Clodfobble wrote:

Are fire departments socialist, IC?

IC wrote:

A funny question.  Maybe you can explain?  

Seems like a perfectly logical question to me. Fire departments are publicly funded, and they don't help people based on the amount of taxes they've paid. They only help people whose houses catch on fire. Over your lifetime, you are likely to pay tens of thousands of dollars--by law--for a fire department you will never use. Would you thus agree that fire departments are socialist?
 

They're Democratic Socialists. That isn't just a combination of one "good" word + one "bad" word, it's a specific thing. You said you're opposed to Socialism-- thats a specific thing.There are no Socialists in American politics.

IC wrote:

My argument so far has been for democratic governments that are held accountable to the people they serve.  So legit government functions like roads, or firefighting, or policing, or the military are not implicated at all.  They're legit functions of government -- ideally, a government the functions of which are strictly defined, the term of which is limited and the powers circumscribed by the rights of the public.

But things like "universal basic salary" or "arranging loans for college," or "economic confiscation and redistribution" are no part of a legitimate government's function.  Nor is "controlling the election" or "handing the country over to Socialist ideologues to be reshaped as they see fit."
 

Your list of legitimate functions is arbitrary. All of those functions have been done privately. We decide democratically to  do those things as well as to go to the moon. We decide these things through our representatives. We live in a country with a ruinous health care system because we've decided to. We can also decide to change that.

I get the fear of "socialism" boogeyman we don't want to be Venezuela but there is a huge difference between say modern Germany and a totalitarian state. The difficulty is that we need to engage with government rather than dismiss it. We need to treat government as a tool and use it responsibly. We have been rightly trained by our own propaganda to fear totalitarianism from the left unfortunately government skeptics  often have a blind spot for totalitarianism from the right. Choosing a middle path isn't sexy but it rarely leads to a bloodbath.

Last edited by griff (12/04/2020 8:08 am)

What to do with the people who are shitting right near us, but unwilling to pay for the pipes and treatment facilities?

*kill them

*drive them off

*make them pay

*pay for them

*move

*attend to your own health by spendin' your money to isolate your property from theirs

I can make a case for any of the above based on specific details of a specific scenario which you haven't offered

So I would have to voluntarily pay for each road I drive on, etc?

Sounds like a huge pain in the ass.  I think I'll just stick with the way things are now.

IC wrote:

Flint wrote:

There are no Socialists in American politics.

I see.

So, your cities occupied by terrorists, while others are burning, and others are collapsing from homelessness and failed Socialist policies.  All your whites are all accused of racism, your government is expanding to take over all functions of life, your elections are being fiddled...but there's no Socialist threat in America, even when your elected Democratic politicians support the people who are doing these things?  They're "democratic Socialists," not real Socialists...or Progressives, or Social Justice advocates, or peaceful protestors....

Yeah, I can't argue with "logic" like that.  Those who are determined to see no Socialism will certainly see none.

Oh, shit, not the white folks...

That's how representative democracy works.

you say that as though I -- a natural rights libertarian -- oughta just say well, that makes theft A-ok


Slaves don't get paid, and therefore cannot pay for anything.

throughout the history of slavery, plenty of slaves have gotten stipends

ain't the jingle-jangle in the pocket (or lack of) that determines slave status: it's the leash on the neck, the brand on the keister, bein' forced, in context, to pay for that which you deem is unnecessary...and if slavery is too weighty a notion for you, if bein' a slaver is sumthin' you can't wrap your head around, then let's talk about theft & thieves 


Ayn Rand would be proud of you.  If she were alive today, she'd write a 300 page load of tripe, call it something grand, dedicate it in your honor, and spend the results on cheap gin

rand ain't my hero, so you can put that insult away, tote it out when an objectivist comes along
 

Last edited by henry_quirk (12/04/2020 12:27 pm)

henry_quirk wrote:

What to do with the people who are shitting right near us, but unwilling to pay for the pipes and treatment facilities?

*kill them

*drive them off

*make them pay

*pay for them

*move

*attend to your own health by spendin' your money to isolate your property from theirs

I can make a case for any of the above based on specific details of a specific scenario which you haven't offered

So I could be spending my days in a protracted land feud with my neighbors, who are dumping their raw sewage into my drinking water? I'm sold on this libertarian utopia-- sign me up.
 

IC wrote:

What you can't legitimately do is steal their income from them, and force them to bow to your ideology and values
 

You mean-- democratically elect a  congress of representatives to manage through legislation on behalf of the people, including collecting taxes for the general welfare? That's the American system of Government as established in the Constitution. Is that what you mean by Socialism..?? Or is this a 3D chess, double-whammy debate strategy?

Last edited by Flint (12/04/2020 1:25 pm)

That taxation should be legislated by an elected, representative Congress?

IC wrote:

Undertoad wrote:

"It's not socialist because we didn't have a term for socialism" Bruh

No, it's not "Socialist" because voluntary combining in public works is not Socialist.  You can show people that sharing a burden or co-participating in public projects is advantageous. And they can voluntarily associate with you.  

According to the famous Alexis DeTocqueville, who is quoted even today by nearly every American sociologist and who travelled broadly and observed firsthand the functioning of early North American society, a strong system of voluntarism was exactly the way the early American republic ran.  He thought it truly remarkable how much Americans were able to achieve in this way.

The key word is "voluntary."  

What you can't legitimately do is steal their income from them, and force them to bow to your ideology and values.


 

There is precisely nothing keeping anyone from leaving the system.

By which I mean "the country".

We operate under a set of rules that is easy to understand in the abstract.  I don't see any reason to change those rules extra-legally, and you have zero chance to get an amendment through.

They only want their own, personal beliefs to be represented. The problem with our system is that it allows a pathetic little pip-squeak of barely left-leaning representation to slip through the cracks* and that's tantamount to a Socialist scourge.

*despite opposition from both parties and the whole media at every step of the way

Last edited by Flint (12/04/2020 2:49 pm)