Socialism is state monopoly and power-grubbing, nothing besides. It has only ever served asa means to dupe entire masses into giving up their autonomy. — NOS4A2

That's not just socialism. That is every form of government ever. In fact, it is the big guy intimidating the little guy. Libertarians are socialists who hate themselves for it, because they want an autonomy that comes with being a big guy, and they can't have it because they aren't big guys. They rely on the state to protect them from big guys and they hate it. Colonel Colt helped, but he can't make a libertarian hate themselves less.

One thing that you (and one other I am thinking about right now but who will remain unnamed) can't possibly fathom (no, seriously, you cannot even imagine it) is that someone somewhere might actually want to help others, and that someone might honestly believe the best way to do that is with help. You can't imagine that they find it, and that there is a group of people trying to help people and that they participate in government to do it.

But there is one thing you *can* imagine, and that is me. You can imagine groups of people like me coming to get you. Be afraid. Be very afraid.

No. Wait. You don't have to be afraid. You just have to quit using our shit without paying for it.

Everyone that doesn't share your views is a bogie. Or a bougie. We know.

No, it isn’t, because China and Vietnam rejected neoliberalism. So your statement to the contrary makes no sense, because it isn’t true. — Xtrix

Ok, I think you misunderstood me.

What I meant that this, China and Vietnam rejecting neoliberalism, is a very important thing to understand here. Basically China opening up and emerging to become the second largest economy from the size of the Dutch economy in the start of the 1980's has been the real driving force in globalization. However, as this, as you agree, hasn't been because of a neoliberal policy in China, it's wrong to argue that events in China (or Vietnam) have happened because of neoliberalism. It has been marketed in the West as a success of neoliberalism as the US has had this false idea that China opening up would bring also political change (and make it more like, uh, Taiwan).

Hopefully you understood my point. As I think you are open to real discussion (unlike some others).

Everyone that doesn't share your views is a bogie. Or a bougie. We know. — ssu

Nah, just you specifically because you make things up which are the literal opposite of reality.

I can’t fathom it. You say you want to help others then delegate some government official to do it for you. But even then, erecting a bureaucracy is helping no one, so no help arrives at all, just more machine.

By all means, help others with help, but none of what you provide or do can be considered “help”. Rather, it’s an escape from having to help others.

You say you want to help others then delegate some government official to do it for you. — NOS4A2

I don't want to help others. I pay government to do that for me. Otherwise, I'd parse libertarians/parasites out as ineligible for help. But government lets them avail themselves of big government help too. Luckily for them.

But even then, erecting a bureaucracy is helping no one, so no help arrives at all, just more machine. — NOS4A2

See, I told you a libertarian could not fathom it. It's beyond their imagination. They can't even see all the help they have received. Are they ungrateful? I'm guessing it's like a parasite. Does a parasite even know what it's doing? Or does it just do what parasites do? Lot's of people have been helped. That, again, is why there are 7+ billion of us.

By all means, help others with help, but none of what you provide or do can be considered “help”. — NOS4A2

Again, you prove you cannot fathom it. It has literally helped, and is helping billions.

Rather, it’s an escape from having to help others. — NOS4A2

It's not an escape. It's delegation to a better, more objective, more effective big guy that I (ostensibly) have some control over via the vote and rule of law. I say "ostensibly" because we all know that people who support their oppressors have turned over the reigns of power to their oppressors. They think the oppressor is their government when, in reality, the oppressor is the people who have convinced them the oppressor is government. That's not hard to do because, like I said, they can't fathom that anyone would use the most effect tool to help others. Since the person is ungrateful and can't fathom it, he blames the wrong entity. The oppressor absolutely LOVES it when the people blame government for their loss of their fantasy autonomy. It would be funny if it weren't such an indictment of people.

Libertarians are socialists who hate themselves for it, because they want an autonomy that comes with being a big guy, and they can't have it because they aren't big guys. They rely on the state to protect them from big guys and they hate it. Colonel Colt helped, but he can't make a libertarian hate themselves less. — James Riley

This ‘genealogical’ critique specifically doesn’t speak to whether libertarianism is a sound political philosophy. If you could show that the ideas of socialism are implicit in the ideas of libertarianism, that would be interesting. If you could show that there is a performative contradiction in espousing libertarianism — that you cannot do so without an unacknowledged commitment to socialism — that would be interesting.

