Libertarian Discussion Thread II - Don't Thread on Me

[Martune]

*Interns Japanese-Americans*

"wOw, what an American hero!"

>interns people based on their race
>uses the government to harass political opponents
>ruins the economy and causes a recession during the depression lmao
>tries to tax civil rights out of existence
>refuses to make lynching a federal crime
>Jesse Owens felt more insulted by FDR than Hitler

"he's such a progressive hero guis!"

your policies aren't unconstitutional if you pack the court

[Torrocca]

Nah.

>slave-owning: yes, because surely no classical liberal ever denounced slavery or even freed their slaves

>TFW most of the most popular founding fathers owned slaves

>genocidal: those evil pathogens!

Because destroying Native villages, committing massacres, and the Trail of Tears don't real

>psychopaths: now you're just being silly

Murdering natives for territorial expansion is psychopathic, thank you very much.

*Interns Japanese-Americans*

"wOw, what an American hero!"

>interns people based on their race
>uses the government to harass political opponents
>ruins the economy and causes a recession during the depression lmao
>tries to tax civil rights out of existence
>refuses to make lynching a federal crime
>Jesse Owens felt more insulted by FDR than Hitler

"he's such a progressive hero guis!"

>TFW people actually representing America are less insulted by Hitler than the actual president

Man, FDR was such a champion for progressivism!

(poor Jesse Owens tho, makes me sad the guy felt better around hitler than his own president ;~;)

[Frievolk]

Because destroying Native villages, committing massacres, and the Trail of Tears don't real

Ok but the Trail of Tears wasn't necessarily done by the Classical Liberals

[Torrocca]

Because destroying Native villages, committing massacres, and the Trail of Tears don't real

Ok but the Trail of Tears wasn't necessarily done by the Classical Liberals

I mean, couldn't you technically argue that Jackson (or at the very least, a large number of the government) was(were) a Classical Liberal(s)?

[Northern Davincia]

Ok but the Trail of Tears wasn't necessarily done by the Classical Liberals

I mean, couldn't you technically argue that Jackson (or at the very least, a large number of the government) was(were) a Classical Liberal(s)?

Populists cannot be classical liberals.

[Sovaal]

*Interns Japanese-Americans*

"wOw, what an American hero!"

>interns people based on their race
>uses the government to harass political opponents
>ruins the economy and causes a recession during the depression lmao
>tries to tax civil rights out of existence
>refuses to make lynching a federal crime
>Jesse Owens felt more insulted by FDR than Hitler

"he's such a progressive hero guis!"

Didn’t he also majorly support the NFA?

[Washington Resistance Army]

>interns people based on their race
>uses the government to harass political opponents
>ruins the economy and causes a recession during the depression lmao
>tries to tax civil rights out of existence
>refuses to make lynching a federal crime
>Jesse Owens felt more insulted by FDR than Hitler

"he's such a progressive hero guis!"

Didn’t he also majorly support the NFA?

Yes, that was the "tax civil rights out of existence" part.

[Sovaal]

Didn’t he also majorly support the NFA?

Yes, that was the "tax civil rights out of existence" part.

Well on that part then modern liberal would love him.

[Torrocca]

Yes, that was the "tax civil rights out of existence" part.

Well on that part then modern liberal would love him.

Honestly, I'd be kinda alright with liberals if it weren't for that part right there. Like at least for all their faults the idea of more universally-applied civil rights came thanks to both Classical and modern Liberals (and also literally every non-authoritarian leftist in existence).

[Proctopeo]

How so?

I'd wager it's because they're basically feudalists, but for corporations instead of royalty. Feudalists without crowns if you will.

anarcho-capitalism sounds a lot like Longism if you put it that way

>slave-owning: yes, because surely no classical liberal ever denounced slavery or even freed their slaves

>TFW most of the most popular founding fathers owned slaves

A few, at the very least, expressed a want to free them... which was illegal back then. Washington treated his slaves more like live-in employees than actual slaves, which was pretty much the best he could do in that situation.

>genocidal: those evil pathogens!

Because destroying Native villages, committing massacres, and the Trail of Tears don't real

Debatable if those people were classical liberals. Jackson, maybe, but he was also rather unhinged. Too audacious to legitimate hate in my eyes, really.

>psychopaths: now you're just being silly

Murdering natives for territorial expansion is psychopathic, thank you very much.

They should've gone full capitalist and just bought their land. For objects of real or fictional value, doesn't especially matter.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

I mean, couldn't you technically argue that Jackson (or at the very least, a large number of the government) was(were) a Classical Liberal(s)?

