Would socialism/communism really help racial minorites

[Cavemonster]

I already covered the misnaming of states. I don't need to address it again. But I will point out that you still haven't specified an actual case of supposed libertarian failure to examine.

Could you name some libertarian states for us to see examples?

I'm not sure I can think of an example.

 

[Ziggurat]

Could you name some libertarian states for us to see examples?

I'm not sure I can think of an example.

There aren't any. It fails before it can even reach that stage. That's rather my point.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

No, that isn't how a "no true Scotsman" fallacy works.

Actually, yes, it's EXACTLY how it works: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman. You claim that all libertarians/scotsmen want/do X, and when pointed out that there's a wider range of libertarians than that (e.g., those who, yes, would consider anarchy to be libertarianism), you back into those not being real libertarians. What you're doing could be a textbook example of the No True Scotsman fallacy.

You don't just get to call random people Scotsmen, which is what you're doing.

Except it's not random. What you're doing is just trying to narrow down a definition wrongly. You're essentially trying to claim that all libertarians are the same or want the same things as the US-specific Austrian-School-economics conservatives calling themselves that.

But here's the thing: even in the USA, that was just a case of the conservatives trying to redefine a term into what they want it to mean. As they still do to this day, when they don't actually have an argument against something. It was even specifically touted as "we, 'our side,' had captured a crucial word from the enemy. 'Libertarians' had long been simply a polite word for left-wing anarchists, that is for anti-private property anarchists, either of the communist or syndicalist variety. But now we had taken it over."

Yeah, the ultra-conservative meaning is not what it originally meant. And it's still not what it means for most of the world. Even in the USA not everyone uses it as a synonym for basically teabagger yet, and in the rest of the world much less so.

Look, I'm not trying to accuse you of trying to intentionally distort the meaning. I'll assume you just didn't know that it means more than just the redefined version by USA conservatives. But it really does have more flavours than that.

You haven't come up with any justification for considering any of these still unspecified examples as being libertarian.

Other than fitting the definition used by most of the left-wing 'libertarians', you mean?

 

[Ziggurat]

Other than fitting the definition used by most of the left-wing 'libertarians', you mean?

And still not a single specified example. This grows tiresome.

 

[Sideroxylon]

No one ever said that. In fact I'm yet to see anyone trying to link racism ro capitalism.

Class reductionism

 

[theprestige]

Why is the discussion always about socialism/communism vs. capitalism? What "socialists" are really advocating is a capitalist system with a very extensive safety net and numerous opportunities for social mobility that are made available through government funding. And that would help racial minorities.

It boils down to a debate about the the nature of property ownership. At the capitalist extreme, an individual has a right to private ownership of property. Society must argue for an exception to that rule, in order to take some of that property for the greater good. At the socialist extreme, society as a whole has a right to communal ownership of property. The individual must argue for an exception to that rule, in order to take some of that property for their own benefit.

In between is a continuum of viewpoints, relating to the strength of the arguments that are acceptable, in order to consider an exception. Where private property is taken for granted, socialist positions must be taken inside that Overton Window, in order to effectively influence public policy.

But ask a capitalist if we should take the right to private property for granted, and the answer is "yes". Ask a socialist if we should take the right to private property for granted, and the answer is... ?