Libertarian Party: Your Thoughts?

[Eunos_Cosmo]

It's not that I wouldn't want to. It's that I'm not the right person for the job. It's not that I don't know how to write persuasively, or make a solid logical and factual case. In fact a lot of that overlaps with my current career path. I have a fair amount of experience in the area of making intellectual arguments. But that does't seem to be what appeals to voters, and this is based in part on personal experience with me attempting to lay out a factual or logical case and getting rebuffed by instinct or emotion. I'm probably the last person who would be successful at motivating people emotionally, and that's what it takes to achieve a political shift.

I'll give a tiny example. I had a family member get suckered in by a Pyramid Scheme (Quixtar if you want to know). That family member had successfully pyramid schemed their way to 3 other family members of mine. And by the time the 4 of them had realized they were about to strike it rich, it was time to reach out to me. All 4 of them made their case to me at once in what I would describe as an intervention-like setting.

I sat down with them and had a detailed explanation for why what they were proposing was a pyramid scheme, and why they should leave it. I was met with much vitriol (defensiveness), and they explained to me how it was just like any other company (pure intuition), and how I was basically crapping on their dreams (emotion). It was not the pyramid scheme that was causing the problem, it was me and my insistence on bringing a spotlight to their house of cards, upon which they had heaped their hopes, and in some cases a little bit of self-identity and self-esteem (I still have a strained relationship over that incident, from like 12 years back).

It's not that I don't understand why I get emotional responses, or why people allow themselves to be so swayed by appeals to emotion (Trump). I do, I just don't care. And I can't seem to bring myself to try to win emotional basketcases over to my side. I've tried, and I've consistently be disgusted by what ultimately is used to consider my perspective unconvincing. So I have given up trying to persuade people politically, or even in many aspects of life, and merely attempt to convey the truth.

I don't know if emotional ploys really works for libertarianism. It's all stone cold logic...admittedly a difficult sell.

I tried to talk a self-described "libertarian minded" individual into voting for Gary Johnson instead of Trump, and he declared with no irony that since Gary Johnson got confused about Aleppo, he could not vote for the man. I think that moment helped me understand, to a degree, that you cannot walk someone to your perspective. They have to walk on their own.

That's a high bar for ordinary people in 21st century earth and it gets me to another major issue I have with libertarian ideas. What do you do with all of the people who are not ...good. Like objectivism is all about the celebration of the greatness of man. That's fine, but necessarily there are a lot of substandard humans out there. What role do these people have? Naturally, the answer is "that's not my problem". Idealistically, sure that's an acceptable answer. But then these people, who have to be free to do what they want, go and vote for somebody like Donald Trump (or worse! There have been many worse people elected by unhappy masses!) and it imperils the whole system. Can libertarianism work in an open system where there are unproductive people? In it's purest form...I can't see it working.

I tell myself it isn't true, but sometimes I think libertarians would rather preserve their philosophical purity and never actually see a robust version of their ideas put into practice than deal with messy implementation process, or worse, face the prospect of it's problems. In this way, libertarians can always claim the high ground - "IF we all did this, than the world would be great! But all you philistines won't let it happen!" - kinda thing.

I think the extremism is somewhat of a defense mechanism - the only way libertarianism can truly work (on it's own terms) is if it is fulfilled fully. Any less than that and its success cannot be evaluated. In this way it is beyond critique because it can, almost by nature, never be achieved. You said yourself that "we may never get there". I just see limited utility in pure libertarian thinking.

Just because I'm curious: For those on this board who identify strongly (like 8-10 out of 10) with libertarianism:

1. Is somebody who leans libertarian (say 5-7 out of 10) valid in your opinion?
2. What is the population density of the place you live?

 

[Danoff]

That's a high bar for ordinary people in 21st century earth and it gets me to another major issue I have with libertarian ideas. What do you do with all of the people who are not ...good. Like objectivism is all about the celebration of the greatness of man. That's fine, but necessarily there are a lot of substandard humans out there. What role do these people have? Naturally, the answer is "that's not my problem". Idealistically, sure that's an acceptable answer. But then these people, who have to be free to do what they want, go and vote for somebody like Donald Trump (or worse! There have been many worse people elected by unhappy masses!) and it imperils the whole system. Can libertarianism work in an open system where there are unproductive people? In it's purest form...I can't see it working.

