Quote from: Kaitlyn on December 14, 2008, 05:25:29 PM

Quote from: Vexing on December 14, 2008, 04:33:38 PM

Quote from: goingdown on December 14, 2008, 04:29:08 PM
I have been mocked as communist many times. It is not nice. I am a social liberal.

I am a meat popsicle.

Mocked as a communist?  Everyone I know IRL (in the US) seems to think that communism is this awesome utopian state that we're just too wicked to achieve, and that communists all have their hearts in the right place. 

To be honest, I've found quite the contrary about communism in the US: people teeter from the "evil empire" view to it being an undesirable state of things. I've known some people that seem to think that perfect communism is a state which only highly structured insects could achieve though.
Domino theory is not in vogue anymore, but that hardly means that after almost 100 years of counter-propaganda and the crash and burn of the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc, that americans would think that Communism would be something acceptable.


As for the original "mocked as a communist" quote, if you mean that you have been called a communist when you are not, you can explain to them how it has nothing to do with it. Or you can hang a hammer-and-sickle banner, call them comrade and speak dreamily of world revolution and the days of the Comintern; which is what I would do even though I'm hardly a communist either. If they don't get the joke, they are not worth your time.

Quote
To these people, the idea that government should be afraid of them is not just right-wing, but actually reactionary

. 

I've never heard of any state that espoused that view, as it would be regarded as downright terrorism. Or any American president for that matter (other than the Founding Fathers, who got to power through that route and were awash in anti-establishment fervor).

Personally, I think people should remember that we have the guaranteed right to stand up to tyranny. Sadly, some people think that taxes are tyranny so while a nice ideal, it presents pragmatic inconveniences. There's also the issue of being swamped by propaganda 24/7. Makes people dumb.

Quote
America, by and large, has already conceded the arguments of the communists - without being willing to admit it.

Umm... politics and government, like a lot of things in life are fluid deals: they have to change a bit or else they will crumble and fall. This is probably the reason the US stayed afloat when most communist states died in paralysis. The way you phrase it, one would think the days of McCarthy, Roy Cohn and James Jesus Angleton are back.

If you have this huge block of your economy that's terminal (like the credit industry), and you've let it become so important to the well-being of your entire nation, then a concerted effort to avoid it spreading like wildfire seems sensible. I think that after this we need more regulation for this not to happen again, but I'm sure we'll agree to disagree

I always thought that the only people in the US that were commies were college lit and econ professors and screenwriters.  "What's that Senator McCarthey?  250 in the State Department, you have a list?  OK."  And some in the State department too I guess.  Even the union guys hated them. 

I've actually got a different result every time I've done that test lol.

But I am only 18, so while I do have priciples, beliefs and opinions, arguably, having a political ideology that is set in stone would be a bad thing anyway...

Quote from: tekla on December 15, 2008, 09:37:01 AM
I always thought that the only people in the US that were commies were college lit and econ professors and screenwriters.  "What's that Senator McCarthey?  250 in the State Department, you have a list?  OK."  And some in the State department too I guess.  Even the union guys hated them. 

As I see it, every time there's a crisis in the US, all our politicians, Republican and Democrat, scramble for a socialist (or at least collectivist) solution.

The Republicans want to forge us into one heroic Christian collective - faceless interchangeable workers united behind God's Chosen President.

The Democrats want to take stuff away from those who have more then them, regardless of how they got it.  They don't care about justice, only numeric equality.  The concern is for the quota, not the victim.

EDIT: I mean to say that these are the overall effects of their policies.  Whatever individual politicians and party members might believe, this is how the aggregate acts.

Quote from: Kaitlyn on December 16, 2008, 12:43:13 AM
As I see it, every time there's a crisis in the US, all our politicians, Republican and Democrat, scramble for a socialist (or at least collectivist) solution.

Not always. Sometimes they start wars. 

Well, when there is a crisis that will have impact on a whole lot of people, a common effort is not exactly socialist, except that it is social, we are humans, and banding together is one of our traits.

But the bailouts are not really socialism, more like grand (on a scale undreamed of before) theft.

