Elected to institute socialism, Clinton turned out to be a free-market fundamentalist. Elected as a peace candidate, Obama was a hawk. People assume Trump is a libertarian type, but like his predecessors, you know better if you really listen to what he says, not what his supporters and opponents assume about him.
The Wall is a massive public works project, which uses Eminent Domain for a coast to coast land grab. In his first presidential run, he proposed a massive one time tax on the mega rich, and espoused 99% rhetoric. cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/11/09/trump.rich/index.html?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS Trump's tax proposal was mocked, as capital would leave the US to avoid being taxed, hence his calls for the repatriation of capital. Trump states healthcare should be available to all people, including the mentally ill who are "dying in the streets." This is to the left of Bernie (pbuh).
He's not a republican. He's not a democrat. What is he?
A populist who'll say anything to get elected. You can't trust his supporters but you can't trust him to be honest either.
Jaxon Young
Save me
Noah Wood
You don't know shit about socialism op
Ryan Ramirez
Granted, but how does one define his stated ambitions?
Henry Nelson
They are literally the same, a bunch of liberals
Robert Peterson
You don't remember his welfare and healthcare proposals he ran on the first time?
Ryder Collins
Trump was more Leftist than Clinton thats for sure.
William Gomez
You ancaps give right libertarians a bad name, change you flag fam.
Jace Fisher
...
Brody Garcia
Well, not like it matters. There are no more Right Libertarians in the US.
Aaron Richardson
he is though
Joshua Flores
There's no right libertarians on the Earth, since the ideology is an oxymoron
Hudson Davis
There are no left libertarians because you can't redistribute the wealth without violence.
Nathaniel Morgan
Bill Clinton was a Third Way centrist. You Americans are so fucking retarded, Jesus Christ.
Gavin Collins
GOOGLE B O O K C H I N
Nolan Carter
I'd rather have you inform me of your argument directly.
Elijah Diaz
Nah.
Isaac Bennett
This sort of thing is why you're fucking pathetic
Was spoonfeeding? I used a logical argument and explained my position. Did I just spoonfeed you?
Cameron Sullivan
There are no right libertarians because there is no difference between hierarchy going out from private or public entities.
Jordan Cruz
Self aggrandisement and self enrichment.
Nolan Cruz
The difference being that you're not coerced by a private institution, its just there created someone using his own property rights.
Ryder Torres
The argument was google Bookchin, because he shows how you're wrong. you still haven't disproven the idea that right libertarians don't exist btw.
Easton Robinson
Right libertarians are the worst, they're beyond spooked.
Logan Rodriguez
Why, I kinda liked them.
Mason Davis
What is this supposed to mean? That leftists are opposed to violence?
Luke Baker
Not that I had high hopes for this thread, but the fact that the fuckery of AnCap feels are turning into spam… yeah, well… pile on, brave soldier.
Austin Russell
He could only ever be a frontman as he's not exactly ideological. The ideologies of the people around him give you a clue of the political leanings of his regime.
Brandon Walker
Because the Libertarian party disappeared after Ron Paul made his exit? Rand Paul makes too many compromises for anyone's tastes and Gary Johnson doesn't even believe in the NAP. People are ailing Donald Trump as a Libertarian because of his policies, but you can tell he isn't going to return the soldiers home or drain the swamp anymore. RIP.
In other words, leftists support violence as long as its "for the workers".
Do you even know what spam is you retard
Liam Edwards
Holy shit, this thread is awful.
Trump has repeatedly stated he's a Republican in TV interviews since the mid-1980s. The reason he ran, first on the Reform ticket, and now again as a Republican, is mainly to do with his dissatisfaction with the some specifics of the economic policies that been a central part of Republican governments since Reagan. Basically, he's protectionist and he believes U.S.A Corp is being ripped off by its competitors and he's mad about it because: 1) It affects him personally through his businesses and he wants to make things better for himself and people he knows 2) He's nationalistic No-one ever assumed Trump was a libertarian because he has economically populist ideas. Granted, he was closer to that than a lot of other Republicans because for a long time he was basically a Rockefeller Republican, but he also seems fairly pro-industry and at one point wanted a single-payer healthcare system. When I started realising he wasn't really a moderate Republican any more was around 4-5 years ago when he started spouting some crazy shit about climate change and interest rates and since the start of his presidential run he lurched towards paleoconservatism and a more general right-wing populism, but it's difficult to know what to trust about what he's said in the past couple years: he hasn't suddenly become massively non-interventionist and he hasn't suddenly become a huge pro-lifer either, it's all just to get votes.