What role do those people have now? When you say "substandard" are you talking about people who have little drive and spend their time mostly doing nothing? Or are you talking about criminals? Or are you talking about people who are unlucky? For people who spend most of their time doing nothing, I don't think that it actually takes much to keep them happy, at least based on those that I have met. You think they're going to rise up, but actually many of them can't be bothered to vote, and are too busy doing nothing. I don't think that the lazy will revolt, I think the lazy will do what the lazy have always done, as little as possible to get by. The higher the standard of living (across the board), the easier it is for them to get by. These days the most unproductive members of society in the US still have a life of luxury compared to the most powerful from a few hundred years back.

If you're talking about the unlucky, people are very charitable, even now when government muscles its way into charity.

I tell myself it isn't true, but sometimes I think libertarians would rather preserve their philosophical purity and never actually see a robust version of their ideas put into practice than deal with messy implementation process, or worse, face the prospect of it's problems. In this way, libertarians can always claim the high ground - "IF we all did this, than the world would be great! But all you philistines won't let it happen!" - kinda thing.

I think the extremism is somewhat of a defense mechanism - the only way libertarianism can truly work (on it's own terms) is if it is fulfilled fully. Any less than that and its success cannot be evaluated. In this way it is beyond critique because it can, almost by nature, never be achieved. You said yourself that "we may never get there". I just see limited utility in pure libertarian thinking.

Like I've recently said to other members here, you don't get to pick what is true based on your personal preferences. It is true, whether you like it or not, whether you see utility or not. I happen to think that there is a great deal of utility in it, but there is also principle. That's the part that I think you struggle with the most, the recognition of principle - it bothers you that those principles are at odds with what you perceive as utility. But I think you'd find that they are less at odds than you assume.

It's not a matter of "anything less than success cannot be evaluated". Maybe for some. But each individual decision can be evaluated in its own right. For example I can simultaneously say that the US income tax system is all kinds of messed up and wrong, and also say that it is good that marijuana is legalized (in some states, and should be federally). I don't have to say that marijuana legalization is meaningless without legalization of cocaine, because i'ts not meaningless.

Just because I'm curious: For those on this board who identify strongly (like 8-10 out of 10) with libertarianism:

1. Is somebody who leans libertarian (say 5-7 out of 10) valid in your opinion?
2. What is the population density of the place you live?

What do you mean valid? You mean like... is a libertarian? Yes I think a preponderance of the leaning is sufficient.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

What role do those people have now? When you say "substandard" are you talking about people who have little drive and spend their time mostly doing nothing? Or are you talking about criminals? Or are you talking about people who are unlucky? For people who spend most of their time doing nothing, I don't think that it actually takes much to keep them happy, at least based on those that I have met. You think they're going to rise up, but actually many of them can't be bothered to vote, and are too busy doing nothing. I don't think that the lazy will revolt, I think the lazy will do what the lazy have always done, as little as possible to get by. The higher the standard of living (across the board), the easier it is for them to get by. These days the most unproductive members of society in the US still have a life of luxury compared to the most powerful from a few hundred years back.

If you're talking about the unlucky, people are very charitable, even now when government muscles its way into charity.

I just mean below average, which there are a lot of by definition. Have you seen post-industrial towns in this country? Like in person I mean. I struggle to see a life of luxury in Rice, Texas, for instance. I get that your argument is that if we had a libertarian society it would lift everyone up. I don't really have the same confidence as you, especially as some (a significant amount?) of successful people would probably abuse (even within the extent of the law where you cannot enforce morals) poorer people like they do now...predatory lending for example.

Like I've recently said to other members here, you don't get to pick what is true based on your personal preferences. It is true, whether you like it or not, whether you see utility or not. I happen to think that there is a great deal of utility in it, but there is also principle. That's the part that I think you struggle with the most, the recognition of principle - it bothers you that those principles are at odds with what you perceive as utility. But I think you'd find that they are less at odds than you assume.

