyone not milking the system and doing what is best to ensure those social safety nets do not implode/fall apart from the sheer volume and weight of masses of people jumping onto them or abusing them at such a rate that they can reliably handle.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I would dare say that even in these wonderful Nordic countries it has long been a tradition that people frowned upon someone who is able bodied, and able of mind yet they make no real effort to get off government assistance?

That the collective and overall homogeneous cultures found in places like Norway is one that everyone should do their part and that the safety net is only there for rare instances or occasions where someone may slip and fall during the course of their life. Of which this net is used to get them out of that net and back on track and thus it is not, should not rvrt be a hammock where someone permanently resides.

Last but not least (this is where we might part ways), while those nations may have strong social benefits and taxation to prop up those benefits they are not in anyway communist or heavy handed socialist "utopias" where government agencies control the economy or prevent others from rising to the top and being succesful.

In other words that the overall general means of production is actually market based and not controlled by bureaucrats or politicians as we see in the example of Venezuela. That even these vaunted Nordic "socialist" countries understand that prices and market fundimentals such as supply and demand interactions are a superior mechanism toward managing an economy if what you seek is to push efficiency and an ever growing standard of living.

For which that aforementioned social safety net (that is not viewed to ever become a permanent hammock by most) can then be funded by when all's said and done. That government interaction is only used as a measure of last resort to either restore a balance or to ensure that distortions do not occur. Yet it is never viewed as a primary mechanism to continually attempt to suppress market forces pointing toward a undeniable truth of scarcity, i.e. the hammer that is the perpetual and singular solution to every problem big or small to those who are left wing in the US.

Emphasis added. This refrain is often spouted as a reason to keep our social safety net so inadequately funded as to be useless for all but the most destitute. (Sorry, working poor, no soup for you!) But, I wonder, is it true? Is a truly homogeneous society (income? class? race? religion? other?) necessary to pull off what the Nordic countries have accomplished? Saying that our poor are living the high life and treating it like a hammock may be just more stereotyping of our lower classes as being worse, or theirs being better, which may not hold up to scrutiny. How are their "poors" different than ours?

Basically, what I am asking here is for evidence to back up this claim. I know it "feels" true, but without a way of quantifying that for comparative purposes, it should not be accepted as political fact as it often is these days.

 

[realibrad]

Emphasis added. This refrain is often spouted as a reason to keep our social safety net so inadequately funded as to be useless for all but the most destitute. (Sorry, working poor, no soup for you!) But, I wonder, is it true? Is a truly homogeneous society (income? class? race? religion? other?) necessary to pull off what the Nordic countries have accomplished? Saying that our poor are living the high life and treating it like a hammock may be just more stereotyping of our lower classes as being worse, or theirs being better, which may not hold up to scrutiny. How are their "poors" different than ours?

Basically, what I am asking here is for evidence to back up this claim. I know it "feels" true, but without a way of quantifying that for comparative purposes, it should not be accepted as political fact as it often is these days.

Only ambiguous or subjective data that I can find. If you compare the US to most other European countries, the standard of living is higher. The issue is how we rate buying power and inflation.

Take an example of homes. The average home size in the US is bigger. If you were to simply compare the ability of low income people to buy an average house, it makes their buying power look worse. Bigger houses cost more than smaller houses when all other factors are equal. If we were to hold the poor to the same averages of Norway, our poor become a lot better off.

The data is very dirty and can be twisted easily. Many feel the aforementioned is not a bug but a feature. You are poor when you cannot keep up with the average. Poor to them is always relative to now and not the past. Just because a poor person of today is far better off then a poor person of before does not mean they are less poor, because if the average grows faster than the poor, they are getting poorer.

 

[ivwshane]

English is a living language, and as such has its definitions changing all the time. That being said, in the context of economics, the way I used them is the norm. Further, liberalism in different countries can place you on the right and in others the left. There are many different people on this forum from different countries. It seemed most logical to use the economic context as my comment was in response to that subject. The attempt to try and point out a possible mistake was not an attempt to help me see my error. I have seen enough of your posts to know it was a passive aggressive way to discredit what I said.

If you've seen enough of my posts then you know that I'm am not passive aggressive, I'm aggressive. My post wasn't meant for you to see your error but was a simple question of whether or not you made an error. You answered and then attacked and I have since been explaining to you why there was confusion.

I did nothing of the sort. I used the words correctly, so how could I have taken his words out of context? He clearly brought up Libertarianism and the context was clear on my part.

Yes, he brought up libertarianism not liberalism, which is why your post was confusing, the two are not the same.