The equity tax proposal he made in 1999 was made from a fiscally conservative standpoint about writing off government debt. A few years ago the guy even suggested lowering the minimum wage in a bizarre kind of siege economy move to compete with China but of course totally 180'd on that during the campaign.
If you think Trump is actually a RINO in disguise you're fucking fooling yourself. Both Trump and Clinton were centre-right candidates but just for different reasons.
Josiah Davis
And I am sure those property rights are peacefully enforced by every member of society respecting the NAP
I would get mad at anarcho-crapitalists, but luckily your ideology is so fundamentally contradictory that it will never be put into practice
Michael Sanchez
Anyone who's read any history whatsoever would never make so retarded a claim. That's why no one wants to bother arguing with you, because your base assumptions and assertions are so asinine and naive.
Cooper Wilson
I still don't see the contradiction, user.
Bentley Lee
That's pretty great argument but not really. This place really is a shithole isn't it?
Luis Stewart
What arguments do you expect when all you do is shit out the same old retarded anarcho-crapitalist one liners that are purer ideology than Zizek could imagine in his wildest fever dreams?
Hunter Sanchez
I bet you couldn't even come up with a logically consistent definition of "violence" or "aggression" if you tried. That's why all your ideas are so fucking bad, they're based on broad feelings and not precise definitions.
Kevin Allen
What IS the point of opposing government if you're just going to be violent and demand taxes form people again? Are you losing sight of the problem here?
Gavin Clark
In AnCapistan, do people stay on topic?
Brayden Clark
by god user at least know whom you are criticizing
Henry Jones
Do you people know what a argument is?
Wyatt Clark
Do you?
Justin Ramirez
Don't take comfort in that. The world has always been full of logically invalid -isms being put into practice.
Austin Jenkins
Yeah, my argument is that couching an ideology on the NAP is already a problem if the NAP is based on a concept you can't readily define.
Carter Kelly
People you disagree with are either stupid or evil. You should spare yourself the frustration.
Nolan James
The result of putting anarcho-crapitalism into practice would be the present state of things on steroids though
There is nothing to keep that from happening, especially in a democracy.
Levi Taylor
You obviously don't, with your low energy posts. Sad!
Dylan Foster
Ayn Rand was terrible author, and an alcoholic with an ug face. A solid 3. Unfuckable!
Tyler Nguyen
Are you people catching my right-libertarian energies and subjecting them to your left-authoritarian energies and then exploding? Its what I imagine when I see people scream at me for not explaining my argument well enough and asking me to read someone else for their arguments.
Nathan Jackson
No, we just think you're an aspie.
Connor Rogers
What energies? Are you a psychic or something? If I eat your heart, do i gain your power?
Jordan Johnson
We know what the NAP is, we are saying that is a nonsensical idea submerged in pure ideology and that you couldn't give us a definition of violence or aggression if you tried. We can't engage you in any argument because you're actually not arguing, you're just stating opinions that have no basis in theory or reality.
Camden Flores
No you imbecile.
1. We know what the NAP is, the argument you're responding to is that there is no logical defense of its application as a code of ethics
2. No one brought up taxes until you did, and it was a complete non-sequitur barely worthy of response. In any case, since YOU'RE the one making the claim that taxes are theft, the burden of proof lies on you
3. Yes, read Bookchin, or literally any author other than Ayn Rand for once in your life and you might actually learn something
Sage because you're likely an illiterate troll who won't be able to comprehend 6 whole consecutive words in this post and will just respond with some more dumb shit.
Owen Brown
...
Cameron Watson
Please explain how "Using violence to grab people's wealth is missing the point of being a Libertarian." is a opinion. I'm waiting.
Unless you mean to say that left-libertarianism is still capitalist?
Brandon Jackson
His policies are typical republican shit outside his more extreme stance in immigration.
Thomas Phillips
You should start your own thread. It's free.
Asher Cook
Taxes are theft because they have to be held up using violence. If you don't use the threat of violence, people can just evade it. Doing it to help the workers doesn't change this basic fact.
Jose Sanchez
Shit you got me
Chase Kelly
...
Joshua Johnson
...
Blake Powell
See
Cooper James
Let's break down this autism you're spewing: Axiom 1: "socialism/left libertarianism relies on seizure of wealth using violence" Axiom 2: "Violence and aggression are straightforward concepts, and we can base a moral system on the avoidance of their applications" Can we at least agree that those are two things you're claiming here? They're both laughably wrong, but until we agree on what it is you're trying to claim we can't have a reasoned discussion, which is what you ostensibly want
Grayson Miller
Yes.
Noah Hughes
No really, you should start your own sovereign thread so everyone can know where to find your brilliant ideas.