Purity test! I think it's more accurate to say I'm not confident that those principles embodied in a government to such an extreme extent would be the best way of governing. You cannot square taxing a populace with the principles you've presented...whereas I cannot square a functioning government without some form of taxation. That's one example. I understand the principles...but I also see practical limitations to them. I feel like you don't respect that...which makes me question your answer to the first question at the end of my post, especially because you would view my position as one of stealing from you if I support taxation.

It's not a matter of "anything less than success cannot be evaluated". Maybe for some. But each individual decision can be evaluated in its own right. For example I can simultaneously say that the US income tax system is all kinds of messed up and wrong, and also say that it is good that marijuana is legalized (in some states, and should be federally). I don't have to say that marijuana legalization is meaningless without legalization of cocaine, because i'ts not meaningless.



What do you mean valid? You mean like... is a libertarian? Yes I think a preponderance of the leaning is sufficient.

See above and:
You didn't answer the second question!

 

[Exorcet]

What do you do with all of the people who are not ...good. Like objectivism is all about the celebration of the greatness of man. That's fine, but necessarily there are a lot of substandard humans out there. What role do these people have? Naturally, the answer is "that's not my problem".

I see it as the opposite. It is my problem. The transition to a libertarian system will never finish. Even if everything I wanted in society were granted instantly right now, that wouldn't mean that things would stay that way forever, at least not without effort.

Specifically when it comes to dealing with people who aren't libertarian minded, what I would be to find a compromise with them. Not a compromise of ideals, but in terms of interactions between us and our places in society. I might have to give things up to keep them satisfied, not necessarily much different from now except that I'd have more choice in my compromise and they would hopefully have less legal leverage to force me into siding with them. The latter is pretty important, you mention that they might vote someone unfit into office, but even if they did that person should have limited power over the population. They couldn't ruin everything all at once, or at least that's the idea.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

I see it as the opposite. It is my problem. The transition to a libertarian system will never finish. Even if everything I wanted in society were granted instantly right now, that wouldn't mean that things would stay that way forever, at least not without effort.

Specifically when it comes to dealing with people who aren't libertarian minded, what I would be to find a compromise with them. Not a compromise of ideals, but in terms of interactions between us and our places in society. I might have to give things up to keep them satisfied, not necessarily much different from now except that I'd have more choice in my compromise and they would hopefully have less legal leverage to force me into siding with them. The latter is pretty important, you mention that they might vote someone unfit into office, but even if they did that person should have limited power over the population. They couldn't ruin everything all at once, or at least that's the idea.

I mean, that's pretty much exactly how I feel. My point was: does that attitude fit into a idealistic libertarian ethos or not? I feel idealistic libertarianism precludes cooperation with anyone who isn't of the faith.

 

[Exorcet]

I mean, that's pretty much exactly how I feel. My point was: does that attitude fit into a idealistic libertarian ethos or not? I feel idealistic libertarianism precludes cooperation with anyone who isn't of the faith.

I don't think so. Right now it's the majority's opinion that's forced on the population. Weakening the government means people have to make compromises on their own. Compromise is integral, just not on certain core ideals, which is how I think most people feel anyway. Who is willing to compromise on legalizing murder or slavery (at least not when it's dressed up as something else)? I hope not many people.

 

[Danoff]

I just mean below average, which there are a lot of by definition. Have you seen post-industrial towns in this country? Like in person I mean. I struggle to see a life of luxury in Rice, Texas, for instance. I get that your argument is that if we had a libertarian society it would lift everyone up. I don't really have the same confidence as you, especially as some (a significant amount?) of successful people would probably abuse (even within the extent of the law where you cannot enforce morals) poorer people like they do now...predatory lending for example.

The citizens of Rice Texas are not dying of bubonic plague or smallpox. They have access to information, and entertainment that was beyond the wildest dreams of their ancestors. Food is tastier, and in many cases more nutritious. I could go on.

Purity test!

It's not a purity test to have principles. It's hypocritical to claim "purity test" when someone has principles when I'm sure that you yourself also have principles.

