1."Federal agencies have the authority to intervene in protests, picket signs, or blockades. The law is impartial: it must be enforced without exception."
2."Federal forces are not required to have judicial oversight for their actions."
3."Forces are not obligated to consider alternative entrances or pathways. If the main path is blocked, their duty is to clear it."
4."This action continues until the flow of traffic is fully restored."
5."To carry out these acts, forces will use the minimum necessary force, which is sufficient and proportional to the situation they are addressing."
6."Instigators and organizers of the protest will be identified."
7."Vehicles used in the protest will be identified and subjected to citations or penalties."
8."Data of the instigators, accomplices, participants, and organizers will be transmitted to the authorities through appropriate channels."
9."Notices will be sent to the judge in cases of damage, such as burning flags."
10."In cases involving minors, relevant authorities will be notified, and the guardians of these youths who bring them to these demonstrations will face sanctions and punishment."
11."The costs incurred by security operations will be borne by the responsible organizations or individuals. In cases involving foreigners with provisional residency, information will be forwarded to the National Directorate of Immigration."
12."A registry will be created for organizations that participate in these types of actions."
Gee, really interesting how libertarian reforms are extremely unpopular and can only be maintained by brutal state violence. Luckily they're a democracy and not authoritarian communists where the people have no say!
Libertarian reforms are supposed to be unpopular among people who lose from them, which would be everyone getting more than giving from taxation.
Libertarianism is about individual independence.
I just have doubts over how any libertarian would explain these events in particular, so going to search for some amusement in the few ancap TG channels I remember.
Libertarian reforms are supposed to be unpopular among people who lose from them, which would be everyone getting more than giving from taxation.
Libertarian uses fascist argument
unapologetic, but peaceful and harmless Japan
History of fascist apologism I see
History of fascist apologism I see
That was in a comment comparing Japan to Turkey, so either you really failed to read anything else or you are expecting others to just believe you. In any case you are a clown.
What you said is meaningless. Japan isn't just unapologetic, they're actively denying that they committed war crimes. They're also governed by fascists who actively want to build the military back up, so "peaceful and harmless" for now maybe.
i don't wanna um actually and in no way do i think the current and prior administrations at any level which could be said to hold office has completely vindicated themselves (as i understand is the case as it is said from countries which were majorly affected, e.g. china and south korea)
i do think it's important to know the sequence of events and that there was something that some people might point to as "aha! we did apologize, what else do you want!!?"
I'm not the one to determine if a proper apology has been made, though I like to be informed what such folks might think and what the perpetrators likewise think, oh, and the history or sequence of events.
I pasted a condensed timeline here, source is wikipedia:
1957: Prime Minister Kishi Nobusuke said to the people of Australia: "It is my official duty, and my personal desire, to express to you and through you to the people of Australia, our heartfelt sorrow for what occurred in the war."
September 29, 1972: Prime Minister Kakuei Tanaka said to the people of the People's Republic of China: "The Japanese side is keenly conscious of the responsibility for the serious damage that Japan caused in the past to the Chinese people through war, and deeply reproaches itself. Further, the Japanese side reaffirms its position that it intends to realize the normalization of relations between the two countries from the stand of fully understanding 'the three principles for the restoration of relations' put forward by the Government of the People's Republic of China. The Chinese side expresses its welcome for this" (Joint Communique of the Government of Japan and the Government of the People's Republic of China).
September 6, 1984: Emperor Hirohito said to President Chun Doo Hwan: "It is indeed regrettable that there was an unfortunate past between us for a period in this century and I believe that it should not be repeated again."
NOTE: This one is so lame, i don't know what the original is (i'm assuming it's translated) and this seems so watered down, especially because HE WAS ALIVE THEN ARRGHHH AND IT WAS DONE IN HIS NAME ARSDFLJKGSDKLJF
July 6, 1992. Chief Cabinet Secretary Koichi Kato said: "The Government again would like to express its sincere apology and remorse to all those who have suffered indescribable hardship as so-called 'wartime comfort women,' irrespective of their nationality or place of birth. With profound remorse and determination that such a mistake must never be repeated, Japan will maintain its stance as a pacifist nation and will endeavor to build up new future-oriented relations with the Republic of Korea and with other countries and regions in Asia. As I listen to many people, I feel truly grieved for this issue. By listening to the opinions of people from various directions, I would like to consider sincerely in what way we can express our feelings to those who suffered such hardship" (Statement by Chief Cabinet Secretary Koichi Kato on the Issue of the so-called "Wartime Comfort Women" from the Korean Peninsula).
August 10, 2010: Prime Minister Naoto Kan expressed "deep regret over the suffering inflicted" during the Empire of Japan's colonial rule over Korea. Japan's Kyodo News also reported that Cabinet members endorsed the statement. In addition, Kan said that Japan will hand over precious cultural artifacts that South Korea has been demanding. Among them were records of an ancient Korean royal dynasty.
The trend is towards lameness I think. Even repeating the words someone else said before (to honor them or something) would be nice as what was said before seems to accept way more responsibility and, crucially, acknowledges the specifics of what happened.
None seem to mention the 'presumed supremacy' and 'pan-asian empire' that I think drove some of the ideology. I don't know what else to call that kind of obfuscation besides cowardice.
He is raising taxes too though. Gotta pay for the people to repress the reaction to your dogshit policies.
Well, politics are like this. "Stability and anti-fascism" in Russia, "democratic" North Korea, and now a "libertarian" police state in Argentina. Names matter very little.
Can't avoid touching on the subject of this instance:
USSR was also:
"socialist" (with only state-controlled unions and job appointment for 5 years by distribution you couldn't refuse after university),
"Soviet" (with Soviets controlling maybe some local funds and a bit of logistics at best)
and a "union of republics" (which broke apart the moment its central government allowed some autonomy to those),
and half those "republics" are still governed by the same people\families\clans 30 years after.
I've seen Markov chains produce more coherent output. Come back when you've figured out how to have a coherent thought.