David Parker
I agree and would break it down to:
First and foremost he is an agent of the Old (Industrial) Economy. That's why: 1) He's a protectionist 2) He opposes leftliberal idpol which is mostly linked to Sillicon Walley's "New Economy" interest of neoliberal globalism 3) He is scared of the Chinese economic competition, that's why he is way less agressive against Russia.
Jayden Evans
Great now let's break those down
Axiom 1 relies on the idea that, fundamentally, leftism in all forms is just a means to reallocate wealth that is already yours. But anyone actually knowledgeable in leftist/socialist theory would know that a base principle in socialism is that the value of your labor is what is going into paying the wages of those who make their money off of ownership instead of from labor. Taxes are well besides the point.
To base it around a very simple analogy, you want the boss who owns the factory to pay the worker, and then the worker to take home that whole paycheck. A liberal wants the state to take part of that money and give it to the government for public works, and a socialist wants the workers to collectively run the factory and fairly distribute their wages.
Axiom 2 is incredibly naive. The NAP really is meaningless through and through. The whole crux of it is the word "aggression", and by the time you've defined something as "aggression" or not, you've already determined whether the action was morally justified or not. The NAP is at best only trivially correct and also fails to account the very "aggressive" institution of private property as a whole, which brings us back to Axiom 1.
While you claim it is the socialists who use violence to distribute and claim wealth, it is only through the power of the state that the private property (not personal property, please learn the difference before replying with a naive retort to this point) rights you care for have any meaning in the first place. It is the state and its agents who will defend the property rights of the factory owner in the previous analogy with deadly force, and without that threat of violence they would not kowtow to his demands or follow his leadership.
John Russell
For my first objection I wanted to ask: Why is "private property" and "personal property" so different? I do know the difference in practice, but private property and personal property can be acquired the same way. Whether I decide to make people work and give them wages for it does not separate it form "my property", why should I be penalized for not using my property for personal use and consumption? I can acquire personal property the same way I acquire private property(Though granted, the blueprint for a house and a factory aren't the same, but I am paying a worker to make a building for me and then give it back to me in turn for money). I must guess you mean something else. I assume then that, if someone makes something using a machine I own, the end result is his? But this does not explain how my property has traversed the realm of personal property and private property, which the latter is fine to "steal" since its different form personal property. Isn't it then my right to banish everyone in the factory that does not agree to my work contract? In all, the idea that you can grab property used a certain way seems silly.
But still, maybe its something else. Do you mean to say that socialists will build their own factories, and name it public property? To which I reply, I guess that's fine, but then that's so underachieving that its nearly centrist "both private property and public property can co-exist". Name this "Centrist Libertarianism".
On reply to axiom 2: You sure explained why you think the name "NAP" is dumb, but you seem to agree that violence is bad except when we're talking about property. But I deal with that above.
Ryder Diaz
The problem is that once you try to define "aggression" in any helpful way, it turns out that everything turns on the definition of "aggression," and if you can solve that, you've already constructed a moral theory with way more detail than just the NAP, so the NAP turns out to be unimportant. So for instance, do the following things count as aggression? Stealing someone's stuff. Trapping someone in a jail. Polluting a river. Telling someone "if you don't work for me, I'm going to kill you." Spoiling all the food except the food you own, and then telling someone "if you don't work for me, I'm going to let you starve to death." A natural disaster spoils all the food except the food you own, and then you tell someone "if you don't work for me, I'm going to let you starve to death." Yelling at someone. Yelling at someone when they're trying to sleep. Lighting off fireworks when other people are trying to sleep. Answering these sorts of questions and more are very important questions, which the NAP doesn't help us with. So the biggest problem now is that the NAP is both unspecific and redundant because in order to make sense of it, we need to posit a theory of rights. But once we posit a theory of rights, that already entails the NAP by definition (analytically), so there's no point in talking about the NAP. For another example, suppose you claim (as you likely do) that taxing you violates the NAP. Well, whether it's actually aggression would have to depend on who owns those dollars. Some people think that the state actually has a claim to those dollars, so you withholding tax dollars actually constitutes aggression against the state. You might argue, "No! But you have property rights over your dollars!" But once you argue that, then there's no point of bringing the NAP into the story. It's already all contained in the notion of having a property right. As I've mentioned in the past, the NAP only plays a pedagogical role: i.e., it makes the relationship between rights clearer, but it cannot define the content of these rights.