I understand the principles...but I also see practical limitations to them.

Then you understand them and don't hold them. You see them as guidelines rather than principles.

I feel like you don't respect that...which makes me question your answer to the first question at the end of my post, especially because you would view my position as one of stealing from you if I support taxation.

It is theft. I note that you're not arguing against that. In fact, nobody (that I've seen) has put up a decent argument against that. You're just arguing that you're ok with it. And then I'm the bad buy for pointing out that you're ok with theft.

To make matters worse, I myself would vote for a sales tax (which is also theft), over an income tax. In the question of "should we become better aligned with morality", I vote "yes". Even if it is less than ideal, and not what I want ultimately. For example, proposition DD here in Colorado (I think it was DD and not CC) involved legalizing sports gambling (something I want) with a new complicated tax on sports gambling (something I didn't want). I voted for it because, even though it is not what I want, and not what I'd have written, it is a step in the right direction.

You are making me think a little bit here, which is why I come to GTPlanet in the first place. So thanks for that. What I'm wondering is whether there is any significant difference between voting for something, and doing it yourself. And prior to this second, I've always thought that the answer is no. But I'm questioning that.

Let's say there is an income tax (obviously there is) and let's say that the rate is 30%. There is a proposition, put to the voters, to raise that income tax to 35%. A vote for the proposition is a vote for additional theft. A vote against that proposition is a vote for the same theft. And abstaining is a refusal to participate in the theft process. Right? Not really. Because it is an opinion poll, given the choice between current and proposed, which is preferable? This is not how you would behave in isolation, but a representation of your preference given two options. If your preference is to steal more, perhaps that says something about your morality, and certainly you should be aware of the moral implications of your support for that act should it come to pass. But if your preference is to steal less, then what exactly have you said about your morality? Only that of those two, you want less theft.

So suppose for a moment that you're given the choice between the current rate and a proposition for 25%. A vote for the proposition is for theft, a vote against it is for more theft, and abstaining is refusing to participate in the theft process? No, it's your opinion that less theft would be better.

This is not a nuance that I had previously (sufficiently) pondered. I'll have to think on it more.

To test this, let's take it to extreme. Suppose your government executes 100,000 innocent people each year. And there is a proposition to reduce that number to 80,000. Is it ok to vote for the 80,000? I think it might be.

Let's say that currently they execute 0 innocent people per year. There is a proposition to execute 100,000 (choice A), or 80,000 (choice B) and there is no other choice. There is no "no" choice. Can you vote 80,000? I think you have to abstain.

See above and:
You didn't answer the second question!

I live in Denver.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

The citizens of Rice Texas are not dying of bubonic plague or smallpox. They have access to information, and entertainment that was beyond the wildest dreams of their ancestors. Food is tastier, and in many cases more nutritious. I could go on.



It's not a purity test to have principles. It's hypocritical to claim "purity test" when someone has principles when I'm sure that you yourself also have principles.



Then you understand them and don't hold them. You see them as guidelines rather than principles.

That's probably somewhat true. Pragmatist who sees value in libertarian ideas maybe?

It is theft. I note that you're not arguing against that. In fact, nobody (that I've seen) has put up a decent argument against that. You're just arguing that you're ok with it. And then I'm the bad buy for pointing out that you're ok with theft.

To make matters worse, I myself would vote for a sales tax (which is also theft), over an income tax. In the question of "should we become better aligned with morality", I vote "yes". Even if it is less than ideal, and not what I want ultimately. For example, proposition DD here in Colorado (I think it was DD and not CC) involved legalizing sports gambling (something I want) with a new complicated tax on sports gambling (something I didn't want). I voted for it because, even though it is not what I want, and not what I'd have written, it is a step in the right direction.

You are making me think a little bit here, which is why I come to GTPlanet in the first place. So thanks for that. What I'm wondering is whether there is any significant difference between voting for something, and doing it yourself. And prior to this second, I've always thought that the answer is no. But I'm questioning that.