All taxes ultimate came from the working class who is the one that produce everything. The rich people getting a bigger tax break,on the rare cases this happens, is just a small correction from all the surplus value they capture.
Individual independence is a nonsensical concept in this context because humans are not independent from one another.
Private property as a concept is incompatible with individual independence, because its existence is itself dependent on some form of collective agreement. "Ownership" only exists when a group of people agrees that it does and sees a need to enforce it.
Libertarianism, in practice, is entirely aware of the dependencies between individuals, and what it really is about is tipping the scales in favor of property owners, maximizing the power of the strong over the weak by removing the state's role as an equalizer and instead turning it into a sole enforcer of private property, at which point it is functionally indistinguishable from fascism.
Private property as a concept is incompatible with individual independence, because its existence is itself dependent on some form of collective agreement. "Ownership" only exists when a group of people agrees that it does and sees a need to enforce it.
I get a feeling that person doesn't know the distinction between personal property and private property.
Libertarian reforms are supposed to be unpopular among people who lose from them, which would be everyone getting more than giving from taxation
on a basic moral level this is an evil thing to want to happen.
Fuck poor people they should be drawn and quartered, am I right?
Most humane libertarian
Libertarian reforms are supposed to be unpopular among people who lose from them, which would be everyone getting more than giving from taxation.
lmao so basically admitting your ideology is predicated on tyranny and the dispossession of individuals for the benefit of a powerful few
I just have doubts over how any libertarian would explain these events in particular
Translation: You don't know how to flower up your disgusting anti-individual rhetoric without rightly coming across as a hypocrite and sociopath lmao
And he immediately and unsurprisingly just pushes the actual fascism button
Yes, if you ask a libertarian what they think about unions and they say "that's fine, everybody can choose to associate and bargain within a free market" you might have found a real libertarian! Wow! You will almost never hear that though because they are all fascists
You will almost never hear that though because they are all fascists
This contradicts every time I meet a person who calls themselves a libertarian and knows at least something about that to pass through my initial filters (those who don't apparently think that libertarianism is about capitalism, free love and marijuana).
More than that, one of the most popular branches of ancap is panarchism, which is an idea of a society embedding all kinds of non-territorial voluntary associations, including communist ones.
It might be that you're just talking outta your ass.
Nah, libertarianism and "anarcho"-capitalism are just both joke ideologies that nobody will take seriously for a reason.
That really was unfair, age of consent and copyright are two issues on which libertarians are split.
How do you feel about free speech, due process, victimless crimes, freedom of conscience?
age of consent and copyright are two issues on which libertarians are split
I thought that my phrasing made it clear I've already supported the joke you are trying to make, to the extent it's worth doing so.
Now let's get back to totalitarian dictatorships, genocides and hunger. These are kinda worse than a few pedophiles.
So now you're trying to play off your characterization of child abuse as an "issue" over which people can be "split" as a joke
For somebody who can't get jokes without an "/s" - surely.
For others a sentence starting with "that really was unfair" and equating copyright and age of consent is clearly a joke.
Other than that I don't need to "play off" anything for ya, we're not in any connection which would make it important.
Now let's get back to totalitarian dictatorships, hunger, genocides, freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, due process and all that.
"Age of consent and copyright are two issues on which libertarians are split" doesn't come across as a joke without an "/s" because it's functionally identical to an argument a libertarian would unironically make. If that doesn't tell you it's a thoroughly unserious ideology, I don't know what would.
Freedom of speech? You mean like the Western kind of
that coddles Nazis instead of throwing them in a pit?Totalitarian dictatorships? You mean like Chiang Kai-shek's Taiwan, the military dictatorships of South Korea, Argentina or Brazil, Pinochet's Chile, fascist Italy, Nazi Germany and Francoist Spain?
Some French communists would unironically make that argument in 1960s.
It also coddles tankies, if you know what I mean.
Yeah, those included.
Freedom of speech? You can get arrested for insulting an officer in the us. You can get arrested for demonstrating. You can get hauled off to black sites. You can get disappeared in unmarked vans, as we saw frequently during the summer of 2020.
Let's add McCarthyism to that list and point out that there's still technically a law that forbids communist parties in the US. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Control_Act_of_1954
The average soviet citizens diet had more calories than the average us citizens diet
Not sure about average US citizen, but I know how average and even well off Soviet citizens ate.
This famine exists despite the fact we produce 1.21 times the amount of food needed to feed everyone.
You do realize that lots of food produced in USSR would just rot not reaching anybody purely because of logistics being fucked up? People wouldn't die from hunger caused by poverty there in its fatter years, yes, here you are right. But, say, army would get plenty of malnourished conscripts (actually most of them), it was as normal as in XIX century.
The United states murdered millions of indigenous people. It has not stopped murdering people, the brunt of the violence has merely moved abroad. The Nazis - from whose governance the term ‘privatization’ was invented, to describe the offselling of state property - did a lot of genocide too.
You are trying to prove that USSR was as bad as everyone else? With Afghanistan and all?.. I may agree, so?
Freedom of speech? You can get arrested for insulting an officer in the us. You can get arrested for demonstrating. You can get hauled off to black sites. You can get disappeared in unmarked vans, as we saw frequently during the summer of 2020.
The key word here is "can" as opposed to "will be as a rule".
Due process? Are you a child? What country do you think does due process? When has there ever been a good example of this? The courts are so very corrupt. At least the Chinese punish billionaires as they do everyone else.
Again, are you trying to prove USSR was as bad as everyone else? In general yeah. Only designed the way that it failed.
At least the Chinese punish billionaires as they do everyone else.
Their billionaires are almost officials. Their properties and power can be taken away any time. They can receive orders and they will follow them.
jeez, they read your wall of text and not mine :(
i wonder what i did wrong? maybe if i quoted them directly they would have engaged more :/
Their properties and power can be taken away any time. They can receive orders and they will follow them.
Good.
Which just means that key party figures are the real billionaires there. And they live and behave like such more or less.
"The billionaires can be punished for doing bad things."
"I dunno, sounds pretty good to me."