One problem with this sort of ‘analysis’ is that it invites more of the same: how hard would it be for me to pass right over whatever you’re saying and instead ‘diagnose’ your attraction to this sort of critique? Would you find that a satisfying way for me to engage what you have to say about libertarians? Even when grounded in a thorough historical reconstruction, this sort of thing only makes sense if truth is off the table. It is seductive but dangerous, and we’d be better off if Nietzsche had never thought of it.

It doesn’t work like that. All we can be sure of is that they’ll take our money, they’ll spend it, but we don’t know whether it’s “helping others” or buying a politician’s neck-ties. And if they change directives, spend all their money on this or that program inimical to the citizen’s interests, we have no choice in the matter. Worse, every time we give the government the power to do something for us we give them the corresponding power to do something to us. Much better to skip the middle-man entirely, in my opinion.

Every state thus far—liberal, fascist, socialist, Islamist—has been organized monopoly and exploitation. One thing is clear to me: as government consolidates and strengthens, the power of independent moral judgment in the citizenry weakens. So it isn’t long before statists of all types beg for more government wherever their own morality is waning.

This ‘genealogical’ critique specifically doesn’t speak to whether libertarianism is a sound political philosophy. — Srap Tasmaner

It does so speak, when it is not taken out of the balance of the post. Libertarianism is not a sound political philosophy for the reasons stated.

If you could show that the ideas of socialism are implicit in the ideas of libertarianism, that would be interesting. — Srap Tasmaner

I can't show it because they are not. That was my point. The fact that libertarians benefit from socialism does not make the ideas of socialism implicit in the ideas of libertarianism. Rather, it points out libertarian hypocrisy.

If you could show that there is a performative contradiction in espousing libertarianism — Srap Tasmaner

I did.

that you cannot do so without an unacknowledged commitment to socialism — that would be interesting. — Srap Tasmaner

Again, I can't. It can't be done. Well, unless you understand what I already said about the libertarian enjoying the benefits of socialism without admitting it. It is the failure to admit that makes it impossible. It's that myth of an autonomy that does not now and never has existed. I can't prove out their fantasy for them.

One problem with this sort of ‘analysis’ is that it invites more of the same: how hard would it be for me to pass right over whatever you’re saying and instead ‘diagnose’ your attraction to this sort of critique? — Srap Tasmaner

Not hard at all. That's what NOS has been doing since I first came here. It's what I used to do when I was a young man.

Would you find that a satisfying way for me to engage what you have to say about libertarians? — Srap Tasmaner

That is a good question. Why do I keep engaging NOS? Am I a glutton for punishment? Maybe it's that deep seated desire to help those who don't want help. Or maybe it's a desire to keep them occupied while the rest of society tries to move forward, knowing someone else is doing the dirty work of keeping them occupied. So the answer would be, I guess, that you should do as I have done and engage on the merits, cut to the nut and admit that you benefit (greatly) from socialism as you (NOS) define it. Then, and only then, will we have agreed upon a premise from which we can advance in argument.

Even when grounded in a thorough historical reconstruction, this sort of thing only makes sense if truth is off the table. — Srap Tasmaner

Truth is off the table when we, hand in hand, refuse to go backward in argument until we find a premise upon which we can both agree. Then we can march forward in our search for truth.

It is seductive but dangerous, and we’d be better off if Nietzsche had never thought of it. — Srap Tasmaner

I agree: failure to find that premise and proceeding anyway is dangerous to the search for truth. I can't speak to Nietzsche.

All we can be sure of is that they’ll take our money, they’ll spend it, but we don’t know whether it’s “helping others” or buying a politician’s neck-ties. — NOS4A2

Really? When FEMA shows up and gives you a trailer to live in because your house was destroyed by a hurricane, that looks a lot like help.

If you could show that there is a performative contradiction in espousing libertarianism
— Srap Tasmaner

I did. — James Riley

I don’t think you did, at least not here.