Let's say there is an income tax (obviously there is) and let's say that the rate is 30%. There is a proposition, put to the voters, to raise that income tax to 35%. A vote for the proposition is a vote for additional theft. A vote against that proposition is a vote for the same theft. And abstaining is a refusal to participate in the theft process. Right? Not really. Because it is an opinion poll, given the choice between current and proposed, which is preferable? This is not how you would behave in isolation, but a representation of your preference given two options. If your preference is to steal more, perhaps that says something about your morality, and certainly you should be aware of the moral implications of your support for that act should it come to pass. But if your preference is to steal less, then what exactly have you said about your morality? Only that of those two, you want less theft.

So suppose for a moment that you're given the choice between the current rate and a proposition for 25%. A vote for the proposition is for theft, a vote against it is for more theft, and abstaining is refusing to participate in the theft process? No, it's your opinion that less theft would be better.

This is not a nuance that I had previously (sufficiently) pondered. I'll have to think on it more.

To test this, let's take it to extreme. Suppose your government executes 100,000 innocent people each year. And there is a proposition to reduce that number to 80,000. Is it ok to vote for the 80,000? I think it might be.

Let's say that currently they execute 0 innocent people per year. There is a proposition to execute 100,000 (choice A), or 80,000 (choice B) and there is no other choice. There is no "no" choice. Can you vote 80,000? I think you have to abstain.



I live in Denver.

I wouldn't say you're the bad guy for claiming Tax is theft...

I mean taxes are the worst. But I haven't seen a workable alternative (including anything you've suggested - greater/entire reliance on sales tax will almost assuredly destroy consumerism, which is basically our economy right now) if you want an entity capable of defending your rights. I'm open to getting rid of taxes (I'd love it!), but only if I'm confident they can be replaced with something that works. Also, I think taxes are...taxes: similar but not identical to theft - you do get something in return for the action, which you do not in pure theft.

Speaking of theft, I was thinking of this today:
Imagine a scenario where Bob and Dave live near each other. Dave has a house on a piece of property with great views which means his property is worth $1M. Bob's property is downhill of Dave's and worth less. If Bob builds a tower his property value goes up. If Bob builds a tower, it blocks the view from Dave's property which causes the value to go down. If Bob builds the tower, Dave is harmed. If Bob does not or can not build the tower, Bob is harmed, compared to his property's potential.

Is it ethical for Dave to prevent Bob from building the tower? Is it ethical for Bob to build the tower?

 

[Danoff]

similar but not identical to theft - you do get something in return for the action, which you do not in pure theft.

You always get something in return. Even if it's just a life lesson.

Speaking of theft, I was thinking of this today:
Imagine a scenario where Bob and Dave live near each other. Dave has a house on a piece of property with great views which means his property is worth $1M. Bob's property is downhill of Dave's and worth less. If Bob builds a tower his property value goes up. If Bob builds a tower, it blocks the view from Dave's property which causes the value to go down. If Bob builds the tower, Dave is harmed. If Bob does not or can not build the tower, Bob is harmed, compared to his property's potential.

Is it ethical for Dave to prevent Bob from building the tower? Is it ethical for Bob to build the tower?

Is there a view easement?

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

You always get something in return. Even if it's just a life lesson.



Is there a view easement?

So in the absence of a binding agreement made beforehand, I gather you would argue that Bob can build his tower.

 

[Danoff]

So in the absence of a binding agreement made beforehand, I gather you would argue that Bob can build his tower.

Yes.


Edit:

This is what is known as selective rigor. The idea that Libertarianism allows someone to build a tower blocking the views of others is somehow a flaw with Libertarianism despite the fact that that can literally happen in today's society. Heck I know someone who bought up all the adjacent land so that he could protect his view. Outside of my window is a giant drill tower blocking my view of the mountains which my city decided should go there.

 

[MIE1992]

Every time a libertarian implements their beliefs, a communist is born. I believe capitalism would be in a better place (and not have such a bad rap among some people) if not for libertarianism, neoliberals, and similar beliefs.

 

[Famine]

Every time a libertarian implements their beliefs, a communist is born.

When was the last time a libertarian 'belief' was implemented?