Populists cannot be classical liberals.

Strongly disagree. Classical liberals cannot be elitists.

[Elwher]

Anarcho-capitalists are not libertarians.

Right-Libertarians, at least, and perhaps Libertarians in general are people who wish anarchism would work but know better, so they take the next best thing.

[Torrocca]

Anarcho-capitalists are not libertarians.

Right-Libertarians, at least, and perhaps Libertarians in general are people who wish anarchism would work but know better, so they take the next best thing.

B-but the Zapatistas and Revolutionary Catalonia! ;~;

[Elwher]

Right-Libertarians, at least, and perhaps Libertarians in general are people who wish anarchism would work but know better, so they take the next best thing.

B-but the Zapatistas and Revolutionary Catalonia! ;~;

If the government is strong enough to be seizing property then it is not anarchism.

[Torrocca]

B-but the Zapatistas and Revolutionary Catalonia! ;~;

If the government is strong enough to be seizing property then it is not anarchism.

I

what

Both groups abolished the state and seized private (not personal) property, which is literally the base definition of what Anarchism is.

[Elwher]

If the government is strong enough to be seizing property then it is not anarchism.

I

what

Both groups abolished the state and seized private (not personal) property, which is literally the base definition of what Anarchism is.

First, my property is my property. You can call it personal and/or private but it is still mine, and you cannot have it unless I agree to give it to you or you steal it.

Second, one may claim to abolish the state but if you are an organized group stealing property you are a government, no matter what you call yourself. A true anarchy does not have organized groups acting in concert against a minority of the residents.

[Torrocca]

I

what

Both groups abolished the state and seized private (not personal) property, which is literally the base definition of what Anarchism is.

First, my property is my property. You can call it personal and/or private but it is still mine, and you cannot have it unless I agree to give it to you or you steal it.

Declaring yourself lord of a factory wherein hundreds work to make it a success is tyranny, through and through.

Second, one may claim to abolish the state but if you are an organized group stealing property you are a government, no matter what you call yourself. A true anarchy does not have organized groups acting in concert against a minority of the residents.

Organization and having a government =/= having a state. The Zapatista communities organize through direct participatory democracy, wherein they strive for general consensus above all else, and only engage in majority vote if that's impossible. They don't have a state because of this, just a method of organizing their community based on communal needs. It's been renowned by international groups for making swathes of Chiapas one of the best of the more isolated, impoverished regions in Mexico. Healthcare, education, human rights (especially for indigenous peoples), and general HDI growth became soaring thanks to the Zapatistas.

[Elwher]

First, my property is my property. You can call it personal and/or private but it is still mine, and you cannot have it unless I agree to give it to you or you steal it.

Declaring yourself lord of a factory wherein hundreds work to make it a success is tyranny, through and through.

Second, one may claim to abolish the state but if you are an organized group stealing property you are a government, no matter what you call yourself. A true anarchy does not have organized groups acting in concert against a minority of the residents.

Organization and having a government =/= having a state. The Zapatista communities organize through direct participatory democracy, wherein they strive for general consensus above all else, and only engage in majority vote if that's impossible. They don't have a state because of this, just a method of organizing their community based on communal needs. It's been renowned by international groups for making swathes of Chiapas one of the best of the more isolated, impoverished regions in Mexico. Healthcare, education, human rights (especially for indigenous peoples), and general HDI growth became soaring thanks to the Zapatistas.

As to your first, what about throwing out the current owner of a factory and declaring it to be yours, is that somehow different? I think not. It seems to me that the Revolutionary Council is the one making such a sweeping declaration.

As to your second, what is the difference in your opinion between a government and a state? To me, they are different terms for the same thing. If a group of people make rules that all are expected to live by, that is a government/state to me. If I am ruled only by myself, that is anarchism.

[Torrocca]

Declaring yourself lord of a factory wherein hundreds work to make it a success is tyranny, through and through.



Organization and having a government =/= having a state. The Zapatista communities organize through direct participatory democracy, wherein they strive for general consensus above all else, and only engage in majority vote if that's impossible. They don't have a state because of this, just a method of organizing their community based on communal needs. It's been renowned by international groups for making swathes of Chiapas one of the best of the more isolated, impoverished regions in Mexico. Healthcare, education, human rights (especially for indigenous peoples), and general HDI growth became soaring thanks to the Zapatistas.

As to your first, what about throwing out the current owner of a factory and declaring it to be yours, is that somehow different? I think not. It seems to me that the Revolutionary Council is the one making such a sweeping declaration.

Democratic ownership is inherently better than authoritarian ownership.

