Just why?

[psiberzerker]

If a state wanted to start running itself as socialist, it would be perfectly free to do so.

Not really. Socialism doesn't work in the real world as a continental scale state anyway, and the old state (America) would have to be removed to do that social experiment. Also, it tends to be vulnerable to Totalitarians, but then, so does Capitalism.

 

[BotanyBoy]

No economic exchanges under capitalism are "free." None.

LOL yea they are, that's the short definition of capitalism.

The opposition capitalism vs. socialism = freedom vs. anti-freedom is meaningless.

No, it's not...you just wish it was because you're a freedom loathing lefty.

America was not conceived in opposition to socialism.

Not proper...but proto for sure.

Ever heard of the Boston tea party?

The Revolution was not a revolt against socialism.

It was against economic oppression, same shit.

If a state wanted to start running itself as socialist, it would be perfectly free to do so. If the whole country decided to turn socialist it would be perfectly free to choose that.

No it wouldn't...not without getting rid of the Bill of Rights it couldn't.

Best of luck with that.

Capitalism does not define America.

uhhhh...pick up a history book cucpcake.

Might not define it, but it built it.

You may not like socialism, but trying to make it un-American, the very antithesis of America is, is ludicrous.

No, it's not....but you would have to have payed attention in history class to understand that and educating you isn't my job so best of luck making the USSA happen.

American freedom and liberty = democracy = "a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives."

Democracy =/= freedom and liberty.

Democracy does not equal and is not synonymous with capitalism.

Nor freedom and liberty.....because that would mean capitalism.

 

[psiberzerker]

Democracy =/= freedom and liberty.

Nor freedom and liberty.....because that would mean capitalism.

This is the testbed for your false equivalency. So, if Capitalism=Freedom, then why aren't we all free?

If Capitalism=Democracy (One of the properties of logic. A=B=C. Either all of them are equally equivalent, or at least one isn't. If A=B, but A=/=C, then B=/=C.) Then there can be no Capitalism without Democracy, and no Democracy without Capitalism? History doesn't support that presumption, and neither does logic.

Liberty=Anarchy. The overrule of a state takes rights, liberties, and freedom from the population to rule. For example, taxation.

 

[BotanyBoy]

This is the testbed for your false equivalency. So, if Capitalism=Freedom, then why aren't we all free?

It's not a false equivalency.

And because we have a mixed economy, not a capitalist one.

If Capitalism=Democracy (One of the properties of logic. A=B=C. Either all of them are equally equivalent, or at least one isn't. If A=B, but A=/=C, then B=/=C.) Then there can be no Capitalism without Democracy, and no Democracy without Capitalism? History doesn't support that presumption, and neither does logic.

Probably because you're the only one who's saying capitalism = democracy.

Liberty=Anarchy.

In it's most extreme form yes....ALWAYS resulting in a natural hierarchy.

Which is why anarchism is right wing, not left.

No government = no equality....because people are not equal.

 

[psiberzerker]

because we have a mixed economy, not a capitalist one.

okay, this is closer to a nuanced point than an absolute idealism, so please explain the differences.

In it's most extreme form yes....resulting in a natural hierarchy.

This isn't freedom, it's freedom for some. It's not a free state unless everyone is free. That's how you get slave owners writing "All men are created equal." you just had to throw in your superiority complex, didn't you?

Which is why anarchism is right wing, not left.

Here's where you, a statist, tell me what anarchism is. Again.

No, it's blow up the parlament building, and start over. No more wings, you want some carrots, and celery sticks with that?

 

[BotanyBoy]

okay, this is closer to a nuanced point than an absolute idealism, so please explain the differences.

We have socialistic and capitalistic economic policies next to each other...it's a mixed economy.

Is there some part of that you don't understand?

This isn't freedom, it's freedom for some. It's not a free state unless everyone is free. That's how you get slave owners writing "All men are created equal."

Yes it is, it's freedom for those who take it...or keep it.

Here's where you, a statist, tell me what anarchism is. Again.

As if being as statist prevents me from understanding what anarchism is? LOL

Or you the flaming socialist has some authority to re-define the term to mean "pro government but only the kind psiberzerker approves of" because you "self identify" as an Anarchist???

LOL

No, it's blow up the parlament building, and start over. No more wings, you want some carrots, and celery sticks with that?

And by doing so you ENSURE a right wing environment of natural hierarchy and the extreme capitalism that comes with it.

You can't get rid of wings unless you get rid of haves and have-nots....which ain't ever going to happen, because people aren't equal.

 

[psiberzerker]

We have socialistic and capitalistic economic policies next to each other.

Yes, but you're asserting that Capitalism is freer than Anarchy. Not Socialism. Even if there's some social programs in there, we have money to buy products, and own personal stuff. So, there's not enough socialism there to account for the lack of freedom, unless you connect the dots. "Because socialism" isn't an answer.