"But this means the party were the real billionaires all along (
?)"
Against copyright, for age of consent.
In general libertarianism is voluntarism taken to the extreme, with no "general good" and emotion allowed to interfere. So common arguments for all variants are such:
Libertarian arguments for copyright are based on you accepting the agreement while buying or receiving something. If you don't, then somebody has done that before you and violated it. Fruits of a poisoned tree.
Libertarian arguments against copyright are based on you and the authors having no other option but to use what's given with such an agreement, and with you being deceived while told you are buying it (which would mean you can copy all you want), and in case of any technology patents with laying claim on a resource which isn't depleted by sharing.
Libertarian arguments for age of consent are that children are not conscious enough to consent. That part is common, then variations follow. For some it makes them property of their parents, who can decide anything for them, but if after becoming adults they consider it a violation, they will be in their right to treat it as such. For some - without that "but". For others it means that some axioms need to be chosen so that parents could, well, feed and teach and discipline their children, but couldn't abuse them. For others it's going to be managed by a community which will ostracize parents mistreating their children.
Libertarian arguments against age of consent are obvious - they are alive so they can consent.
Holy shit, you tried to play it off as a joke earlier and now you're just saying that there's an actual argument against the age of consent.
I have to say it was well done of @Great_Leader_Is_Dead@hexbear.net to give you the rope to hang yourself with by asking that question. Previously, you tried to say the question was a joke to begin with, but now, instead of saying something like "It wasn't a serious question, of course I don't think there are two positions to take regarding the age of consent", you post a diatribe where you do say there are two equally valid positions regarding the age of consent.
You continue to treat these two as mutually exclusive. Ask me how I can say you've never designed a working thing in your life.
Your comment about me somehow contradicting myself doesn't make sense, because those statements do not contradict each other. Is that clearer?
They do contradict each other if your initial argument was "My statement was a joke" and you answered that question with a serious reply.
Unless...did you mean that the only thing that was a joke in your statement was equating copyright with the age of consent, and you're in fact totally fine with libertarians being "split on the issue of the age of consent"? Because holy shit.
Of course they are, they're an earnest fuckin lolbertarian
Probably also believe in the 'complex nature of the debate' around driver's licenses and libraries
Honestly, they come off as a naive clown trying to hold it together, they're far too eager and in depth on some of their replies, and they believe in the 'virtuosity of the conversation' around those items, ignoring that the frothing fash parts of their little ingroup which just hate minorities, poor people, and want to fuck kids
ed: nevermind, saw their comments on taxation and benefits, they need to be ran thru a woodchipper feet first
i just thought of something, whenever someone says something is complicated or, shudders nuanced, i think they are sorta thinking about the concept of infinite regress.
like you can go to an arbitrary depth on maybe anything, whether it is productive or not does not i think really change whether a person can state their opinion or not.
it's almost like the folks who do not answer and speak the discussion indirectly are metagaming, they wanna have their cake and eat it too
You don't think anyone takes China seriously? You don't think anyone took the USSR seriously?
Ukraine and South of Russia were parts of the USSR and it was buying grain abroad at the same time. Not because of not having grain production of enormous scale, but because it was abhorrently inefficient with typical Soviet quality of logistics.
USSR possessed simply enormous economic resources and strategic resources, but managed to misuse them to the degree of asking for humanitarian aid and then crash all by itself.
I would say that qualifies as "not being taken seriously".
Aight this person isn't real, its just a troll asking Chat GPT to RP as a lolbertarian
I would say that qualifies as "not being taken seriously".
Then you are a fucking dolt
"Crash all by itself"
Do you honestly believe Western nations weren't doing everything they could to accomplish this short of nuking Russia?
They legitimately unleashed yearly plagues on Soviet Agriculture, and this is all declassified information. That's just one of thousands of actions taken.
Only for dumbfucks like you to, fifty years later, say "It crashed all by itself"
At least admit your side managed to destroy them, holy fuck lol.
Not a surprising turn of events. He just halved everyone's savings and on top of that drastically increased the cost of living for everyone as companies increase prices due to the currency devaluation.
The result of that being massive strike and protest action is entirely unsurprising.. As is a crackdown on it.
This will escalate much further very quickly.
On the bright side, the warlord era preceded communist China.
That's supposed to be the bright side? I think many people of those who know the difference would prefer to be shot or hanged than to die from hunger.
Cheating is impolite and also discards yourself, putting a stain on your position and ideology. Be better than that.
You've mentioned the "change in life expectancy in 1950s", which is not the same.
And yes, in "1850-1950" regard for human life among various people holding power in China has been kinda the same, including communists immediately after taking power.
I've visited a lot of socialist countries and one thing I've found is that one truth is universal; "a thief believes everyone steals". I.E., those who see nothing but greed and selfishness in communist parties that see overwhelming support by the population tend to just be greedy and selfish themselves.
If even the famously Chinese backed Harvard can run a study on public satisfaction in China and find 95.5% satisfaction, whereas Washington only gets 38% satisfaction, obviously something is up. Maybe the propaganda you've been fed your whole life.... isn't true, and relies on the racist trope of the hopeless asiatic who doesn't value life.
95.5% is a funny number for a country with actual concentration camps. Should be higher, not good enough.
this mf is still zenzposting in 2023Even the UN gave up the ghost on that little half-baked causus belli
By the way, what would you call the facilities on the southern border of the USA? The ones where some 80,000 migrants are currently imprisoned for committing no crime?
i'll try to answer for them, for posterity of course:
"migrant detention camp"no wait, it's:
"migrant detention centre"
Several of these prisons are old cotton plantations, which used to be tended by black slaves.
used to be
You can tell when a liberal has done no investigation into this subject by the supersonic-speed tactical retreat that always happens when people actually drill down into what they're saying instead of just mumbling "fuck the CCP" and leaving an updoot.
Mhm, yessir, those hopeless asiatics sure don't value life the same way you white westerners do, that's why China has very real and provable concentration camps. I'm really glad that you take such a moral stance against such an evil thing though and don't try to use it as a gotcha, it shows that your humanity shines through and that you really care about others.