 

[PocketZeven]

When was the last time a libertarian 'belief' was implemented?

I think he is suggesting that a rise in libertarianism will lead to communism.

 

[Famine]

I think he is suggesting that a rise in libertarianism will lead to communism.

I think I'll read the words he wrote and not try to infer a meaning beyond that.

He said "Every time a libertarian implements their beliefs, a communist is born.". That begs the question of when a libertarian has implemented their beliefs in order to birth a communist. When has that occurred?

 

[PocketZeven]

I think I'll read the words he wrote and not try to infer a meaning beyond that.

He said "Every time a libertarian implements their beliefs, a communist is born.". That begs the question of when a libertarian has implemented their beliefs in order to birth a communist. When has that occurred?

You did, and I just turned into a communist. The more you push your libertarian views, the more left I am leaning.

 

[Famine]

You did, and I just turned into a communist. The more you push your libertarian views, the more left I am leaning.

I've never implemented anything, much less 'beliefs'.

Communism isn't just leftist, it's authoritarianism too.

 

[PocketZeven]

I've never implemented anything, much less 'beliefs'.

Communism isn't just leftist, it's authoritarianism too.

Communism itself isnt. Authoritarian (marxist/leninis) Communism is. Communism and libertarianism are more alike then people think.

 

[Famine]

Communism itself isnt. Authoritarian (marxist/leninis) Communism is. Communism and libertarianism are more alike then people think.

Libertarianism is liberal capitalism. Communism is fascist socialism. They're literally opposites.

You've done the Political Compass, so you know this.

 

[mustafur]

Libertarianism is liberal capitalism. Communism is fascist socialism. They're literally opposites.

You've done the Political Compass, so you know this.

Well that’s clearly wrong, communism is like a Sub Umbrella of leftism, Fascist Socialism just sounds like Soviet Stalinism.

 

[Famine]

Well that’s clearly wrong, communism is like a Sub Umbrella of leftism

Yes. It's socialism (leftism) with authoritarianism - the extreme of which is fascism. Communism requires strict social policies in order to manage consumption of what the state produces.

Which is what I said.

 

[mustafur]

Yes. It's socialism (leftism) with authoritarianism - the extreme of which is fascism. Communism requires strict social policies in order to manage consumption of what the state produces.

Which is what I said.

Which is wrong, Communism doesn't require a state.

 

[Famine]

Which is wrong, Communism doesn't require a state.

It doesn't require a country, but it is a state.

Communism requires an oversight body (purportedly, but rarely, the individuals within it) which controls the means of production and polices social policies - including no net migration. That's a state by definition (from "status", "stare", and the PIE "sta", to mean governing body, or position in social order), whether an entire sovereign nation or a kibbutz.

 

[mustafur]

It doesn't require a country, but it is a state.

Communism requires an oversight body (purportedly, but rarely, the individuals within it) which controls the means of production and polices social policies - including no net migration. That's a state by definition (from "status", "stare", and the PIE "sta", to mean governing body, or position in social order), whether an entire sovereign nation or a kibbutz.

That’s still one standard of many that is possible, communism is an umbrella term that can range from whatever Soviet Russia was to a group of people living in a small community, with no external body, and no determined leader.

 

[Famine]

That’s still one standard of many that is possible, communism is an umbrella term that can range from whatever Soviet Russia was to a group of people living in a small community, with no external body, and no determined leader.

All of which require totalitarianism on both social and fiscal scales - complete state (where "state" is, as I said, any body controlling everything, from a ruling party of a nation to a collective on a kibbutz with equal representation) control of all behaviour, production and consumption.

Communism cannot function without these two things. Without total control of consumption, production may be too low or too high. Without total control of production, consumption may be to low or too high. All behaviour must be regulated for the good of the collective. That's why communism is necessarily in the top left of the Political Compass - extreme socialism (state control of production), extreme authoritarianism (state control of behaviour).

 

[PocketZeven]

All of which require totalitarianism on both social and fiscal scales - complete state (where "state" is, as I said, any body controlling everything, from a ruling party of a nation to a collective on a kibbutz with equal representation) control of all behaviour, production and consumption.