As to your second, what is the difference in your opinion between a government and a state? To me, they are different terms for the same thing. If a group of people make rules that all are expected to live by, that is a government/state to me. If I am ruled only by myself, that is anarchism.

Primarily, a state is a centralized figure of authority, arguing that it has a legal use of violence or the threat of it to maintain power, which is run by a centralized government. Not all governments form states (such as, for instance, the communal, direct participatory democratic governments of the Zapatista communities). A decentralized government, by its very nature, can't be a state.

[Elwher]

As to your first, what about throwing out the current owner of a factory and declaring it to be yours, is that somehow different? I think not. It seems to me that the Revolutionary Council is the one making such a sweeping declaration.

Democratic ownership is inherently better than authoritarian ownership.

As to your second, what is the difference in your opinion between a government and a state? To me, they are different terms for the same thing. If a group of people make rules that all are expected to live by, that is a government/state to me. If I am ruled only by myself, that is anarchism.

Primarily, a state is a centralized figure of authority, arguing that it has a legal use of violence or the threat of it to maintain power, which is run by a centralized government. Not all governments form states (such as, for instance, the communal, direct participatory democratic governments of the Zapatista communities). A decentralized government, by its very nature, can't be a state.

Democratic ownership is fine, as long as the current owner is fairly compensated for the effort he put into the creation of the enterprise or the worker's council starts from scratch and builds their own factory.

If a member of the Zapatisa community decides to not obey the participatory democratic government, what happens to him? If he is exiled, jailed, or otherwise punished, then there is your violence or the threat of it. Call the centralized authority a king, a president, or a revolutionary council; if it can punish it is a state.

[Torrocca]

Democratic ownership is inherently better than authoritarian ownership.



Primarily, a state is a centralized figure of authority, arguing that it has a legal use of violence or the threat of it to maintain power, which is run by a centralized government. Not all governments form states (such as, for instance, the communal, direct participatory democratic governments of the Zapatista communities). A decentralized government, by its very nature, can't be a state.

Democratic ownership is fine, as long as the current owner is fairly compensated for the effort he put into the creation of the enterprise or the worker's council starts from scratch and builds their own factory.

He can be fairly compensated by being allowed to become part of the working class to share in the fruits of the collective effort :^)

If a member of the Zapatisa community decides to not obey the participatory democratic government, what happens to him? If he is exiled, jailed, or otherwise punished, then there is your violence or the threat of it. Call the centralized authority a king, a president, or a revolutionary council; if it can punish it is a state.

I don't think there's punishments to not obeying the decisions made by the community as a whole; just punishments to doing things that'd be an affront to individual or collective liberties. I'll have to look further into that, honestly.

[Elwher]

Democratic ownership is fine, as long as the current owner is fairly compensated for the effort he put into the creation of the enterprise or the worker's council starts from scratch and builds their own factory.

He can be fairly compensated by being allowed to become part of the working class to share in the fruits of the collective effort :^)

If a member of the Zapatisa community decides to not obey the participatory democratic government, what happens to him? If he is exiled, jailed, or otherwise punished, then there is your violence or the threat of it. Call the centralized authority a king, a president, or a revolutionary council; if it can punish it is a state.

I don't think there's punishments to not obeying the decisions made by the community as a whole; just punishments to doing things that'd be an affront to individual or collective liberties. I'll have to look further into that, honestly.

But how can a government punish without violence or the threat of violence, no matter what the cause of the punishment? And, if it does do so, is it not then a state by your definition?

[Torrocca]

He can be fairly compensated by being allowed to become part of the working class to share in the fruits of the collective effort :^)



I don't think there's punishments to not obeying the decisions made by the community as a whole; just punishments to doing things that'd be an affront to individual or collective liberties. I'll have to look further into that, honestly.

But how can a government punish without violence or the threat of violence, no matter what the cause of the punishment? And, if it does do so, is it not then a state by your definition?

A government can still punish with violence without becoming a state; violence alone does not make a government a state.

This might help get a better idea of the Zapatista communities as a whole. It goes further in depth about them than I ever could here.

[Mladorossiya]

I get the impression that right-Libertarians and An-Caps succumb to 'No true anarchy' most of the time, in order to discredit left-libertarian societies.

[Torrocca]

I get the impression that right-Libertarians and An-Caps succumb to 'No true anarchy' most of the time, in order to discredit left-libertarian societies.

They have a tendency to turn to people like Pinochet if actual Libertarianism looks like it's starting to work. (NOT ALL OF THE RIGHT-LIBERTARIANS, OBVIOUSLY, mostly AnCaps and the like)