The life expectancy started to raise before the war ended my man
Living in pre-revolutionary China was literally worse for your health than WW2
Wow the war spend seventy years ending?!
Show
Anyway you unserious dipshit, behold the unstoppable material supremacy of a centrally planned economy
Show
Show
Show
Show
Poland on second place
ShowBOLZGA GUROM URAAAAAA
Show
No but really, being the post-socialist exception in moving towards capitalism makes deprogramming people and educating people that this move wasn't the greatest idea really fucking hard. We've lost so much in the long term and problems of this are piling up more and more every year because of this that I always ask myself and others on restructurization whether or not was it really worth it?
Poland was a country with some of the biggest rates of brain drain in the whole EU, home and apartment prices as well as rents have skyrocketed when during socialism owning your own home was basically guaranteed! All the old fucks have kept the home they've had in PRL and the entirety of our youth (including me!) are either made to walk the plank or hope they'll get to inherit their parent's home to have a life with a little dignity in it. And even then your parents don't die as soon as you hit 26. I myself plan to be a part of that brain drain and run off to China. I'm not even going to get started on the inflation since covid, or gas prices since the war next door. It's all going to shit.
Yes under the leadership of the Communist party which won the war thank you for finally coming to class.
I love myself plenty. Definitely enough to not let my brain atrophy as hard as yours.
you fucking illiterate moron
It's quite poetic that communists resort to such language much earlier in discussion than others, and also achieve much less than others when given opportunity. Be it in statesmanship or in their lives really (that part is sad).
The answer to your question is:
Carelessness in combination with bad memory. I don't care about winning or losing this argument, because you are not going to be close to implementing your views and I'm not going to interact with you while trying.
Yeah, I've already said that you are wrong and why. You may keep repeating whatever you like.
I also work with city planning and manage to implement my “views” in every project lol.
That sucks, but yeah, I've met such people too.
Hey, nobody can respect you that much to remember them all.
Every one except for that one about hunger in China, where I said that I made a factual mistake. Which doesn't affect the whole - see Duhem-Quine which communists bring up when put against scientific method.
Buddy, if you throw a lot of shit and the other side doesn't want to waste effort on that, it just means you throw too much shit and thus normal people can't respect you to waste effort on that.
Also don't pretend to be intelligent, you wouldn't be a communist if you were.
The Duhem-Quine thesis can be true and we can work with what appears to be most useful without divesting in it completely. I'm surprised to see it mentioned, I'm unsure if it's something you are knowledgeable on (even if in passing) or an anachronism that folks on the internet tend to use when they've heard of something and reflexively use it as a non-sequitur for convenience's sake.
At any rate why not clearly acknowledge the theses you put forth and the apparent empirical evidence which is contradictory? One could still argue (where argue is related to its older latin form, arguere; to make clear) and work towards a discussion instead of ignoring claims or finding exceptions to discredit, all the while ignoring the ethos of what is being argued?
A reasonable claim is you are close-minded (refusing to engage with claims on their level) or looking to be intentionally belligerent and for the life of me I can't understand why. What I won't do in the less than pleasant space of not knowing why–which is what my comrades tend towards–is accuse or otherwise dismiss claims and make attacks on character. Not that it doesn't have its place and is not well-reasoned in its own way, rather it's not something I am particularly fond of.
I know what D.-Q. is, if that's what this wall of text I don't have time resources to keep on processing means.
The rest isn't worth anything as you get the same attitude you show and can't pretend to be better afterwards.
They haven’t spent years reading 20-paragraph lefty memes like the rest of us
Leftist memes are the length of Ulysses and all the replies are all "so tru bestie :)"
I don't know, I think it's valid that some folks find larger walls of text (to use their phrasing) off putting. I don't know the intention of the other person.
EDIT: huh ok they are from a federated instance... that sorta sours and grounds my perspective a bit...
you are not going to be close to implementing your views
That's pretty rich considering Communists already control the world's factories
I-I-I don't actually even care about winning an argument with these damn tankies. That's why I'm spending several hours of my day arguing with them on Hexbear.-
Surely you don't think I type these comments all the time.
-
Caring about participating and caring about winning are two different things obviously. Don't pretend you are too dumb to understand that.
-
You're being called illiterate because you've demonstrated that you don't know the history of the events you are speaking so confidently on. You've claimed that Chinese communists are at fault for repression that predates their existence, while mashing up historical events that happened decades apart. You've shown no actual understanding of history, and your entire ideology shows that - you would rather engage in utopian fantasies than look at how systems have actually been implemented in reality. You back an ideology that is nothing but a wordy justification for "give the rich more power" and bolster it with a propagandized child's understanding of history (communism means famine and repression right?).
People in this thread have replied with shitposts, but also well-sourced refutations for your claims. You've given us your thoughts on things with nothing backing them up.
also achieve much less than others when given opportunity.
First in space, first cancer vaccine, first to weld titanium, and first to recognize you deserve a punch in the mouth.
Muh civility! Mods? MOOODDS!?It's quite poetic that you pulled this card after being proven wrong
Well, you're wrong cause you were mean! Take that communists!
Yeah bro, you're real persuasive with that one
This is the antiquity China that the communists ended that you want to return to.
"It has been estimated that, by the 19th century, 40–50% of all Chinese women may have had bound feet, rising to almost 100% in upper-class Han Chinese women."
Foot binding is done between the ages of 4 and 9 " To enable the size of the feet to be reduced, the toes on each foot were curled under, then pressed with great force downwards and squeezed into the sole of the foot until the toes broke."
as early as the 13th Century we have scholar Che Ruoshui wrote the first known criticism of the practice: "Little girls not yet four or five years old, who have done nothing wrong, nevertheless are made to suffer unlimited pain to bind [their feet] small. I do not know what use this is."
"If the infection in the feet and toes entered the bones, it could cause them to soften, which could result in toes dropping off; however, this was seen as a benefit because the feet could then be bound even more tightly."