Nice strawman.
Thats not a straw man, thats my opinion of your actions, not a misrepresentation of your argument. Maybe it's some other logical fallacy, maybe it's not but it's certainly not a straw man.


No. Liberalism has nothing to do with the size of the government directly. You could argue that a large government would likely limit freedoms and thus be in conflict when applied, but its not inherent. If you want to argue that I need to use definitions that are incorrect and not common in economics then fine, go ahead, but I will not follow that logic.

This would be a perfect example of a straw man as I didn't argue that liberalism had to do with the size of government, in fact I specifically stated that the size of government has no bearing on liberal principals (again, using the modern context of liberalism).

Nick's comment was to say that Libertarianism does not work in reality, and so my comment in that comment was understandable.

Sure your comment would have been understandable, if you had used the word libertarianism, which is why I was confused by your post.

Nope, it made sense.

His comment is that Libertarianism does not work in practice. My response was to have him give an example when it was tried and failed, and when the counter was tried and succeeded. Perfectly rational.

Again, having him show you when libertarianism failed is perfectly reasonable. You didn't do that, you wanted him to show you when liberalism failed. Which, again is another logical fallacy on your part as nickgt arguing that libertarianism is a failure does not mean he thinks liberalism is without its faults.

I don't wish to drag this out any farther. I get your intentions of your original post now and that's all that matters.

 

[nickqt]

Again, having him show you when libertarianism failed is perfectly reasonable. You didn't do that, you wanted him to show you when liberalism failed. Which, again is another logical fallacy on your part as nickgt arguing that libertarianism is a failure does not mean he thinks liberalism is without its faults.

I don't wish to drag this out any farther. I get your intentions of your original post now and that's all that matters.

If he wants me to show him an example where libertarianism was tried and failed, I would say that if it has been tried anytime in the past, it clearly failed as we can't find a single example of it anywhere, unless of course he wants to direct me to an example.

If it is true that libertarianism existed in the past and does not exist now since he can't point to it, well, Ipso facto, to throw out some latin just to be snarky and use an example of something that existed and failed.

If libertarianism has never existed, then of course I can't point to it failing, but I can very easily make any number of arguments using logic and reason to explain why it isn't being tried, even though we've had the basic concept in philosophy much longer than shitty Ayn Rand fiction/philosophy.

And the real son of a bitch is that I'm a libertarian (small l) in the sense that I recognize that maximum freedom means no state and no state coercion, and I can even describe a libertarian society. The problem, is that a libertarian society cannot exist until science catches up with science fiction.

If we have molecular fabricators that can take atoms and construct whatever we want, then one molecular fabricator = a molecular fabricator in every garage. This allows me to survive without any other person, which is IMPOSSIBLE right now, here in observable reality.

Now, give me a molecular fabricator, and the ability to survive long-term in space, and there's your libertarian society, where you can choose to interact with other humans, or just hang out in the orbit of Venus if you so choose.

Unfortunately, here in observable reality, we're all 7 billion of us trapped on a rock with finite sources, pollutable air, water, and soil. So, we can either work together, as a species, to get the fuck off this rock and create the libertarian society, or we can play zero-sum games where I try to own as much of the earth's finite resources as possible, and you can go f-yourself and die in a gutter, moocher.

That's the problem.

In order to ever get to a libertarian society where we have molecular fabricators and can survive in space, we need to up our technology a shit-ton. And the only way to do that is to get rid of the anachronistic system we currently revere as a religion of sorts that encourages people to be selfish.

We need to work together. It doesn't require that everyone live in poverty, but it does require that we have all minds working in furtherance of our long-term libertarian priorities. We NEED technology that transcends growing nutrients out of dirt, water, and air. And we need room for my personal rights to not affect your personal rights, i.e. allowing people to get off this rock.

It means that most professions that exist today... right now...are absolutely f-ing worthless, if we ever want a libertarian society. Collecting as much finite resources as possible for ourselves and our family means that everyone else is working that much harder just to eek out a living to capture the remainder...which means that we aren't working in furtherance of our two main goals of making life better now, and increasing technology so that we can live without relying on everyone else. This is self-evident.

If we're ever going to be able to leave this rock (never mind terra forming Mars or going to another solar system) we should be focusing on bettering everyone's life, rather than allowing the very few with all of the money and all of the power to better their own while telling the rest of us to do what they say or die.

That's the son of a bitch about libertarianism - It's a great concept, but it's science fiction in and of itself. We can either work hard to make it reality, or we can continue playing zero-sum games that only prolong the amount of time it takes to get there, if ever.

That the most ardent supporters of libertarianism don't recognize that we can't have it now and have to work together to get it later is a tragedy.

