The Official Libertarian/Anarcho-Capitalist Thread

#151
#151
Burhead said:
Too me they are one and the same, just wrapped in different propaganda speak.



To extent I disagree, European democratic socialism has proven socialism and democracy can co-exist.
Click to expand...

Much like America under its current arrangement, most European nations are a "soft" tyranny. Just because these governments aren't ordering their subjects to take their discipline pills doesn't mean it isn't still a coercive central power.
 
#152
#152
Weezy said:
Question for the well studied folk on here. Are fascism and communism all that different? And is socialism all that different? Are they not just forms of statism that are both similar when compared against capitalism? I get that theoretically, they claim to be the opposite. But in practice, it just doesn't seem true.
Click to expand...

The question is whether one ought to label other individuals, peoples, and states according to what they profess they are or what in fact they are. There has never been an actual Communist government (in fact, it is logically impossible), but there have been governments that have professed to be Communist. Socialism is very distinct from Communism, in that socialism requires a third-party apparatus to force and coerce individuals into the redistribution of wealth; Marxism and Communism do not require that third-party apparatus, they are theories that rely on all the individuals in society seeing that it is best that they voluntarily redistribute their wealth.

Fascism, unlike socialism, Marxism, and Communism, has no necessary tie to economic activity. It is a completely different genus from capitalism and socialism. There can be fascist states that embrace capitalism (a free market state that prohibits homosexuality and religious observances, would be, at least in part, fascist; a free market state that mandated that individuals announce "I love the State and all other peoples are savages" every hour, on the hour, would be, at least in part, fascist).

Weezy said:
The way I see it, when in practice, they both require strong government control of the economy. And all practices have lead to dictatorships. Even if they try to act otherwise, both forms have led to a strong wealthy class exerting power over their people.
Click to expand...

I am not sure that capitalism, in practice, will not lead to dictatorship. Once you introduce "in practice", you break with the theory and allow an incredible amount of possibilities in; and, I think it is plausible that capitalism can produce a very strong, powerful, and small coterie of very wealthy individuals whose influence on government will consolidate the government into the hands of one, or a small few, individual(s).

So long as individuals are not consistently pushing to live in practice as close as possible to in theory, then hardly anything (other than force) is left to regulate and keep things from spiraling out of control.
 
#153
#153
SamRebel35 said:
Much like America under its current arrangement, most European nations are a "soft" tyranny. Just because these governments aren't ordering their subjects to take their discipline pills doesn't mean it isn't still a coercive central power.
Click to expand...

fixed your post
 
#154
#154
therealUT said:
fixed your post
Click to expand...

You disagree? You don't believe our government can use the threat of coercion to take what they want?

Or were you disagreeing with the "arrangement" part? I would agree that we were never intended to be a tyranny under our constitution, but that the government has since hijacked it and distorted it to the point that it is almost meaningless.
 
Last edited:
#155
#155
SamRebel35 said:
You disagree? You don't believe our government can use the threat of coercion to take what they want?
Click to expand...

I disagreed with the qualification of "under its current arrangement". At no point in the history of the US has the US government not been tyrannical.
 
#156
#156
therealUT said:
I disagreed with the qualification of "under its current arrangement". At no point in the history of the US has the US government not been tyrannical.
Click to expand...

Yes, I was editing my question to you while you were responding. I agree with that.
 
#157
#157
therealUT said:
I disagreed with the qualification of "under its current arrangement". At no point in the history of the US has the US government not been tyrannical.
Click to expand...

Perhaps it has always been a tyranny, but in your opinion, if the constitution were adhered to strictly, would it still be tyrannical?
 
#159
#159
Weezy said:
Question for the well studied folk on here. Are fascism and communism all that different? And is socialism all that different? Are they not just forms of statism that are both similar when compared against capitalism? I get that theoretically, they claim to be the opposite. But in practice, it just doesn't seem true.

The way I see it, when in practice, they both require strong government control of the economy. And all practices have lead to dictatorships. Even if they try to act otherwise, both forms have led to a strong wealthy class exerting power over their people.
Click to expand...

No, they are both heavily authoritarian, which is the important part.
 
#161
#161
therealUT said:
The question is whether one ought to label other individuals, peoples, and states according to what they profess they are or what in fact they are. There has never been an actual Communist government (in fact, it is logically impossible), but there have been governments that have professed to be Communist. Socialism is very distinct from Communism, in that socialism requires a third-party apparatus to force and coerce individuals into the redistribution of wealth; Marxism and Communism do not require that third-party apparatus, they are theories that rely on all the individuals in society seeing that it is best that they voluntarily redistribute their wealth.
Click to expand...

