Why Communism is Wrong.

[theprestige]

The reason Libertarianism is directly comparable to Anarchy is that you can't get them to engage in debate on what level of regulation is actually required. When you do so their answer invariably amounts "less" but they won't say less than what. "Less" therefor becomes indistinguishable from none.

Nah. That's an easy one. "None" is take as a default position. Then regulation is added incrementally on a case by case basis, according to something like Strict Scrutiny: Do we agree our community has a serious problem that can't be solved by individual freedom? Do we agree that this particular regulation solves this particular problem? Do we agree that this particular regulation prescribes only the minimum necessary infringements on individual freedom, to solve this problem. If we're agreed on this, then we add the regulation to our short list of things our community regulates.

For me, anarcho-libertarianism is a principled starting point, not a practical end state. It stands in stark contrast to the opposing principles: Starting with an overarching authoritarian government that regulates everything, and citizens have to petition for individual freedom as an exception to that rule.

I've articulated this position several times. What's funny is that not only do people consistently ignore it, they also consistently fail to say which of those two positions they believe represents a better starting point for structuring a community.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Nah. That's an easy one. "None" is take as a default position. Then regulation is added incrementally on a case by case basis, according to something like Strict Scrutiny: Do we agree our community has a serious problem that can't be solved by individual freedom? Do we agree that this particular regulation solves this particular problem? Do we agree that this particular regulation prescribes only the minimum necessary infringements on individual freedom, to solve this problem. If we're agreed on this, then we add the regulation to our short list of things our community regulates.

Seems you just proved lomiller's point - you punt on the question of what level of regulation is actually required by leaving it up to the individuals involved. But isn't this what already happens in a properly working democracy? Wouldn't the result be much the same as what we have now, with most people agreeing that regulation is required at almost every level to ensure that serious problems don't occur? And isn't it true that these regulations proved to be necessary because in the past we did have a default position of no regulation?

The truth is, Libertarianism is directly comparable to Anarchy because they expect us to dismantle the safeguards we have in place now and then rebuild them 'incrementally on a case by case basis' (after the damage has been done of course).

Sorry, but I don't think this is the kind of experiment we can afford to do on a nationwide basis, which means it will forever be held dear by those who seek to replace practical reality with a fantasy.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Okay. Go find me a Socialist to explain where the "government safety net" stops. Same thing.

I think you would be hard-pressed to find a traditional socialist to explain it to you today. Most countries that are called 'socialist' are not even half way there, and have no indication of getting any closer.

Ask most people what they think socialism is, and they will point to welfare programs for the poor. But tell them that socialism means 'the means of production is owned or regulated by the community as a whole' and their eyes glaze over. Tell them that their state engages in it by depending on Defense spending to keep their economy going, or that 'handouts' to poor people actually help businesses by increasing sales and allowing them to pay lower wages, and they will flat out call you a liar.

Then there are countries that most people don't think of when you use the word 'socialist' - like Saudi Arabia, whose state-owned oil company Saudi Aramco is the 5th-largest public company in the world and produces 42% of the country's GDP. Most of the 30–40% of working-age Saudis who don't live on welfare work for the government, while the private sector survives mostly on government contracts. That's true socialism in action!

 

[JoeMorgue]

And that's what I mean. Political Fandoms have turned all discourse into a rousing game of "No True Scotsman" where we discuss whether actual individual policies/ideas/goals are good or bad but whether or not they are "true" this or that.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Seems you just proved lomiller's point - you punt on the question of what level of regulation is actually required by leaving it up to the individuals involved. But isn't this what already happens in a properly working democracy? Wouldn't the result be much the same as what we have now, with most people agreeing that regulation is required at almost every level to ensure that serious problems don't occur? And isn't it true that these regulations proved to be necessary because in the past we did have a default position of no regulation?

The truth is, Libertarianism is directly comparable to Anarchy because they expect us to dismantle the safeguards we have in place now and then rebuild them 'incrementally on a case by case basis' (after the damage has been done of course).