As if being as statist prevents me from understanding what anarchism is?[/qoute] Better than an anarchist? That's Identity politics again.

Or you the flaming socialist has some authority to re-define the term to mean "pro government but only the kind psiberzerker approves of" because you "self identify" as an Anarchist?

Strawman.

And by doing so you ENSURE a right wing environment of natural hierarchy and the extreme capitalism that comes with it.

How? ENSURE explicitely states causality. How does arguing politics with you affect the government whatsoever?

In fact, what does this "Natural Order" sseig heil! gain or lose from us talking about it? if it's a natural heirarchy, then sticks and stones can't break it's bones, much less words ever hurt it.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Yes, but you're asserting that Capitalism is freer than Anarchy.

Never at any point. Where do you come up with this shit?

Strawman.

Asking you to plant a flag and own your blatant implications or back off the bullshit isn't a strawman.

You don't know what that word means either apparently...shocking

How? ENSURE explicitely states causality.

Who's going to make all the egalitarian bullshit happen with no government around?

How does arguing politics with you affect the government whatsoever?

It doesn't, never said it did.

In fact, what does this "Natural Order" sseig heil! gain or lose from us talking about it?

if it's a natural heirarchy, then sticks and stones can't break it's bones, much less words ever hurt it.

It doesn't from us talking about it and I never said it did.

But government action, specifically leftism seeks to use government authority to negate or eliminate the natural hierarchy.

They can hurt it but they can't make it go away or kill it off...just ask Venezuela, or someone who lived in the Soviet Union.

 

[psiberzerker]

"So what you're saying is."

Strawman. I'm done replying to your argument for what I said. If you don't understand it, ask me what I mean, don't assume implications you made up to argue with. That's arguing with the strawman, and I don't have to participate if you two want to be alone...

Who's going to make all the egalitarian bullshit happen with no government around?

This is a long complicated sociological belief. I could explain it, unless this is a rehtorical question. Would you like to know, sincerely?

But government action, specifically leftism seeks to use government authority to negate or eliminate the natural hierarchy.

What natural heirarchy? Who's on top, you? Who's at the bottom propping you up with taxes? Who do you take your authority from? I'm just going to assume you don't place yourself at the bottom of this scrotum pole.

They can hurt it but they can't make it go away or kill it off...just ask Venezuela, or someone who lived in the Soviet Union.

Do you know anyone from the Soviet Union? That was Communism, AND it was corrupted by totalitarian Oligarchy. (Who used the state ownership to seize the means of production, and starve the workers. Also, to hide Eugenics.)

So again, how is that caused by socialism? Connect the dots...

 

[BotanyBoy]

Strawman.

Is not what you misquoting me is....that's just generic dishonesty.

This is a long complicated sociological belief. I could explain it, unless this is a rehtorical question. Would you like to know, sincerely?

Oh I'd love to hear about how you think everyone will just share everything equally and treat everyone equally without the government there to force it.

Seriously...

What natural heirarchy?

The hierarchy that ALWAYS occurs in the absence of government authority.

Do you know anyone from the Soviet Union? That was Communism, AND it was corrupted by totalitarian Oligarchy.

So again, how is that caused by socialism? Connect the dots...

Yes.

Communism is the goal of socialism.

Socialism is the tool by which the left attempts to bring about communism.

You can't separate the two anymore than you can separate liberalism from capitalism.

Totalitarian Oligarchies are caused by socialism because of the nature of socialism, which is totalitarian.

 

[psiberzerker]

Oh I'd love to hear about how you think everyone will just share everything equally and treat everyone equally without the government there to force it.

Okay, Locally. the short answer is that it's easier to be egalitarian toward your neighbors if you have to face them every day. Will this be a fucking utopia with unicorns, and teletubbies skipping through the plastic flowers, and startling the bunnies? No, but I'm not making promises here, I'm just stating how it works, in my experience, at the community level.

However, it doesn't scale up to the National level without a National Government, which is statist. there's nothing to prevent let's say the teenagers taking the truck, and fucking over the people in the next town, because they don't have to face them every day. you'd still have to have private ownership (Which is not Socialist) and be responsible for protecting what is your's, because there aren't police to protect you from petty crimes, like Theft.

I don't believe that everyone will share everything equally, ever. I'm not a socialist. I don't believe in that either. capitalism, would have to be worked out with the community. Money is really handy compared to barter when it comes to something like paying someone to set up a mirco-hydro-electric system to get the lights back on, or distill a gasoline substitute when the wells run dry.

I said it equals Freedom (And adding that capitalism is Optional. I've seen it work both ways, with no appreciable affect on Freedom.) Not Socialism. You're the one who seems to be stuck on Socialism.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Okay, Locally. the short answer is that it's easier to be egalitarian toward your neighbors if you have to face them every day.