 

[NoStateofMind]

If he wants me to show him an example where libertarianism was tried and failed, I would say that if it has been tried anytime in the past, it clearly failed as we can't find a single example of it anywhere, unless of course he wants to direct me to an example.

If it is true that libertarianism existed in the past and does not exist now since he can't point to it, well, Ipso facto, to throw out some latin just to be snarky and use an example of something that existed and failed.

If libertarianism has never existed, then of course I can't point to it failing, but I can very easily make any number of arguments using logic and reason to explain why it isn't being tried, even though we've had the basic concept in philosophy much longer than shitty Ayn Rand fiction/philosophy.

And the real son of a bitch is that I'm a libertarian (small l) in the sense that I recognize that maximum freedom means no state and no state coercion, and I can even describe a libertarian society. The problem, is that a libertarian society cannot exist until science catches up with science fiction.

If we have molecular fabricators that can take atoms and construct whatever we want, then one molecular fabricator = a molecular fabricator in every garage. This allows me to survive without any other person, which is IMPOSSIBLE right now, here in observable reality.

Now, give me a molecular fabricator, and the ability to survive long-term in space, and there's your libertarian society, where you can choose to interact with other humans, or just hang out in the orbit of Venus if you so choose.

Unfortunately, here in observable reality, we're all 7 billion of us trapped on a rock with finite sources, pollutable air, water, and soil. So, we can either work together, as a species, to get the fuck off this rock and create the libertarian society, or we can play zero-sum games where I try to own as much of the earth's finite resources as possible, and you can go f-yourself and die in a gutter, moocher.

That's the problem.

In order to ever get to a libertarian society where we have molecular fabricators and can survive in space, we need to up our technology a shit-ton. And the only way to do that is to get rid of the anachronistic system we currently revere as a religion of sorts that encourages people to be selfish.

We need to work together. It doesn't require that everyone live in poverty, but it does require that we have all minds working in furtherance of our long-term libertarian priorities. We NEED technology that transcends growing nutrients out of dirt, water, and air. And we need room for my personal rights to not affect your personal rights, i.e. allowing people to get off this rock.

It means that most professions that exist today... right now...are absolutely f-ing worthless, if we ever want a libertarian society. Collecting as much finite resources as possible for ourselves and our family means that everyone else is working that much harder just to eek out a living to capture the remainder...which means that we aren't working in furtherance of our two main goals of making life better now, and increasing technology so that we can live without relying on everyone else. This is self-evident.

If we're ever going to be able to leave this rock (never mind terra forming Mars or going to another solar system) we should be focusing on bettering everyone's life, rather than allowing the very few with all of the money and all of the power to better their own while telling the rest of us to do what they say or die.

That's the son of a bitch about libertarianism - It's a great concept, but it's science fiction in and of itself. We can either work hard to make it reality, or we can continue playing zero-sum games that only prolong the amount of time it takes to get there, if ever.

That the most ardent supporters of libertarianism don't recognize that we can't have it now and have to work together to get it later is a tragedy.

If I have correctly interpreted your statement above to mean that libertarian government is a pipedream I'd agree.

Any form of government will produce the 'haves' and the 'have nots'. Whether it's through quality or quantity, products, services (health) or law, the greater of which will always gravitate to the 'haves', in any form of government. Not just small liberalized government. This country was founded on those ideals. Yet here we are some 240yrs later and we're talking about full on socialism like those 'nordic countries'. A favorite writer of mine is quoted as saying the following:

But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain — that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist. Lysander Spooner - Constitution of No Authority

What is at work here is human nature, and that cannot be controlled within hierarchical societies long term. Every one of them fails given enough time. Only to start a new cycle over once again. Just as human nature takes advantage of the lowest hanging fruit when in power, so do the mass that are subject to them. What you have is a convergence of mankinds desire to obtain the lowest hanging fruit no matter his status in life. This massive infeeding leads to implosion of society as we now know it. Having the old style hierarchical society will always end up this way.

The only way for society to maintain it's structure for a sustainable future is for all of mankind to be subject to the same non-aggression principle of law. The law of equal force is a method I've proposed as just example of how non-violent situations could be resolved non-violently and the law would still be upheld. Mankind must find way of mutual interaction that does not involve violence or violation of Rights.

Socialists in their very nature support violence. No matter their variant they support aggression on innocent people even though their mandates may be for the 'general welfare'. If you can at least admit your policies end up hurting innocent people I'll show you respect but denying that only says you're dishonest or willfully ignorant. That's just the way that shakes down.

No aggressive violence, no matter its source, should ever be accepted as a legitimate means of controlling or influencing society.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Holy shit get a load of this guy.

 

[Brian Stirling]

Holy shit get a load of this guy.