I think it is true that the state can guarantee your ability to advocate for there being no state, among other things, and I think it’s true that providing such guarantees is one of the reasons people accept the necessity of state authority. Otherwise, only the strong have free speech.

Is that the same thing as socialism?

It doesn’t work like that. — NOS4A2

Yes, it does work like that.

All we can be sure of is that they’ll take our money, they’ll spend it, but we don’t know whether it’s “helping others” or buying a politician’s neck-ties. — NOS4A2

Look around at all you, personally, benefit from. Try being grateful for all you have, instead of taking it for granted. And recall that it was brought to you in spite of the aforementioned powers that seek to undermine the efforts to line their own pockets.

And if they change directives, spend all their money on this or that program inimical to othe citizen’s interests, we have no choice in the matter. — NOS4A2

That would be due to those who have convinced the people that government is the problem. It would not be due to government.

Worse, every time we give the government the power to do something for us we give them the corresponding power to do something to us. Much better to skip the middle-man entirely, in my opinion. — NOS4A2

Then just give your money to those who already have it. They are pulling the levers of government and getting you to blame government. Maybe if government no longer existed you would have to, finally, point your finger where it should have been pointing all along.

Every state thus far—liberal, fascist, socialist, Islamist—has been organized monopoly and exploitation. One thing is clear to me: as government consolidates and strengthens, the power of independent moral judgment in the citizenry weakens. So it isn’t long before statists of all types beg for more government wherever their own morality is waning. — NOS4A2

Monopoly, yes. Exploitation: only to the extent government is blamed instead of the people you should be blaming. You know, the people who want autonomy to milk you like a cow and who use your government to do it.

The independent moral judgement of the citizenry has weakened when they blame themselves instead of those who stole their government right out from under them, and with their help.

So it isn’t long before statists of all types beg for more government wherever their own morality is waning. — NOS4A2

Bingo! See Trump.

If you could show that there is a performative contradiction in espousing libertarianism
— Srap Tasmaner

I did.
— James Riley

I don’t think you did, at least not here. — Srap Tasmaner

In fact, it is the big guy intimidating the little guy. Libertarians are socialists who hate themselves for it, because they want an autonomy that comes with being a big guy, and they can't have it because they aren't big guys. They rely on the state to protect them from big guys and they hate it. Colonel Colt helped, but he can't make a libertarian hate themselves less. — James Riley

And that is only part. You'd have to go up and cut and paste all the other times I showed the performative contradiction espousing libertarianism. NOS and I have a long history.

I think it is true that the state can guarantee your ability to advocate for there being no state, — Srap Tasmaner

It can. But you can bet it gets a metric shit-ton of help from those who advocate for that. You know, the ones with the money.

and I think it’s true that providing such guarantees is one of the reasons people accept the necessity of state authority. — Srap Tasmaner

I just wish they would stipulate to that; admit to the necessity, instead of fantasying about some world where they live free from the necessity, and yet still have all the benefits of it. That is precisely the nut that we all have to get back to, before we can go forward with our respective arguments for truth. Or, if we want to deny that premise, then let's go back until we can find one we can agree upon. Like maybe there is away to live without the state and still have all that we want to keep. But so far, crickets.

Otherwise, only the strong have free speech. — Srap Tasmaner

Everyone has free speech. You can stand in the square and scream until you are blue in the face. What matters is being heard. Money gets heard. Speech against it gets marginalized by it.

Is that the same thing as socialism? — Srap Tasmaner

No. It's self-interest without enlightenment.

FEMA is not the greatest example. It has gone through more reforms due to its failing responses than it has had successes.

FEMA is not the greatest example. — NOS4A2

What is a better example? (And remember, you don't want to use a government example without shooting yourself in the foot.) How about no response at all?

t has gone through more reforms due to its failing responses than it has had successes. — NOS4A2

What successes? I didn't think they could have any?

You can defend the existence of the state without accepting some libertarian’s equating of the state with socialism. You can also defend socialism, but it’s opposed to libertarianism only insofar as it is one way of organizing the state.