The 3rd world shows otherwise.

I'm just stating how it works, in my experience, at the community level.

But that's not how it works.

What community have you lived in that had no government authority?

you'd still have to have private ownership (Which is not Socialist) and be responsible for protecting what is your's, because there aren't police to protect you from petty crimes, like Theft.

Yep...which will result in hierarchy.

Private ownership...hierarchy...personal responsibility for your own shit because no nanny state to wipe your ass for you...right wing as fuck.

I'm not a socialist. I don't believe in that either.

You're progressive though.....LOL

Progressives are almost all socialist, you seem to be but unwilling to admit it.

Tell me more about how you support social services and public schools because it's "for the greater good" or "Lesser evil".

I said it equals Freedom (And adding that capitalism is Optional. I've seen it work both ways, with no appreciable affect on Freedom.) Not Socialism. You're the one who seems to be stuck on Socialism.

Capitalism isn't really optional...given freedom people will engage in the exchange of goods and services, guaranteed.

I'm not stuck on socialism.

 

[psiberzerker]

The 3rd world shows otherwise.

Which third world? The Kalahari? The Basques? The Isle of Man? Here in the first world too. Why don't you go to Somalia, and tell them all about your natural heirarchy. I'm sure they'd love to hear all about it, and you won't be shot on sight by 13yo boys with Kalashnikovs. Tell me about the 3rd world when you actually experience it.

What community have you lived in that had no government authority?

That one. I helped them build it, while OPDX was keeping the governmental authority "Occupied." Still going strong. You want more, or did you follow the link?

Yep...which will result in hierarchy.

That one you still won't say any details about. Is it because you don't know, or because you know it's intrinsically racist, and sexist?

Progressives are almost all socialist, you seem to be but unwilling to admit it.

Oh, so now I AM progressive? Convenient when you want to call me a Socialist, but inconvenient when it comes to any other discussion. No, most of us are not socialists.

Tell me more about how you support social services and public schools because it's "for the greater good" or "Lesser evil".

I don't, I was trying to pin down why you support socialist programs which don't work, AND come out of your taxes, when you claim that's stolen from you to give children free shit. (It doesn't, the parents end up paying for it.) You missed that too, and that was last week. Besides, I don't have to tell you about it, you just told me all about it. Again.

Capitalism isn't really optional...given freedom people will engage in the exchange of goods and services, guaranteed

Yeah, and a token economy does seem to make it easier than barter, because there's an agreed apon system, but your point that not having it inevitably leads to Socialism, and a Natural Heirarchy (You still have no details of) doesn't bear out. It works without capaitalism, it's just clumkier, and has more haggling.

I'm not stuck on socialism.

Then try to have 1 conversation, with anyone, without it coming up as a crutch. Doesn't even have to be an argument, just try to make a point with no reference to Socialism, and link it when you have an example. I just want to see it. (That goes for Nazis, Commies, and any other euphemisms you use for it.)

 

[Hypoxia]

The many variants and mixtures of capitalism, socialism, mercantilism, etc are economic systems, not political systems or government forms. These are mix-n-match components. Choose from columns A, B, and C to build a social system.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Which third world?

Pick one without any government authority there are quite a few.

Why don't you go to Somalia, and tell them all about your natural heirarchy.

I've been, more than once....I did with 7.62x51mm.

Botany isn't my first profession, fast roping/jumping out of perfectly good aircraft, meeting interesting exotic people and killing them came first.

I'm sure they'd love to hear all about it, and you won't be shot on sight by 13yo boys with Kalashnikovs. Tell me about the 3rd world when you actually experience it.

They weren't fast enough and I could see in the dark.

I've been in more 3rd world shitholes than you can name off the top of your head.

Oh, so now I AM progressive?

You've claimed to be a progressive anarchist, arguably one of the most oxymoron things I've heard since BND's idea about the capitalistic communists, more than once no?

I don't, I was trying to pin down why you support socialist programs which don't work, AND come out of your taxes.

I don't support socialist programs, especially ones that don't work.

Yeah, and a token economy does seem to make it easier than barter, because there's an agreed apon system, but your point that not having it inevitably leads to Socialism, and a Natural Heirarchy (

I never made that point.....you continue to make up random word salads.

 

[BotanyBoy]

The many variants and mixtures of capitalism, socialism, mercantilism, etc are economic systems, not political systems or government forms. These are mix-n-match components. Choose from columns A, B, and C to build a social system.

Not all of them are compatible though.

Like "progressive anarchism" and "capitalistic communism" .....that's a special kinda crazy derp.

 

[psiberzerker]

I never made that point.

No, which is why i keep pressing that point. Natural heirarchy is your Word Salad, and you've failed to adress it for the 5th time, in as many minutes.

Now, your point, support it.

