NationStates Jolt Archive

(started in response to the 'annoying facts about republicans' thread)

Most times I have seen Republicans saying things like, this current economic freedom thing is bs, it only helps the rich. now people use it for everything, we seriously need government control in it. But the government should advocate gay marriage, legalize pot, etc. I mean come on, you are controdicting yourselves by saying we need to limit rights, but not limit them

I mean come on, you are controdicting yourselves by saying we need to limit rights, but not limit them

I think that politics is more than just the giving or taking away of rights. I mean, not all parties think that maximum civil rights is best, or that less are. it's just just about that. the democrats think that the government should help the disadvantaged, protect our environment etc, but still let people live their own personal lives.

(started in response to the 'annoying facts about republicans' thread)

Most times I have seen Republicans saying things like, this current economic freedom thing is bs, it only helps the rich. now people use it for everything, we seriously need government control in it. But the government should advocate gay marriage, legalize pot, etc. I mean come on, you are controdicting yourselves by saying we need to limit rights, but not limit them
its not contradiction, just seperation of economic and civil freedoms.

If one wants to maximize BOTH economic *and* social rights, one would be libertarain (like me)

Wow. Someone unable to separate economic authoritarianism from social. What a suprise from someone who would start another thread like this.

If one wants to maximize BOTH economic *and* social rights, one would be libertarain (like me)
or not, libertarian is ludicrous idealism

or not, libertarian is ludicrous idealism
No, communism is ludicrous idealism

Isn't limiting what someone can do with their own money authoritarian? Or how they should handle their business (as long as they aren't killing anyone or committing theft)?

No, communism is ludicrous idealism

Or maybe both are ridiculous idealism.

or not, libertarian is ludicrous idealism

Perhaps pure libertarianism is more idealistic, but I would say that communism is much more idealistic than libertarianism.

No, communism is ludicrous idealism
No, extremism is ludicrous idealism.

Only in practise, though, since I am an extremist in certain aspects but don't reasonable expect those to actually occur.

No, communism is ludicrous idealism
It's possible for too different things to both be ludicrous idealism. Not that I agree with Reaper.

Im Naked!

Im Naked!
DONT LOOK! :eek:

(started in response to the 'annoying facts about republicans' thread)

Most times I have seen Republicans saying things like, this current economic freedom thing is bs, it only helps the rich. now people use it for everything, we seriously need government control in it. But the government should advocate gay marriage, legalize pot, etc. I mean come on, you are controdicting yourselves by saying we need to limit rights, but not limit them

"Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds." :D

"Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds." :D
And small/less government. :D

Im Naked!

:eek:
*SEX*

And small/less government. :D
:confused:

Perhaps pure libertarianism is more idealistic, but I would say that communism is much more idealistic than libertarianism.
pure communism: everyone works for the benefit of everyone else and the state oversees all of it

pure libertarianisnm: dont apply too much control over everything, especially businesses, and everything will work out in the end

Pure communism has no state. I think plenty of hardcore commies on this board have made this clear.

Pure communism has no state. I think plenty of hardcore commies on this board have made this clear.

Not to people who only joined in January.

"Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds." :D

A "foolish consistancy" was, I believe, Emerson's phrase. Apparently those who are wisely consistent are not plagued by such hobgoblins.

Pure communism has no state. I think plenty of hardcore commies on this board have made this clear.
i dont recall seeing that

i dont recall seeing that

Seen posts by Letila and Free Soviets?

Wealth redistribution and government regulation is necessary to maintain an efficient market, that is one thing that libertarians do not grasp.

The day a Libertarian can show me how one goes about getting a pothole fixed on the highway without taxes and still maintain the public safety is the day I will re-examine my view on Libertarians.

pure communism: everyone works for the benefit of everyone else and the state oversees all of it

pure libertarianisnm: dont apply too much control over everything, especially businesses, and everything will work out in the end
Where do you get this "especially businesses" crap?

Wealth redistribution and government regulation is necessary to maintain an efficient market, that is one thing that libertarians do not grasp.
I can grasp that the claim is made, but it's never been explained to me how that could possibly be. Please enlighten me or point me to someone who can.

The day a Libertarian can show me how one goes about getting a pothole fixed on the highway without taxes and still maintain the public safety is the day I will re-examine my view on Libertarians.
Where is the pothole?

The day a Libertarian can show me how one goes about getting a pothole fixed on the highway without taxes and still maintain the public safety is the day I will re-examine my view on Libertarians.
You forgot the stipulations that you have to be paying attention and willing to hear what we tell you. If you honestly can't figure it out, then it isn't the fault of libertarianism.

When's the last time you paid for half of a book?

The day a Libertarian can show me how one goes about getting a pothole fixed on the highway without taxes and still maintain the public safety is the day I will re-examine my view on Libertarians.
Keruvalia, I think you meant small "l" libertarians. The party (capital L) doesn't wish to give up taxes that support the "greater good", such as highways.

Please people, don't make me post the fucking Charles Murray book again!