FEMA is not the greatest example. It has gone through more reforms due to its failing responses than it has had successes. — NOS4A2

That’s not an argument that the trailers don’t count as help.

You could, if you were willing, argue that it’s less helpful ‘in the long run’ than letting people suffer the consequences of their poor choice of where to live. That’s still, before even getting to the other challenges of arguing such a position, which strike me as monumental, admitting that it is, to these people, in these circumstances, helpful.

You can defend the existence of the state without accepting some libertarian’s equating of the state with socialism. — Srap Tasmaner

:100:

You can also defend socialism, but it’s opposed to libertarianism only insofar as it is one way of organizing the state. — Srap Tasmaner

:100:

I think socialism is opposed to libertarianism, as are any other manifestations of the state. I know that some might like to nuance the definition of some terms (and rightly so), but I think the arguments that have been made by NOS, to which I have stipulated for the purposes of our argument, have done away with the nuance and reduced themselves to government vs the absence of government. This stems, I think, from my futile search for an alternative. Somehow "we" are to afford rights without responsibilities. However, the simple use of the word "we" will not permit that. Unless someone has an idea that has yet to be expressed.

The libertarian position is only one step removed from a simple cynicism that does nothing but throw stones from the street.

My argument was not that FEMA doesn’t help—it’s their job, after all, one that they’re not very good at—but that giving the state wealth and power could not be considered an act of help or compassion, and for the reasons I stated.

giving the state wealth and power could not be considered an act of help or compassion — NOS4A2

The problem is, many of the wealthiest that benefit the most don't give the state anything. They just buy the legislature and the executive players so they don't have to pay the government taxes. But, as to those who do pay their taxes, what reasons did you state that preclude help or compassion as a motivation? I'm sorry, but I must have missed that.

I’m not sure how that is possible in a progressive tax system. The tax-rate increases the higher the income bracket.

Like I said, people do not know where the sum total of their money goes. This is because the government, not themselves, get to decide what to do with it. They cannot know whether it goes to feed someone in dire need or to droning some family on foreign soil.

I’m not sure how that is possible in a progressive tax system. The tax-rate increases the higher the income bracket. — NOS4A2

But you have to be not exempt in order to be liable for taxes. If you have money, you cannot only buy laws to provide exemptions, you can have rates lowered.

Like I said, people do not know where the sum total of their money goes. This is because the government, not themselves, get to decide what to do with it. They cannot know whether it goes to feed someone in dire need or to droning some family on foreign soil. — NOS4A2

I wonder why? Because that tool, that machine has mens rea; it's living, thinking, sentient being, running live through the lives of people, all by itself, undirected?





NOS, I'm just singling out Musk because he's high profile. They are 700 billionaires in the U.S. who don't pay shit and many many more multimillionaires. And guess what! They don't have the real power. The real power is in the oil and other corporate powers that lobby Congress and the Executive for largess and get it.

Libertarians should know that a multimillionaire coal baron who takes money from Exxon and gets his rocks off sabotaging climate legislation whist sitting as chairman on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee is on their side. So is the person who had sorting machines destroyed to delay the pre-election mail and owns obscene amounts of stock in private shipping companies while sitting as Postmaster General. He too is on your side. Government is full of people who agree with libertarians. They want libertarians to hate the government they work for. In fact, they are making government work for libertarians by trying to keep government from working for the people at all. Libertarians are not the people.

If I could end my relationship with the state like I can with a business, by simply walking out the door, I would. — NOS4A2

No, you can't, because the state is run by business, as I said before. I know reading comprehension isn't your strength.

It has been marketed in the West as a success of neoliberalism as the US has had this false idea that China opening up would bring also political change (and make it more like, uh, Taiwan). — ssu

You're right that it has been marketed as success. You noticed every time capitalism is criticized, there's inevitably the line of "it's lifted more people out of poverty than any system in history." Knowing that China is overwhelmingly responsible for this fact, and that China is hardly a capitalist country, with massive state intervention/interference/direction on every level, it's disingenuous at best.