Sorry, but I don't think this is the kind of experiment we can afford to do on a nationwide basis, which means it will forever be held dear by those who seek to replace practical reality with a fantasy.

I think I see what is missing here. In most discussion by libertarians, it is that the basis of regulation must come from the framework around the non aggression principle. Consensus absent that framework is illegitimate. That is why the general consensus you discuss above is not acceptable and why some libertarians (such as myself) don't think democracy is the bee's knees.

 

[lomiller]

Okay. Go find me a Socialist to explain where the "government safety net" stops. Same thing.

First of all a social safety net isn't socialism (social ownership of the means of production)

Second, it not very hard at all to get people who support a social safety net to explain why they think a given social program is required. This is in contrast to libertarians who will merely respond with "government involvement is bad"

These discussions need to happen on a case by case basis and libertarians won't do it. They just make generic claims about how less regulation is better instead of debating why particular regulations should\should not exist. "Less regulation is better" is as I said above a fundamentally anarchist position because it can't be distinguished from "no regulation at all".

 

[JoeMorgue]

Well whatever. "Libertarians are inherently more stubborn and more generic than any other political fandom" isn't a stance I'm interested in arguing against.

 

[lomiller]

And that's what I mean. Political Fandoms have turned all discourse into a rousing game of "No True Scotsman" where we discuss whether actual individual policies/ideas/goals are good or bad but whether or not they are "true" this or that.

Words have meaning and calling it out when people try to play bait and switch with those meanings is not an example of No True Scotsman.

Again, look at North Korea. It claims to be a Republic and it claims to be Communist when in fact it's neither. If pointing out that it isn't Communist is an example of No True Scotsman than reasonably pointing out that it isn't a Republic is an example of No True Scotsman as well.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Words have meaning and calling it out when people try to play bait and switch with those meanings is not an example of No True Scotsman.

Again, look at North Korea. It claims to be a Republic and it claims to be Communist when in fact it's neither. If pointing out that it isn't Communist is an example of No True Scotsman than reasonably pointing out that it isn't a Republic is an example of No True Scotsman as well.

I wouldn't know if they claimed to be communist or not. That seems like a translation nightmare of meaning across multiple languages.

 

[lomiller]

Well whatever. "Libertarians are inherently more stubborn and more generic than any other political fandom" isn't a stance I'm interested in arguing against.

Good, because it isn't what I said. I said they rarely debate the merits, or lack thereof, of specific regulations and instead take a fundamentally anarchist approach by making a blanket claim that less regulation is better.

Saying "we support the regulations that are needed" is meaningless if you refusing to engage in discussions about whether a particular regulation are in fact needed. As I already explained, this refusal makes them indistinguishable from anarchists in my opinion.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Words have meaning and calling it out when people try to play bait and switch with those meanings is not an example of No True Scotsman.

Again, look at North Korea. It claims to be a Republic and it claims to be Communist when in fact it's neither. If pointing out that it isn't Communist is an example of No True Scotsman than reasonably pointing out that it isn't a Republic is an example of No True Scotsman as well.

That would sell better if you waited for the echo of you saying "Libertarianism and anarchy is the same thing" to die down first.

I'm getting the feel that your argument is "My political stance is what I say it is, other people's political stances is what I say they are."

 

[lomiller]

I think I see what is missing here. In most discussion by libertarians, it is that the basis of regulation must come from the framework around the non aggression principle. Consensus absent that framework is illegitimate. That is why the general consensus you discuss above is not acceptable and why some libertarians (such as myself) don't think democracy is the bee's knees.

If you think that laws shouldn't be made by democratic consensus, or that these laws should not be enforced you are an anarchist not a libertarian. Just one more example of someone who claims to be libertarian but is actually holding an anarchist position.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Good, because it isn't what I said. I said they rarely debate the merits, or lack thereof, of specific regulations and instead take a fundamentally anarchist approach by making a blanket claim that less regulation is better.

Saying "we support the regulations that are needed" is meaningless if you refusing to engage in discussions about whether a particular regulation are in fact needed. As I already explained, this refusal makes them indistinguishable from anarchists in my opinion.