It's crazy how the commies started 3 famines when the KMT was in charge and disguised themselves as the entire KMT to collaborate with Japan.
Any comment on the clear superiority of a centrally planned economy?
Show
I can't tell if you're doing a bit, or.... don't understand how years work.
I kinda did the same. I felt like I had seen it before... Lots of tables about national production, must be Is The Red Flag Flying? But thats about the 60s/70s
Yes, a country descending to war led by privatized armies is a bright side
would prefer to be shot or hanged than to die from hunger
Lol. This doesn’t even warrant a serious response
I know you're banned and probably won't read this but my grandfather literally joined the communists when he was a teenager because pre-revolutionary China was so bad and inequality was so rife, his father died from a completely curable disease and had a cousin starve to death.
He's 97 years old now and his biggest regret is he didn't join convince more people to join the PLA sooner.
There's no way he makes it more than a couple of months as president right? He'll be forced to resign.
I have no idea. Depends how hard he cracks down? Round up the left and throw them in prison pinochet style, even kill a bunch of the top organisers? Could do some real damage to anyone that would oppose him properly if he has any competent advice.
"What the fuck, I summoned libertarianism out of the frictionless void where it usually resides and it immediately oxidized into fascism on contact with air."
That's just because you don't understand the NAP. When you're NAPping you're supposed to find the original instigating aggression. How do you find that? Easy, you take the side you don't like and point at something they did that hurt your feelings.
Tear gassing protesters is just a legitimate response to the initial aggression of blocking traffic. But wait, isn't the blocking of traffic a response to the aggression the government did by throwing the country into poverty overnight? No it's not. Why? Because it just isn't.
Place a pinkie on the wrong part of the lawn? That's a nuking (NAP also seems to ignore any concept of proportional response, at least from what I've seen)
Ah, ancaps are weird. Part of them actually likes Latin American dictatorships and this kind of thing exactly because of the state not pretending to have any mandate but force.
Source - I'm a libertarian (not culturally of that group of ancaps, cause they tend to be fans of something far away and not try and build a working system at least among themselves ; makes them similar to tankies in the sense of "we can't build our utopia without killing all the problematic people first").
Source - I'm a libertarian
Why the fuck would you ever admit this you fucking dork
Source - I’m a libertarian
I'm not a lawyer but I don't think Megan's Law applies to Lemmy, you don't need to say this
ancaps, cause they tend to be fans of something far away and not try and build a working system at least among themselves ; makes them similar to tankies
Your ignorance is so cute. You don't even know where you are or who you are talking to! You should stick around and read more about who "tankies" are, and maybe ask questions.
I know where I am, just enjoying my life which involves tickling kitties and making fun of tankies.
Myself I prefer dogs but it seems our lives are rather analogous since I also like making fun of lolberts. You and I aren't too different you see.
And you appear to think that's a joke, while in fact one can't pick a better ideology to be smarter.
To learn to sing you have to sing, no other way.
It doesn't really matter where you start on that "political compass" or something, only the attitude.
Which is why saying I'm a libertarian was a bit stretched, I just fit there more by some formal traits. I had my moments of obsession with many other ideologies and I'll surely have those in future.
I didn't pick being a marxist and an ideology cannot be treated like a fashion statement as you've said. It also isn't something you can just pick and adhere to as if it's a club. And the "political compass" has always been a terrible "tool" (more so of a toy) to describe any leanings. You can't apply a label to yourself by yourself, someone else must do that for you by seeing you for who you are. I've been called a commie a few times, but most of the time people don't even know what a communist is or what they stand for. So I am able to talk commie to normal people (whatever a normal person is) without outright saying I'm a red and so I avoid their redscare conditioning and can have an engaging conversation.
You remind me of myself. I've been a "libertarian" too, not the popular type we like to make fun of here, but the guy you are describing as yourself. But I kept progressing in learning and educating myself, studying history and what existed in the real world, so applying dialectical materialism before even knowing what it was. It was until I've decided:
"Okay enough is enough, time to learn my enemy for who he is and what he stands for so that I may better combat him!"
And then after a while I've had my
Showmoment. I've realized that everything I was standing for as this libertarian championing human freedom, expression, progress and development towards that in a scientific and realistic way was what the dirty pinkos were standing for as well. I've learned along that journey and the only thing left for me at that moment was to accept that I might just be a dirty pinko too.
Show
I wonder where you will end up, but please never tell yourself you are going to avoid certain material or knowledge just because you dislike the people behind that. Hell I believe communists must be studying fascism to better understand what it is and how to defend ourselves against it. For example I dismiss Mein Kampf not because Hitler wrote it, but because it's a shit work with nonsense inside. Largely a waste of time that will not help in understanding Nazi germany, a better alternative would be study Lebensraum and how it parallels to Manifest Destiny and such.
Learning about this stuff can not only help you develop but also prosper. I have hope you won't side alongside fascism, seeing as you already dislike whatever the fuck Milei is doing.
I’ll surely have those in future
Once you've realized that you can't join an ideology as if it's a club or fashion statement, you can't really adhere to it. You will stand out and be an outcast in said group, and among libertarians you are one. I know that because I've been that libertarian outcast too.
I wish you best, and I hope you stick around. Just be know the bears tend to be bullies as they've engaged with the talking points you might present a million times already. Hell most of us live in the imperial core, we engage with this shit on the daily. I suggest you engage in an earnest way to suck out genuine answers of who we are.
Show
Well. I already don't have problems with putting myself in some unexpected kind of footwear. And it's even been ML.
I already don’t have problems with putting myself in some unexpected kind of footwear.
Keep at it!
And it’s even been ML.
Eh I somewhat doubt that since you still engage in much of idealism in the commments of this post, some of the unfortunately being somewhat reactionary. Being ML is not just being around GenZedong or ChapoTrapHouse or their lemmyverse successors. It's studying history, theory and applying that in praxis. I can call myself a commie and others can call me too, but in reality I'm just a bookshelf for now. (
Showwould be dissapointed 😭)
I've yet to engage in outright commie praxis due to art. 256 of the Polish penal codex, and I've yet to apply it, even if possibly unsuccessfully.