Christian Roberts
(cont.) Now when we're talking about the difference between private and personal property, I find the best way to think of it is as property that is privately controlled but socially used. "Private" here doesn't just indicate that it belongs to one person or group of person to the exclusion of others, as with "personal" goods, but points to a contradiction between control and use. The aim of socialism is to resolve this contradiction, and make it such that those who use implements are also those who control what that use looks like. In the case of painting a house, there isn't necessarily a contradiction between use and control. Asking someone to paint my house with their own paint and brushes doesn't alienate the painter from the control of the tools that they use. However, if the painter was to hire someone, and dictate to them that they use the brushes etc. in such a way, we then have the contradiction.
To sum it up in a way you may understand in your own terms, the main difference is that private property must be enforced using "aggression" since it is not typically in use by the "owner", and I'd honestly be curious what natural property rights you believe should be naturally claimed over public resources and land. If I find a fruit-bearing tree in the middle of the forest where only a primitive people live, can I lay "ownership" of it and make them exchange goods/labor for the fruit of that tree now? Why?
It was shit from the start. Just look at the OP. OP seriously thinks this defines socialism.
sage goes in all fields. This just reeks of OP being either a liberal or (more likely) an ancap.
Blake White
I'm very much neither, but I don't use the word socialism by its utopian ideals.
Carson Howard
Actually, form a quick remembering on the works of the NAP, I can answer all of those. Even if its not part of the argument, I shall do it for posterity: Always aggression Sidenote on this one: Its not aggression but laws in ancap would be more strict than the current "b-but I follow the government rules". If you pollute someone's river, a river which they have homesteaded, then they can file a complaint and you would be forced to shut down your factory until you fixed it. This is how it used to work, actually. I'm more of a Libertarian guy instead of a ancap butI think the answer would be It would be enforced by diplomacy with your private security, their sec company, and a unrelated judge. Are you spoiling someone's else farmed/already gained food? Or do you mean food that is just lying around? Wouldn't that spoil anyways? Anyways yes manually going and spoiling someone's food is the same as breaking their property. Or their face. Breaks the NAP. Holy fuck what? Did you anger a witch or something? Are there no farmers to ship you more food? Yeah its going to have a higher price but its going to come. Anyways no, saying that doesn't break the NAP. We're literally in a "X HAS A MONOPOLY ON Y" situation which won't happen though. And anyone would have trouble with all food on their area spoiling. And why isn't he just selling the food normally? Did the witch also spoil his common sense? :^) I think the big problem here is that the NAP is being seen as a "quick moral guide". Its instead a list of what would actually be enforced, and while not instantly determinable it would still be short enough after some thought. You said that morality is better in but not everyone shares small government thought and what could be moral to them isn't moral to us. Suppose that maybe I had moral ideas that would require more laws to be applied to people, but randomly applying what I feel is right is just forcing my morality upon everyone.
I don't really see a problem with that or your painter example. It sounds perfectly fine as long as it gets the job done. I say this even though It would seem strange if I paid one man and got another one but its not really anything immoral. Again, protecting yourself isn't aggression. Shooting someone stealing/breaking your stuff isn't aggression either. Lets have a allegory then. Say I am a kid, and I charitably give someone else a toy to play with for a while. Did I just form a contradiction between who uses and who has the tool? Yeah, he has the toy on his hands and could steal it easier now, but that seems to be a stupid reason to then make my toy public domain because I gave it to someone else, unless it was something like food which will go away after they eat it.
According to homesteading theory you need to "improve" something in order to have it. You can't have the tree that has already risen, but if you build a house you own it and the ground around it. If you build a dam, you're the owner of the dam and the water on it. Claiming you own something you've never seen is silly, yes. I got lost midway into the reply and I think I failed to reply to something, whatever
Nicholas Brooks
You have done nothing to address the question of enforcement of private property, which must necessarily be maintained by the state. Not only did you just assume your right to claim ownership over private property, but you then retroactively defined encroaching on those rights as aggression over the actual real life aggression you would see of calling cops on you for tresspassing/etc. And your defense of this seems to be couched in the idea of "improvement" under homesteading which is itself ill-defined and in severe need of either elaboration or a backlog of qualifications to be properly addressed.
Basically, how do you define "improvement" under the theory of homesteading and - even if you have a consistent definition of this improvement - why would this give you right of ownership? What if someone else had already "improved" that natural resource (the tree) in some way before you through basic agricultural/cultivation techniques before you? Does your improvement supercede theirs, and why? And why should any incremental or large improvements over natural resources grant you dominion over them?
As for your answers to the NAP problem, I feel like your own answers betray the redundancy of it all. It doesn't, as you say, constitute a "list of what would actually be enforced" since you had to elaborate pretty greatly to let me know what would and would not be enforced, making the idea of the NAP either moot or accessory to the main point.