I disagree. I agree that it is impossible on a large scale.
 
#162
#162
PKT_VOL said:
I disagree. I agree that it is impossible on a large scale.
Click to expand...

Communism, according to the theory, cannot even come into being until the dissolution of the government; thus, there can never be a Communist government. Again, there have been governments that have professed to be Communist; there have been governments that have aimed at moving the country toward Communism; there has never been a Communist government (such an entity cannot exist).
 
#163
#163
therealUT said:
Communism, according to the theory, cannot even come into being until the dissolution of the government; thus, there can never be a Communist government. Again, there have been governments that have professed to be Communist; there have been governments that have aimed at moving the country toward Communism; there has never been a Communist government (such an entity cannot exist).
Click to expand...

I disagree. On a small scale, there certainly can be.
 
#166
#166
PKT_VOL said:
I am not. I never said that such situations had independent governments.
Click to expand...

How can there be any type of governing in a society which lacks both a state and any form of social structure/class? If any individual governs, that automatically entails that there is at least one individual that is governed. And, with this premise, there are also now two social classes: the governors and the governed. At that point, you are no longer in a theoretically communist environment.
 
#167
#167
therealUT said:
How can there be any type of governing in a society which lacks both a state and any form of social structure/class? If any individual governs, that automatically entails that there is at least one individual that is governed. And, with this premise, there are also now two social classes: the governors and the governed. At that point, you are no longer in a theoretically communist environment.
Click to expand...

And there can't be a situation where there are small enough numbers for all to be both be governors and governed?
 
#168
#168
PKT_VOL said:
And there can't be a situation where there are small enough numbers for all to be both be governors and governed?
Click to expand...

Simultaneously? Or sequentially?

Simultaneously, it makes no sense (this is like the paradoxical notion of popular sovereignty). Sequentially, you have social classes (even if they are revolving social classes).

In a theoretically communist existence, no individuals are governing other individuals. Every individual is a perfectly moral being, willingly doing the right thing and willingly sharing the fruits of their toil. There is no governing taking place.

Of course, this gets to the question of how communism could ever actually exist; and, tragically, it lead to the forced "re-education" and "cultural revolution" that were carried out by vanguard governments, in order to clear the way for communism.
 
#169
#169
therealUT said:
Simultaneously? Or sequentially?

Simultaneously, it makes no sense (this is like the paradoxical notion of popular sovereignty). Sequentially, you have social classes (even if they are revolving social classes).

Of course, this gets to the question of how communism could ever actually exist; and, tragically, it lead to the forced "re-education" and "cultural revolution" that were carried out by vanguard governments, in order to clear the way for communism.
Click to expand...

Either/or.

It would obviously be a direct democracy. The various roles of governance could be carried out sequentially. The rotation could be so quick as to not have special classes. Monthly, biweekly, weekly, dally, or hourly (that would be nuts if not small enough).

I don't see the paradox in practice. If you think of it in theoretical absolutes, then you would be correct. In relative reality, it is possible to be carried out with such a paradox.

An analogy, although not exact, would be a business which was owned equally by all workers. At times they are all the boss, at times they are all workers.

therealUT said:
In a theoretically communist existence, no individuals are governing other individuals. Every individual is a perfectly moral being, willingly doing the right thing and willingly sharing the fruits of their toil. There is no governing taking place.
Click to expand...

Obviously, the vast majority of the participants would have to have a very similar, common mindset which is aligned with Marxist principals. That would be the hard part.
 
#170
#170
PKT_VOL said:
Obviously, the vast majority of the participants would have to have a very similar, common mindset which is aligned with Marxist principals. That would be the hard part.
Click to expand...

Indeed. Marx thought it was possible, Smith thought that it was impossible.
 
#173
#173
therealUT said:
I love me some Adam Smith.
Click to expand...

Most people would love him if they weren't so superficially wed to their socialist dogma. Our country has been brainwashed to believe that bad means of government coerced altruism are justified by the utopian ends.
 
#174
#174
SamRebel35 said:
Most people would love him if they weren't so superficially wed to their socialist dogma. Our country has been brainwashed to believe that bad means of government coerced altruism are justified by the utopian ends.
Click to expand...

I think that even socialist would love him if they read his Theory of Moral Sentiments before reading Wealth of Nations. He levels plenty of attacks against the rich in TMS.
 
#175
#175
76295_10151402606531251_1194744049_n.jpg
 
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top