It's labor day, the pharmacy is closed, and he didn't get his meds...


Brian

 

[Meghan54]

Holy shit get a load of this guy.

He's just found pot.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUOGxePBs50

 

[Blue_Max]

No political system exists without violence. The OP is either mistaken or engaging in sophistry.

“When you vote, you are exercising political authority, you're using force. And force, my friends, is violence. The supreme authority from which all other authorities are derived.”
― Robert A. Heinlein, Starship Troopers

Heh... speaking of quotes, I've been re-reading Orwell books during my downtime and it's proving more relevant now than ever. Whenever our resident college-girl SJW crowd starts ranting their doctrine and hatred of the unbelievers, I think of 1984.

“Winston had disliked her from the very first moment of seeing her. He knew the reason. It was because of the atmosphere of hockey−fields and cold baths and community hikes and general clean−mindedness which she managed to carry about with her. He disliked nearly all women, and especially the young and pretty ones. It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and nosers−out of unorthodoxy.”

Nailed it.

 

[Jhhnn]

Congratulations, Max- you managed to drag your usual misogyny into the discussion.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Congratulations, Max- you managed to drag your usual misogyny into the discussion.

That's the script and he follows it like the good little apparatchik that he is.

 

[MongGrel]

“When you vote, you are exercising political authority, you're using force. And force, my friends, is violence. The supreme authority from which all other authorities are derived.”
― Robert A. Heinlein, Starship Troopers

Heh... speaking of quotes, I've been re-reading Orwell books during my downtime and it's proving more relevant now than ever. Whenever our resident college-girl SJW crowd starts ranting their doctrine and hatred of the unbelievers, I think of 1984.

“Winston had disliked her from the very first moment of seeing her. He knew the reason. It was because of the atmosphere of hockey−fields and cold baths and community hikes and general clean−mindedness which she managed to carry about with her. He disliked nearly all women, and especially the young and pretty ones. It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and nosers−out of unorthodoxy.”

Nailed it.

I actually agree with the majority of this.

And especially the Heinlein, but he even had a codified system where if you did not perform military service in duty of your country you could not vote.

I believe Israel and a few countries require that, I'm not sure.

 

[Blue_Max]

Congratulations, Max- you managed to drag your usual misogyny into the discussion.

That's the script and he follows it like the good little apparatchik that he is.

"He doesn't believe in our doctrines! He doesn't believe in our NewThink!

WrongThink! BadThink!! Call him a bigot to shame him! Call him a misogynist to call the crowds to rally and destroy him! We do not need to explain ourselves - our outrage is reason enough to silence the dissenter!"

Congratulations - you've proven the OP correct with just your usual rhetoric.

 

[JSt0rm]

"He doesn't believe in our doctrines! He doesn't believe in our NewThink!

WrongThink! BadThink!! Call him a bigot to shame him! Call him a misogynist to call the crowds to rally and destroy him! We do not need to explain ourselves - our outrage is reason enough to silence the dissenter!"

Congratulations - you've proven the OP correct with just your usual rhetoric.

Virgin is gonna virgin

 

[WelshBloke]

"He doesn't believe in our doctrines! He doesn't believe in our NewThink!

WrongThink! BadThink!! Call him a bigot to shame him! Call him a misogynist to call the crowds to rally and destroy him! We do not need to explain ourselves - our outrage is reason enough to silence the dissenter!"

Congratulations - you've proven the OP correct with just your usual rhetoric.

You might have a point if you weren't in fact a raging misogynist.

 

[Blue_Max]

Virgin is gonna virgin

Always love the DoubleThink you guys have... you can, at the same time, hold the knowledge that I have kids (who your friends have said should be taken away from me, how nice) AND that I'm a virgin who could never, ever get laid.

Mutually exclusive, yet you're quite happy to believe both at the same time.

Just like "I'm strong and independent" while "I must be defended at all costs!"

:thumbsup:

At least the super-liberal madness is consistent in that regard. Double-standards and impossible logic is practically the foundation of the "movement".

 

[JSt0rm]

You might have a point if you weren't in fact a raging misogynist.

Don't badthink him.

 

[JSt0rm]

Always love the DoubleThink you guys have... you can, at the same time, hold the knowledge that I have kids (who your friends have said should be taken away from me, how nice) AND that I'm a virgin who could never, ever get laid.

Mutually exclusive, yet you're quite happy to believe both at the same time.

Just like "I'm strong and independent" while "I must be defended at all costs!"

:thumbsup:

At least the super-liberal madness is consistent in that regard. Double-standards and impossible logic is practically the foundation of the "movement".

I doublethink your kids should get away from you.