I suggest you engage with ML ideas yet again, but now more formally by reading theory, studying socialist history (avoid websites like cia.gov and anngothatistotallynotafrontforthecia.org) and checking out whatever the fuck the communists around you are up to. In Poland most of them are useless trots unfortunately so I'm very dissapointed on that, I've got more hope in unions independent from Solidarność getting traction since building up class consciousness would be the priority in this country.
There is one important question I have for you. Have you read these works?
The Principles of Communism by Frederick Engels
Socialism Utopian and Scientific also by Engels
Critique of the Gotha Programme by Karl Marx
Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism by Vladimir Lenin
If not please do so, and I could list some more and even tell you to read the first volume of Capital but I value your time so I chose these as they are rather short. However if you don't feel like reading all of these than I ask of you to just read the Principles. It's the shortest work and is easily digestible, Engels was a great writer in this regard.
I'm also not asking you to become or trying to make you a commie right away, that is something that just plain stupid. I just want you to learn and see what you can take from these works for yourself to be a better person and to learn more about who communists actually are. Knowledge is a tool after all. And in the end if you do end up a commie then lol, lmao you've got got xdddddddddd
Also if you are American, there is one key work I must say any American must read no matter who they are. The Civil Rights movement was one of the most important ones in that countries history that is now being whitewashed by DC and this struggle, the pain and suffering these people endured must not be forgotten.
My ML, eh, experience was more about Trotskyism and a bit of ansyn, coupled with reading Wiener's "Cybernetics" and some optimism about future.
I've read parts and excerpts of these, but none in one piece at one time, so - why not.
Not American, but thx.
In Poland most of them are useless trots unfortunately so I’m very dissapointed on that, I’ve got more hope in unions independent from Solidarność getting traction since building up class consciousness would be the priority in this country.
I mean, they are OK, just too busy fighting each other and imagining solutions simpler than practical.
Pluralism in unions (I'd also say party organizations) - many times yes.
I'm returning just after reading some of your other comments under this post and I have to say I'm greatly disappointed. Much of your attitude was of statements and assertions, many of which are ahistorical and/or incorrect (or at the very least considered so by us). Also your attitude was very combative rather than discussionary. That is to say, that the bears weren't too good either, many of the combative as well but that also stems somewhat from your stubbornness (← what a weird word, three letter duos? wtf). Questions as well as calls for sources or books or claims for why you are getting insulted rather then replying with a "no u" type statement would have been so, so much better. Some modesty could've also helped...
Still, I have hope for you and a link that may interest you. It's about past socialist countries as well as the USSR and I do hope you read it as it's very good resource with plenty of citations:
https://www.quora.com/Why-did-Mikhail-Gorbachev-seek-to-reform-the-Soviet-society/answer/Chuck-Garen
Please do better, because while fixing ignorance requires the help of others, to get that help you have to have a better attitude for them to consider a friendly conversation. Something that is much easier to address and remedy. You're lucky I'm in this comment section and that I'm a rather lenient and considerate person. I see potential in you, and I'm sad this potential was not realized by this comment section. Neither by you, nor by others.
Now to address the Hexbaristas; I'm really fucking dissappointed. You guys need some fucking
Showin your life, and I know I know, this is the fucking internet and shits not to be taken overly seriously, but I like to make these fucking posts for practice damn it! You should do that too from time to time as being good at educating others is a skill and you NEED (ZERO FUCKING EXCUSES) to hone it. You can use this site for more than just dunking.
Show— “As revolutionaries, we don't have the right to say we are tired of explaining. We must never stop explaining. We know that when the people understand, they cannot help but follow us.”
Lmao nah, this is an online shitposting website.
I'm well aware of that fact and that is why I love this place. It's great at keeping my morale up and reading dunks on pretentious idiots is always a fun activity but I guess dunking myself was never something I was particularly good at. You and UlyssesT are shining examples of what good dunks are, containing useful information I can learn from. The crowd as you were mentioning.
You do not owe anyone a discussion or respect, most certainly not someone who clearly signals they’re not interested in giving one themselves.
That is correct, I have nothing else to add except one thing; I like to take initative and give a respectful discussion a singular try at maximum to see how it goes, if others in the comment section haven't tried that themselves. If I feel like I can exploit it, I will and will use it to possibly practice educating. Even if this place possibly isn't the best one to do so it's one that I can easily do so in. Otherwise :PIGPOOPBALLS:
Trying even for the sake of probing isn't be a bad idea and probably isn't too much to ask for I guess.
This website can be used in better ways as I've said, but what this website is for you is up to you. I'd just like to see that others engage in either something what I'm doing or at least in dunks of UlyssesT's quality. Rather than just posting :smuglord: and nothing else. An insult should be a spice not the main course, add even the tiniest bit of information to it and it's already miles better. A singular :smuglord: only works when nothing can be added.
As examples: Bad dunk and Good dunk
A forum also functions much differently than a dialogue, since there is an argument. You are not trying to convince an individual, but a crowd. Mockery and derision are good tools for this.
Yeah, It seems I forget this too often... Still newcomers could get attracted with a bit friendliness visible in the wild? I guess?
If whatever I do is a terrible way to practice I'll have to concede, but I've yet to see to that.
It's liberal bullshit to immediately pivot conversation about what is best to do to a question of who "owes" what (or, more to the point, claiming you owe someone nothing, sidestepping the question of what you should do)
When "no u" weighs the same as the original comment, it's exactly what should be answered.
About that link:
I've read more about USSR than I'd want to remember, and Gorbachev alone as a personality is just a part of the whole tendency. A face of a class, if you will.
The part about comparisons and currencies is simply illiterate - a fixed legally defined exchange rate doesn't mean that we can multiply USD of the time by that and get a correct representation, obviously.
It doesn't matter how much USSR produced of which on paper. It matters (probabilistically) which percentage of it was lost due to bad logistics, which percentage of it would be broken fresh from the factory, and how much would be given for it in a real market.
