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.
 

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.


 

Flint wrote:

Is that what you mean by Socialism..

Hmmm...  You don't seem to read very well.

No, that is not Socialism.  It's voluntarism.  There is an all-important difference.  It's called "the will of the governed."  And it's the way the early American republic was governed...not by Socialism, which is not voluntary.
 

Flint wrote:

Can the government legitimately tax people and spend that money on stuff and things?

The American independence started because of taxation without representation.  Remember the big Tea Party, and all that?

What does that tell you?

Flint wrote:

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

Consent of the governed.  Voluntary.

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)

Pay your taxes or go to jail.  The third option, of course, is to go to an area that has no taxation.

the third option is evasion
  

Life is often difficult and we have to do things we don't want to do.  For example, I have to get up and work every day, which I find to be very unfair.  The universe has refused to recognize my exceptionalism, and if I don't work, then my bills don't get paid, and then I will wind up under a bridge somewhere. 

I work too, as I should...I take care of me and mine, as I should

not seein' your point


But wait!  In the world you envision, there would be no bridge.  Or if it were there, it would be owned by the local fiefdom, and they'd soon deal with my lazy trespassing self.  Using the NAP, of course.

there would be a bridge or roads or a fire dept if folks want those things and pay for those things, kinda like now

why is the big stick of gov required for folks to cooperate with one another?


I don't actually distinguish between various types of libertarians

well, rand wasn't any kind of libertarian, much less a natural rights type, but: as you like
 

would love to know what you reactionary libertarian types think of libertarian municipalism and/or democratic confederalism but getting you to read (or even read about) any Murray Bookchin or Abdullah Öcalan is probably too much of an ask, and i dont have the focus or attention span to write a primer for you right now

erika wrote:

would love to know what you reactionary libertarian types think of libertarian municipalism and/or democratic confederalism but getting you to read (or even read about) any Murray Bookchin or Abdullah Öcalan is probably too much of an ask, and i dont have the focus or attention span to write a primer for you right now

 
I'd be happy to give you an opinion, but you'll have to define 'em for me

libertarianism covers a lot of territory...I know my patch well, but not so much many of the others

i mean thats what i'm saying is, i dont have the attention span to give you a full rundown in forum-friendly soundbites of what "libertarian municipalism" and "democratic confederalism" entail as coherent ideologies, but i think wikipedia and google can get you most of the way