 

[psiberzerker]

You've claimed to be a progressive anarchist, arguably one of the most oxymoron things I've heard since BND's idea about the capitalistic communists, more than once no?

yes, and i even tried to explain it to you on multiple occasions, but you continually deny it, UNLESS you can use it to claim that I'm a socialist. Then, I'm a progressive. Oh, sorry, "Progressive." Because you've got the only dictionary on earth that defines Progressive as "Socialist" and Right Wing as "Liberal."

 

[BotanyBoy]

No, which is why i keep pressing that point.

Making up random shit isn't pressing any point.

Natural heirarchy is your Word Salad, and you've failed to adress it for the 5th time, in as many minutes.

No I haven't.

Now, your point, support it.

What about it do you not understand?



Go to prison or a 3rd world shit hole, you'll find out exactly what natural hierarchy is.

 

[BotanyBoy]

yes,

And just how do you plan on making progress happen without a government authority to force it?

Right...ya can't.

Because you've got the only dictionary on earth that defines Progressive as "Socialist" and Right Wing as "Liberal."

No, they pretty much all do, which is why you hate them so much.

Right wing is not liberal for the umpteenth time...it's hierarchical.

Liberalism being hierarchical is right wing.

 

[psiberzerker]

And just how do you plan on making progress happen without a government authority to force it?

Through technological superiority, and preparation.

Liberalism being hierarchical is right wing.

Wait, what? Is that ranch dressing on that word salad?

 

[BotanyBoy]

Through technological superiority, and preparation.

And who's applying this technological superiority to force the millions of others into your "progress"??

Wait, what? Is that ranch dressing on that word salad?

No that's a political science 1301 class you've apparently never taken.

Can't help the uneducated AND willfully ignorant I guess....it doesn't get anymore basic than how I laid it out.

Right wing = hierarchy.
Liberalism = hierarchical...and thus right wing.

Really simple, like 9th grade shit.

 

[psiberzerker]

And who's applying this technological superiority to force the millions of others into your "progress"?

they voted for him. I didn't sign up to save the world from itself.

Right wing = hierarchy.
Liberalism = hierarchical

Okay, no. That's the heirarchy of any political, or social system. Even Socialism tries to avoid that heirarchy, but instead inevitably breaks down to the Bougesoise stealing from the proletariat. (Or in communism, the Government enslaving them)

Liberalism is heriarchal, but that doesn't mean Liberal=Right Wing just because they share one of the core traits of statism.

Still doesn't even begin to describe the supposed "Natural" heirarchy of an anarchy. So, you've been to Somalia, and that's great. Seriously, because you saw exactly what kind of Anarchy they have there, a Warlord Anarchy. However, that didn't grow out of the Anarchy, the warlords overthrough the original political system that was there, and continued to support the Anarchy (By military power) because it benefitted them.

Unfortunately, Unicef, and CCF continue to donate food there, for them to seize, and use to enslave children.

 

[BotanyBoy]

they voted for him. I didn't sign up to save the world from itself.

What the fuck?? That's the most random pile of not a response to anything I've seen all day.

I ask again.

How are you going to force your "progress" upon those who don't want it without any government authority to do so?

Liberalism is heriarchal, but that doesn't mean Liberal=Right Wing just because they share one of the core traits of statism.

No it makes it right wing because liberalism encourages and promotes the hierarchy...because highly capitalistic.

Socialism and all the various flavors of leftism seek to eliminate it....left wing = egalitarian, the opposite of hierarchy.

Still doesn't even begin to describe the supposed "Natural" heirarchy of an anarchy.

Yea it does.

Guess what happens without government authority??

You get Somalia, Congo, Afghanistan, every man for themselves...buncha gangsters and warlords running everything. Tribalism, keep what you kill.

However, that didn't grow out of the Anarchy,

Unless you're using some dishonest bullshit made up definition of the word?

Yea..that's exactly where it grew from.....anarchy = no government authority = gangster shit running the streets.

 

[psiberzerker]

How are you going to force your "progress" upon those who don't want it without any government authority to do so?

I'm not.

because highly capitalistic.

Okay, time for a break. You're losing your sentence structure. (It was a lot of fun while it lasted!)

Socialism and all the various flavors of leftism seek to eliminate it.

Ideally, yeah. However, eliminating it isn't a concievable goal, it's an ideal. they want to fight it getting to the point where people own slaves again. Social/egalitarian programs fight us becoming Fascists.

You get Somalia, Congo, Afghanistan, every man for themselves...buncha gangsters and warlords running everything.

No, all of those places already had all that, and they survived the collapse of government, where they didn't overthrow it in the first place. Again, this isn't your natural heirarchy, it was a pre-existing condition, in all 3 of those examples.

It doesn't depend on your definition, if the red sea was already there, then it didn't grow out of the Anarchy of Somalia, it was just used to fund the warlords who were already there.