FFS, I'm not that much against the USSR, I like how some things (like technical education) were done there and I know that it wasn't some horde or an evil empire or even a dictatorship. But people here take such an amazingly arrogant, ignorant and sectarian approach to argument, that I find myself arguing against it by instinct.
I've read more about USSR than I'd want to remember
Your posts on here just make me wonder what you've actually read. Quantity doesn't make up for quality. I could read lots of texts about Nazi Germany from David Irving too.
I've answered "no u" to something not warranting a response at all. I mean, that's all you post, so I'm stopping now.
I'll report your comments for you and ask the mods to ban/remove them as they see necessary
Reporter: Egon [they/them]
Reason: Snitching on me to the thought police___
Show
Hey hey hey, don't lump me in with this fucking loser
Libertarianism is a joke because it's never cleared the low bar of it existing in a meaningful capacity in the real world. You can say whatever about gorillion dead 1984 Animal Farm and whatever tired cliches, at least there have been and continue to be ML states in the real world. The most libertarians have ever managed was one American town before they were overrun by bears.
That just means it's a less viral ideology. It's a different dimension of something being a joke or not.
"Tired cliche" is a characteristic of some art or amusement. Facts usually become more, not less solid over time.
No. Mentioning that word once or twice doesn't make one libertarian. And most of the time it's people who'd want to say "liberal" but want to seem smart, or "libertine" but don't know that word exists.
But it was tried. It resulted in a New England town being besieged by bears.
Ideal libertarianism hasn't been indeed. Just like ideal communism, which requires statelessness, lack of hierarchy (hence state, military etc) and so on.
As for less than ideal ones, one can claim Scandinavian countries just as well as socialists sometimes do that. Or maybe Netherlands.
It'll be just as good, simply libertarians are usually more modest.
This is how any ML can tell you were never an ML in any substantial sense. You couldn't even use "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" in a sentence
I too enjoy making fun of tankies but Im not usually so brazen as to come into their house to do it.
How do you make that conclusion from not looking at the name of the instance?
Internet is hard, just like keeping our "free market" trains on the tracks
Libertarianism is not a coherent ideology based in political reality or science. It's an ad-hoc justification for why capitalism is incompatible with liberalism, that is the values of democracy, freedom, liberty, etc. There is no such thing as stateless capitalism. Capital depends on the state and will always increase state power as more capital is accumulated. They like the dictatorships because the state is acting purely in the interest of capital while embracing the ideological misdirection of bigotry. That is the dictatorship is free to grind workers into paste with the use of near unlimited state control and power while the wealthy and petite bourgeois explain it all with racism, sexism, xenophobia, and nationalism. It uses those things to nudge workers away from class consciousness. They're not actually hypocrites because ideological consistency is not the goal nor does it matter in the pursuit of power. They have the material edge and being hypocritical only helps them.
This is why we can't take you seriously. You're stuck on why your fellow libertarians are hypocritical, you don't understand what's actually happening. You're stuck in a world of ideology and abstractions away from the actual bare-bones model of society. Since your ideology has no explanatory power in the real world, your only recourse is clinging to models like the horseshoe theory. You don't have a deep understanding of your own ideology let alone that of tankies, they just exist as points on some graph of extremism in your world.
Libertarianism is not a coherent ideology based in political reality or science. It's an ad-hoc justification for why capitalism is incompatible with liberalism, that is the values of democracy, freedom, liberty, etc.
To further this point, the original libertarian theorists rejected the enlightenment's triplet of "equality, liberty and property" for a couplet of just "liberty and property". The basis of libertarian ideology is a rejection of equality as a fundamental value.
As for why actually existing libertarianism is indistinguishable from fascism/right wing authoritarianism in practice, it is because it is fundamentally not an ideology compatible with any concept of ethics. The core of libertarian thought is an abandonment of social, political , economic, and ultimately societal responsibility for others. However, without responsibility there can be no ethics. And without no ethics in an ultimate "might makes right" world where capital is in control and equality is abandoned as a fundamental value, what prevails? We all know what.
Just like communism may mean ancom, ansyn, trotskyism in various kinds, stalinism in various kinds, libertarianism may mean minarchism, ancap, panarchism, georgeism and so on.
It’s an ad-hoc justification for why capitalism is incompatible with liberalism
It's not. It's just voluntarism put over anything else. Hence age of consent arguments, for example.
It's actually the most coherent ideology, because any compromise for practicality would make it a part of some other existing one.
That's also the reason for very little of it existing in reality.
This is why we can’t take you seriously. You’re stuck
It's ok, I'm not taking your particularly seriously too, one really shouldn't, it's all a mix with pieces of gold very rare.
However, I'm not stuck in general.
You’re stuck in a world of ideology and abstractions away from the actual bare-bones model of society.
There's no "actual" model, a model by definition is a simplification allowing you to analyze a phenomenon spending a fraction of energy needed to recreate it.
And that's the problem ML has - instead of producing one model after another, some for one use case, some for another, some being discarded, some being used further, ML just has one model based on Imperial Germany as a dogma and puts it over reality.
I don't need a deep understanding of something which may or may not fit. I don't even theoretically, potentially have access to source of any "deep understanding".
It's like algebraic solutions vs numeric ones.
And that’s the problem ML has - instead of producing one model after another, some for one use case, some for another, some being discarded, some being used further, ML just has one model based on Imperial Germany as a dogma and puts it over reality.
Insane projection since Marxism-Leninism is to be adapted to one's conditions and not just an emulation of what happened in 1917 tsarist Russia. Lolbertarians on the other hand advocate for set in stone solutions like allowing "privatization", "free speech", "small government" and other assorted dogshit regardless of where and when it's being applied. Cut your losses short and stop making a fool out of yourself before you start spouting garbage about mud pies or "human nature" and instead go read marxist theory if you care to talk about it.
Stalinism isn't an ideology btw, Stalin was just a Marxist-Leninist.
That's the Stalinist point of view. Cults of personality, nationalist propaganda, banning abortions and so on are not exactly ML.