Again you're living in a world were getting libertarians to explain where their unregulation (that needs to be a word) ends is somehow worlds harder then getting socialists to explain where their regulations end.

I do not live in that world.

Asking a libertarian what the government should be able to do and a socialist what the government shouldn't be able to do are very similar in my world.

 

[BobTheCoward]

If you think that laws shouldn't be made by democratic consensus, or that these laws should not be enforced you are an anarchist not a libertarian. Just one more example of someone who claims to be libertarian but is actually holding an anarchist position.

What? Were all despots, monarchs, and theocrats versions of anarchists because they didn't think laws should be made by democratic consensus?

 

[JoeMorgue]

What? Were all despots, monarchs, and theocrats versions of anarchists because they didn't think laws should be made by democratic consensus?

Oh don't be silly. Some of us are just sealioning contrarians.

 

[lomiller]

That would sell better if you waited for the echo of you saying "Libertarianism and anarchy is the same thing" to die down first.

I didn't say libertarianism and anarchy are the same thing. I said that people claiming to be libertarians are usually just adopting an anarchist stance.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I didn't say libertarianism and anarchy are the same thing. I said that people claiming to be libertarians are usually just adopting an anarchist stance.

Po-tay-to, po-tah-to.

You're arguing an ivory tower, technical dictionary definition for some social/political/economic stances AND street level, real world definitions for others depending which is most convenient at the moment.

"Most libertarians are just closet anarchists" and "Most socialists are just closet communist" are 100% equal statements.

 

[lomiller]

Again you're living in a world were getting libertarians to explain where their unregulation (that needs to be a word) ends is somehow worlds harder then getting socialists to explain where their regulations end.

I do not live in that world.

you are trying to interpret this a some sort of a spectrum. It isn't the need for a particular regulation or government program needs to be analyzed on a case by case basis. How often you increased or decreased regulation in other cases is completely irrelevant, each one should stand on it's own merit, but self styled libertarians usually won't enter that discussion.

Asking a libertarian what the government should be able to do and a socialist what the government shouldn't be able to do are very similar in my world.

In theory both believe government should be able to do anything necessary and they only disagree on what's necessary. In practice, liberals are usually willing to debate why a particular regulation or program is necessary while libertarians are not so willing.

 

[lomiller]

"Most libertarians are just closet anarchists" and "Most socialists are just closet communist" are 100% equal statements.

No. Both are claims need to be supported. I've provided an explanation for why I feel the former is true. You have not provided any reason to believe the latter is true. (and given you misunderstanding of what socialism is, I can't imagine an adequate reason is forthcoming)

 

[JoeMorgue]

No. Both are claims need to be supported. I've provided an explanation for why I feel the former is true. You have not provided any reason to believe the latter is true. (and given you misunderstanding of what socialism is, I can't imagine an adequate reason is forthcoming)

Ah I can already see the "U just tink all socailiazism is communism!" is the only card you have in your deck.

I'm well aware of the difference in socialism and communism; both technical dictionary definitions and real world usage. I just don't like either of them.

The difference in libertarianism and anarchy is degree. The difference between socialism and communism is intent. (Intent isn't 100% exactly the word, there's some nuance in there, but it's close. It's kind of a weird grey area between intent and motivation, with a sprinkling of "end means' in there.)

A libertarian and an anarchist are going to disagree on how much power the government should have; ranging from limited to "non-existent."

A socialist and a communist are going to disagree on whether or not the government's power is altruistic or not more than some raw "amount of."

Summed in a snarky "Too Long, Didn't Read" way a Communist government is going to take my freedom. A Socialist government is going to take my freedom... but tell me it's for my own good.

And I am not denying that distinction is meaningful. Sometimes it legit is for "my own good" so to speak. I'm not denying taking away my "right" to drive 100 miles per hour the wrong way down the freeway doublefisting bottles of Mad Dog 2020 is a bad thing.

I just think the slope from that to telling me how large of a soda I'm allowed to buy is just as slippery, no more, not less, from "don't tell me how large of a soda to buy" to "LOL who will pave the roads?"