Nah, just you specifically because you make things up which are the literal opposite of reality. — StreetlightX

Don't forget me, buddy. Or am I just a Biden lackey? I forgot. :kiss:

If I could end my relationship with the state like I can with a business, by simply walking out the door, I would. — NOS4A2

I was going to ask "seriously" but then I caught myself because the word "seriously" has been so over used as to sound rhetorical, flip, facetious, or like a teen valley girl. But I can't think of another word. So, seriously?

I also want to ask why you can't walk out the door, and where you would go if you did? But that just leads to pivots and excuses and fantasy land.

So I'm left with the only serious question left, based in sincere intellectual curiosity: If you could somehow end this relationship, would you likewise forego all the state provides you in that to-be-abandoned relationship? Tell me about that, please. I might want to do that myself. It sounds interesting. Of course that would haul me back to the "why and where" question, but first things first.

Musk’s wealth exists largely in Tesla stocks, that is, on paper only. He lives off borrowed money. So the question arises, why should he pay income tax if he never made any income? When he sells his stocks (which, on a cursory glance, he just did) he will be subject to taxes you or I could never pay in many lifetimes. They don’t mention that.

Although filings detailing Musk's stock sales on Tuesday and Wednesday didn't mention any motivation, he does have an additional massive tax bill looming. When he exercises the additional options that are due to expire, he will have to report the value of the shares as regular income, at 40.3% federal tax rate, and likely some state tax.

The exact tax bill will be determined by the value of the shares at the time the options are exercised, but the federal tax bill is likely to be nearly $11 billion if shares stay near their current value.

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2021/11/10/investing/elon-musk-tesla-stock-sale-taxes/index.html

If I could end the relationship, it would mean I am no longer paying any money, so I would no longer expect anything in return. Since there is no chance of that, I have to content myself with whatever morsels the state will offer me, which turns out to be very little.

Imagine being against the state (when not run by Trump) but an apologist for billionaires.

He lives off borrowed money. — NOS4A2

Cool. What a guy.

I would no longer expect anything in return. — NOS4A2

How would you protect what little you have from the thieves (non-governmental :roll: ) that would take it from you?

I have to content myself with whatever morsels the state will offer me, which turns out to be very little. — NOS4A2

Just some unsolicited advice: Sit down with a pen and paper sometime and write down all you have to be thankful for.

I won't suggest that you honestly evaluate how much of that was brought to you by, or protected by your fellow man, acting by and through government. That would be too big an ask. You can believe that all that would come to you in spite of, and not because of government.

Baby steps. Baby steps. Just start with what you are grateful for.

Maybe in 20 years the light bulb will go on.

So the question arises, why should he pay income tax if he never made any income? — NOS4A2

He should pay property tax.

I would prefer to defend myself or pay for a service that defends my rights and property, instead of funding an agency that defends the interests of a central authority. But that’s theoretical. Hundreds of years of living under state rule makes it almost impossible to think how it would work in a practical fashion.

What are you grateful for when it comes to government?

Re: billionaires and taxes. If money is not earned, through hard and/or smart work, and is simply the result of markets (i.e. on paper), and where the law has been manipulated by the rich to only count as income that which has been cashed out, then what is really happening is what the right like to say: "I don't work for my money; my money works for me." I don't have a problem with that. However, why is their money not paying taxes like all other workers? Withholding for SS, medicare, unemployment, income (state and federal), etc.? Can the money unionize? Go on strike against the billionaires and seek better working conditions? Make it's own investments? Vote? Etc. All independent of the asshole it works for? Just curious. Or is the money simply a slave?

I would prefer to defend myself or pay for a service that defends my rights and property, — NOS4A2

Against a foreign state invader? Against a cartel? Against an organized crime family? What happens when the service you pay for is, or becomes one of those entities?

What are you grateful for when it comes to government? — NOS4A2

Every single thing I have, except for Mother Nature. Even then, some of her has been protected for me, from the libertarians, so that I can still enjoy what's left of her. But yeah, the thin blue line, the thin green line, the highways, the rights of way over which you and I now communicate, the fire department, the subsidized health care, jeesh. I could go on and on. But if you are suggesting I should count my blessing, you are spot the fuck on. I should. More than I do.