I honestly don't understand how you don't see all the disconnects here. The fact of the matter is that most of your answers rely on a presumption of ownership by a party (even in cases where none may exist), declared that ownership retroactively proper based on more assumptions of ownership being granted because of improvement, and then elevated violence and aggression by state forces you claim to be against over the "aggression" of trespassing on or using property you claimed ownership on based on that circular reasoning.
Jason Ward
This is exactly why you get told to "read bookchin" or whatever other leftist author. I honestly don't understand the benefit of engaging a random chan-poster to learn the tenants of an ideology over going to the source material. Do you really think you're learning more this way?
Jose Robinson
this is the only way he has ever "learned" anything, as should be clear by now
James Howard
Then what are you? A "conservative"? The last true conservative was Ned Ludd. What's called "conservatism" today is right-liberalism. Everything between that and left-liberalism (more commonly known simply as "liberalism" in America) is still liberalism, an inherently center right to right wing ideology in the modern sense. That Bernie (a social democrat) is considered far left and not centrist or center left at most is a sign of liberalism's complete hegemony.
See first pic for the proper definition of socialism. It is an economic system defined by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production. Nothing particularly utopian about that. It's not "when the state does stuff".
Jonathan Campbell
Nah, you're a liberal in denial
Kevin Robinson
Okay this whole post has been basically… I know that this would be a funny thing to say now but you'll have to read a book. Those theories have already been defined for quite a while, searching up for a response to your questions would be simple. The Homesteading I talk about is is "Lockean homesteading", and the corrections made to it are "Original appropriation", which solves some of the problems it had with "easements".
If you disagree with them, fire away, but its almost midnight here and I have to go. To make a short reply to your question without explaining why, using my knowledge: The original improvement supersedes theirs, unless the land was abandoned(Owner died and has given the land to no one, or some situation of the sort), in which case, your improvement would make the lands yours.
Because you're just looking at answers. The NAP is actually laid out, and I'm just giving you the superficial answers.
Luke Garcia
Granted. If Bernie (pbuh) is a socialist, then Trump is very much a socialist. I'd call Bernie (pbuh) a 1980s republican. Within the spectrum of common parlance, the terms socialism applies to universal healthcare, etc. England would be socialist, as would Canada and most of the Western world.
Fuck a True Scot. By your definition, there has never been a socialist system, and the word is useless. No system has ever lived up to its -ism.
Gavin Fisher
Bernie personally is a social democrat and the platform he ran on was one of centrism. Republicans in the 1980s were not centrists.
Noah Harris
There has never been a socialist system.
No it is not. I quote:
"In Marxist theory, socialism, also called lower-stage communism or the socialist mode of production, refers to a specific historical phase of economic development and its corresponding set of social relations that supersede capitalism in the schema of historical materialism. The Marxist definition of socialism is a mode of production where the sole criterion for production is use-value and therefore the law of value no longer directs economic activity. Marxist production for use is coordinated through conscious economic planning, while distribution of economic output is based on the principle of to each according to his contribution. The social relations of socialism are characterized by the working class effectively owning the means of production and the means of their livelihood, either through cooperative enterprises or by public ownership or private artisanal tools and self-management, so that the social surplus accrues to the working class and society as a whole."
Don't apply American retardation to the rest of us, thank you. No one in England thinks they're living in a socialist country.
Julian Rivera
Lol no dude, I've already read the theory. Rothbard, Mises, etc. Your inability to contend with the basic fundamental contradictions I provided you are not evidence I haven't read enough theory. I'm not asking these questions because I'm curious what the standard right-libertarian answer is. I'm asking to help guide you to where the contentions are and why there are gaps that need to be filled in with more than what you're either able or willing to provide.
Leo Clark
I know this is a highbrow board, and you can talk theory here, but are you then necessarily incapable of common communication? If your shit is all up in an ivory tower, it's useless. If you can't code switch, then enjoy irrelevance and ineffectiveness.
Evan Gray
I'm not using highbrow language here though, I am using language that is accepted everywhere else in the world than the US, and even in the US it is only really popular on the right to call everything involving social programs socialism.
Ian Gutierrez
one thing is correct though: I generally call myself a communist when asked, precisely because socialism is perceived as something separate.
Logan Adams
No, by YOUR definition every system of capitalism has been socialist since forever. If you think that's true, kys
Eli Wright
I get your point with that, but that battle is lost. As well, if the term can not be applied to anything in real life, then of what use is it? This is a huge problem of the left, and academia in general.
There are no socialist systems, and no politician can be called socialist… okay, soooo… shall we play War Hammer?
Andrew Walker
Once again, you destroy the utility of the word. I can see the logic behind both extremes, and they are utterly useless.