Pure communism has no state. I think plenty of hardcore commies on this board have made this clear.
That would be anarcho-communism. Not "pure" communism.

That would be anarcho-communism. Not "pure" communism.
Someone needs to give Marx another read. The only real differences between Marx and an Anarchist like Bakunin are the means of bringing about the end of the state. Marx says you use the dictatorship of the proletariat to wither away the state; Bakunin says any state is coercive and evil, so that won't work... they also have some other technical differences. And by the way, if you actually give Marx a read, "communism" is not even a type of government, it's a state without a government, brought about by the withering away of the state, where government, money, and private property no longer exist.

Someone needs to give Marx another read.
Your point would be perfectly valid, except that "communism" is not synonymous with "Marxism". Marxism is a form of communism, not communism itself, in my opinion. He came up with the first formal type of communism, however.

If one wants to maximize BOTH economic *and* social rights, one would be libertarain (like me)

or if one wished to maximize economic rights in a way that they aren't in direct contradiction with freedom in general, one would become an anarchist communist (like me). or maybe a free-market anticapitalist, like my man kevin carson (http://www.mutualist.org/).

or if one wished to maximize economic rights in a way that they aren't in direct contradiction with freedom in general, one would become an anarchist communist (like me).
Okay, you've got my attention here. Can you explain why?

Okay, you've got my attention here. Can you explain why?

ok. first off we need to be slightly clearer about what freedom means. for one thing, any useful meaning for 'freedom' has to be non-contradictory. this idea is typically glossed over in the phrase about noses and where my right to swing my fist ends. unpacking this a bit gets us to the idea that we cannot just do whatever we want in social settings - our freedom is necessarily bounded by our interaction in social groups. if your 'freedom' exists at the expense of others, then it isn't really a sort of freedom that i would be willing to recognize. otherwise we wind up having to say that dictatorships have lots of freedom, because the dictators can do absolutely anything they want. the only meaningful freedom is freedom that everyone can have. so idea of freedom must at least contain something like:

"the ability to do what you want, in so far as it is compatible with the ability for others to do likewise"

this, however, immediately gets us into a bit of a question for group decision-making structures. moving back to political dictatorships - suppose we had some sort of rather socially liberal dictator that pretty much let people have free speech, and the right to assembly and all that good stuff. but the dictator, being a dictator, gets ultimate say on all decisions that affect the nation as a whole. in other words, nearly everyone has no say at all in the outcome of a lot of decisions that affect them. clearly this is not an instance of freedom - quite the opposite in fact. it is a method of decision making that is incompatible with having people make the decisions that affect their lives for themselves; with their equal ability to do what they want.

but, of course, there are desicions that have to be made that affect more than just the individual making them. lots of them. in order to satisfy the idea of non-contradictory freedom, everyone affected by some decision should have full say in the outcome of that decision. which means some form of democratic process is needed for group decisions to maintain the quality of 'freedom' (and some variations of democratic processes will almost certainly do a better job of it than others - but that is another topic entirely).

this is all well and good, and fairly uncontroversial so far. but then comes the anarchist like myself, who points out that large-scale production is a social activity. it involves many people in various capacities, all of whom are affected by the decisions made by the company. but those decisions are made in a top-down fashion, with the only input from most of the people affected by them being "work there or quit" and "shop there or don't". essentially equivalent to "love it or leave it".

the people with real say over the running of things are the stockholders (particularly the major stockholders). and oddly enough, they decide not only how the company should be run and how to reward people for doing the actual work of producing things and such, but also to disproportionately reward themselves and run the company for their own benefit above the benefit of anyone else. this is unsurprising, of course. but it is also tyrannical. 'maximizing economic rights' means letting businesses run themselves without outside interference, particularly from the state in the form of regulation. but under the current setup it means turning over even more control to those major shareholders. maximizing economic rights therefore means letting some people make even more decisions for other people. which means that this conception of economic rights winds up conflicting with the conception of freedom i mentioned earlier.

but that isn't the only way to maximize economic rights. for example, the more general idea of not having external constraints put on businesses is also satisfied if ownership and control of the means of production is turned over to the people who work on them and the communities in which they reside. in this case, the only constraints put on various firms would be those imposed by the owners of those firms. and since the people involved in making any of those decisions would be the people affected by them, this would actually be an increase freedom over decision making by the few.

social or collective ownership of the means of production is wholly compatible with both freedom and maximizing economic rights. individual ownership and control of things that many people use is incompatible with equal freedom for all, as it puts some at the mercy of the whims of others.

(i think that covers it - its sort of the quick and dirty argument for workplace democracy)

(started in response to the 'annoying facts about republicans' thread)

Most times I have seen Republicans saying things like, this current economic freedom thing is bs, it only helps the rich. now people use it for everything, we seriously need government control in it. But the government should advocate gay marriage, legalize pot, etc. I mean come on, you are controdicting yourselves by saying we need to limit rights, but not limit them
I say we advocate marriage and love in general, without specificly mentioning which kind. Pot is bad. It should remain illegal unless used medicinally. Think before you generalize and stereotype out of ignorance.