Communism cannot function without these two things. Without total control of consumption, production may be too low or too high. Without total control of production, consumption may be to low or too high. All behaviour must be regulated for the good of the collective. That's why communism is necessarily in the top left of the Political Compass - extreme socialism (state control of production), extreme authoritarianism (state control of behaviour).

Communism itself like libertarianism are ideologies. What you are describing are political systems. Communism itself is not about authoritarianism or total control. Its main theme is the absence of social classes and common ownership.

The concept is an utopian impossibility though, because people are selfish and greedy.

 

[Danoff]

Communism itself like libertarianism are ideologies. What you are describing are political systems. Communism itself is not about authoritarianism or total control. Its main theme is the absence of social classes and common ownership.

Strictly speaking, absence of social classes and common ownership is anarchy. Communism requires absolute redistribution of production and control over consumption. It is fundamentally authoritarian.

Also common ownership here is lack of ownership. Common ownership would work a little differently.

The concept is an utopian impossibility though, because people are selfish and greedy.

Actually, the biggest problem with it is that people are lazy, and have a notion of fairness baked in at the genetic level.

 

[PocketZeven]

Strictly speaking, absence of social classes and common ownership is anarchy. Communism requires absolute redistribution of production and control over consumption. It is fundamentally authoritarian.

Also common ownership here is lack of ownership. Common ownership would work a little differently.



Actually, the biggest problem with it is that people are lazy, and have a notion of fairness baked in at the genetic level.

Anarchy is against common ownership though. Common ownership in itself contradicts authorianism actually. Which is about a central power. Which contradicts the absence of social classes. The communist regimes that people like to use as examples (china, N-korea, Sowiet union etc.) are perversions of the ideology. The existence of a central political party and a leader, is the exact opposite of the absence of social classes. In its true form you should think of maybe the care bears. Think of a society where nobody is forced to do anything, but voluntary does everything for the sake of the community. If there isnt enough food, lets all eat a bit less and help out the hunter/farmers to increase production. A leader or group of leaders forcing people to act for the sake of the community is authotarian.

Somehow "communism" is now a synonym to any authotarian form of communism, which I think is not accurate. Socialism in the USA also seem to be a synonym to "authotarian socialism". That is not what I think of, when I hear socialism.

People are selfish, greedy and indeed also lazy.

 

[Danoff]

Anarchy is against common ownership though. Common ownership in itself contradicts authorianism actually. Which is about a central power. Which contradicts the absence of social classes. The communist regimes that people like to use as examples (china, N-korea, Sowiet union etc.) are perversions of the ideology. The existence of a central political party and a leader, is the exact opposite of the absence of social classes. In its true form you should think of maybe the care bears. Think of a society where nobody is forced to do anything, but voluntary does everything for the sake of the community. If there isnt enough food, lets all eat a bit less and help out the hunter/farmers to increase production. A leader or group of leaders forcing people to act for the sake of the community is authotarian.

Care bears is anarchy. Communism is not common ownership (at least not literally). It's more like public ownership, and public control. Nobody owns anything, everyone collectively owns everything. No one person can demand use of any one thing, it's all rationed and apportioned centrally.

Somehow "communism" is now a synonym to any authotarian form of communism, which I think is not accurate. Socialism in the USA also seem to be a synonym to "authotarian socialism". That is not what I think of, when I hear socialism.

Well I'm happy to have a discussion of communism (in the libertarian thread I guess), but I think you're wrong about what it entails.

 

[PocketZeven]

Care bears is anarchy. Communism is not common ownership (at least not literally). It's more like public ownership, and public control. Nobody owns anything, everyone collectively owns everything. No one person can demand use of any one thing, it's all rationed and apportioned centrally.



Well I'm happy to have a discussion of communism (in the libertarian thread I guess), but I think you're wrong about what it entails.

Communism main principles is common ownership and does not indentify control.That is where communism got its name.
Communism can also be anarchy. There is a school of thought called anarcho-communism.

Edit:
Personally I am against any authorian form of ideology. But also against ideologies that assume individualism (libertarianism) should be the basis of any society.