Cult of personality
Oh okay, you're operating on a 9 year-old's epistemology
I bet you also believe the clapping story.I'm still stuck on this, this shit has me fucked up. So the people who supposedly are in a cult of personality...steadfastly refuse to give the subject of their adulation credit for being a theorist? This is the first I've ever heard of a personality cult where the orthodox view is "Nah, our guy didn't create anything particularly unique or worthy of deliniation."
any compromise for practicality would make it a part of some other existing one.
That's also the reason for very little of it existing in reality.
...so why are you a libertarian? In your own words it doesn't exist because it does not actually address the practicalities of the world.
If I knew that my political ideology isn't compatible with the real world, I would find a better one.
No ideology is compatible with the real world.
And I'm not a libertarian. It's just the closest known point so I called myself that.
A distributist would be closer, just you are likely not aware of such a thing.
No ideology is compatible with the real world.
Show
You do realize ideas are what governments use to rule, set laws, decide on ways to manage resources and the like? Right? And a set of ideas is an ideology? Just because libertarianism is disconnected from reality does not mean every ideology is incompatible with it, particularly marxism which grounds it's theory and practice in material reality. Hell even fascism is as dangerous as it is because it is something that exists within material reality of capitalism in crisis! Returning to the theme of the original post of Milei who is doing precisely what he is because his ideas are widely unpopular with the majority.
Also you are jumping from label to label, when you and I seem to have agreed that ideologies are not fashion statements. And so you can't really in all seriousness do that? It also seems you have been applying your original label to yourself by only yourself when really you don't even seem to agree with yourself whether or not it fits you. You seem very confused from my point of view.
It's basically a political ideology grown from Catholicism, so all the usual.
It’s an ad-hoc justification for why capitalism is incompatible with liberalism
It's not. It's just voluntarism put over anything else. Hence age of consent arguments, for example.
Voluntarism is capitalist apologia, yes. The very premise is that society is a collection of independent individuals, exactly the premise which is both prerequisite for and produced by capitalism. Voluntarism takes this state ideology and proclaims it as an eternal, natural truth which cannot be escaped; the only problem, claim the libertarians, is that the state is interfering with the free expression of this ideology — which is exactly the reverse causal direction.
“Truly, one must be destitute of all historical knowledge not to know that it is the sovereigns who in all ages have been subject to economic conditions, but they have never dictated laws to them. Legislation, whether political or civil, never does more than proclaim, express in words, the will of economic relations.”
You must rip out the idealism which has rotten your logic if you want it to have any connection to material reality. Start scientifically from the world as it really exists, and from history as it really unfolded, not from your abstract models of independent individual exchanges, which so happens to justify the status quo or an intensification thereof.
You need to investigate how society is in fact a web of interrelations and dependency; ie the very opposite of non-interacting isolated individuals. There is no society without dependency. A theory that starts with an assumption of independence is absolutely useless.
Source - I'm a libertarian
For your sake I really hope you're not legally allowed to buy booze yet
Tankies don’t even believe that. We would prefer to not kill anyone, but reactionaries (like yourself) always try to fight against us which is why you go into the pit. Also Utopianism is anti Marxist.
The revolution will only need to be as violent as the bourgeoisie will require it to be.
Low energy comrades: the CIA is very tricky. They might try to ingratiate themselves into our community and tear it apart. They're masters of deception
The CIA:
Libertarians are just fascists with nonce aesthetics.
Fascism is a bullshit ideology that only cares about the supremacy of the fascists themselves. Outside of that it has no real principles, only whatever ad hoc opinions will further their supremacy at the given moment. When someone is not amplifying their fascinating they will whine about much freeze peach, when protests challenge their grasp on power they will use every coercive measure of the state to repress it.
This is not true though.
Fascism only sounds incoherent if you take it at face value, but it is integral to protecting and preserving the liberal capitalist order during times of crises. Italy and Nazi Germany served the role of crushing left wing and working class movements in post-WWI Europe following the success of the Bolshevik Revolution. Fascism saved “international capital” in Europe from falling into the hands of the “Leninists”, and continued to do so well into the 21st century.
I don’t take fringe ideologies (like national bolshevism, lol) seriously because they fall apart at the slightest scrutiny under materialist thinking, but fascism - fascism is well grounded in reality and should be taken extremely seriously by everyone who considers themselves on the left. There is a reason why fascism as an ideology historically succeeded while many others never even got off the ground.
Clara Mattei’s The Capital Order is essential reading to understanding how liberalism invented fascism to preserve private property ownership and wage relations during the turbulent years following WWI, and provided compelling arguments, using contemporary political and economic records, to show that both liberalism and fascism are two sides of the same coin whose functions synergistically protect the capital order.
The causal mechanism for the libertarian to fascist movement is idealism. Libertarianism is a completely idealist rules based worldview that only bears tangential relation to reality. It somehow creates a peaceful and morally justified hierarchy for a given body politic. Because it is a hierarchical worldview the only people who would willingly adopt it are those who preceive themselves as benefiting from the system, aka being securely on top already or would be on top if the system were adopted. When they gain power and the world doesn't conform to their idealized view that must mean that someone broke the rules, cheated, and therefore those malefactors fall outside the Civil body politic. Because ypu now have an external enemy you are now justified in using any method necessary to defeat and reestablish the "rules based order." This is how you can get a cognitive dissonance free genuine movement from libertarian to fascists
Dude went from get the goberment out of our lives to full on nazi dictatorship in a week.
He should ask Bolivia how that went. cw su*cide attempt
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
looking forward to all the lolbertarians in the US and abroad talking about this guy to do the 'ol collar tug and look side to side.
EDIT: Free shipping to my home in less than a day!
5."To carry out these acts, forces will use the minimum necessary force, which is sufficient and proportional to the situation they are addressing."
Is just flavor text when
2."Federal forces are not required to have judicial oversight for their actions."
Alright you piggies, that's enough time spent with snouts in the slop. rottingleaf is banned, comments left up for anyone who wishes to continue dunking.
........ 