Quote from: MarySue on December 16, 2008, 10:07:12 AM

Quote from: Kaitlyn on December 16, 2008, 12:43:13 AM
As I see it, every time there's a crisis in the US, all our politicians, Republican and Democrat, scramble for a socialist (or at least collectivist) solution.

Not always. Sometimes they start wars. 

I'd say that most of America's wars have been pretty collectivistic, especially the GWoT, but that's just me.

Quote from: tekla on December 16, 2008, 10:11:08 AM
Well, when there is a crisis that will have impact on a whole lot of people, a common effort is not exactly socialist.

No, it certainly isn't.  However, there's a difference between a common effort and a state-mandated effort.  If something really is a common effort, the state's involvement is superfluous, isn't it?

Quote from: tekla on December 16, 2008, 10:11:08 AM
But the bailouts are not really socialism, more like grand (on a scale undreamed of before) theft.

How are they not socialism?  We're talking about a nationalization of practically an entire industry, done to protect the "working class" and grant the state more control over the means of production.  Look at how every politician in Congress has been drafting plans for how he or she wants to operate the auto industry after they take it over.  That's what makes it socialism.  The only thing more blatant would have been an armed takeover.

They lack the key component of being able to control the buying of cars, which is impossible to control.  It's doomed to failure, if that's what it is.

Quote from: tekla on December 16, 2008, 06:13:06 PM
They lack the key component of being able to control the buying of cars, which is impossible to control.  It's doomed to failure, if that's what it is.

True dat.

I'm glad to see that nobody who has responded yet is an authoritarian, but I'm wondering about how left libertarians outnumber right libertarians by 9 to 1 or so.  I think it's because free-market economics are frequently tethered to a social conservatism that is completely intolerable to the members of this community.  There is no reason, however, why this must be so.  They are separate ideas, and should be evaluated separately.

Anyway, I'm really glad that our community seems to be so strongly libertarian.  I frequently feel like so many people are focused on a left-right tug of war that they don't take time to think about the dangers of authoritarianism, which is not a left or right phenomenon.

Quote from: IHPUN on December 22, 2008, 03:31:41 AM
I'm glad to see that nobody who has responded yet is an authoritarian, but I'm wondering about how left libertarians outnumber right libertarians by 9 to 1 or so.  I think it's because free-market economics are frequently tethered to a social conservatism that is completely intolerable to the members of this community.  There is no reason, however, why this must be so.  They are separate ideas, and should be evaluated separately.

I think it's not really about the associations with social conservatism (at least not with intelligent folk) but about how left & right "libertarians" can't agree on how their their respective philosophies have worked out in real life.  Both sides want roughly the same thing, but differ on how to get there.

For example, I oppose minimum wage laws because I think their net effect is detrimental, both in theory and in historical practice - it looks to me like proponents of a minimum wage aren't getting what they say they want, a guaranteed minimum standard of living for everyone.

Of course, supporters of the minimum wage think just the opposite about my belief - and unfortunately we can both point to our favorite studies & theories to show how misguided the other side is

EDIT:  The overarching distinction seems like a disagreement on the safest places to locate the power centers in a society.  The left usually favors locating that power in the state, on the grounds that it's mission is to be responsible for society's welfare, and to act in the best interests of the citizenry.  The right (the libertarian right) favors extreme decentralization of power structures, with lots of responsibility moved into the private sector.  They think it would actually reduce the number of monolithic corporate power structures from what we have now.

The reason is simply. Really there are not such a thing as Libertarian Right.
There could be libertarian left, center-left and center.  But Libertarian Right is a joke and many ''libertarian''-right wingers can be exposed to pro-Authotarian thinkers. So freedon is in left and center not in right.

Quote from: goingdown on December 23, 2008, 10:01:00 AM
The reason is simply. Really there are not such a thing as Libertarian Right.
There could be libertarian left, center-left and center.  But Libertarian Right is a joke and many ''libertarian''-right wingers can be exposed to pro-Authotarian thinkers. So freedon is in left and center not in right.

The Libertarian Right is much more anarchistic than authoritarian really. Think ferocious Randian individualism as more of a source.

Quote from: goingdown on December 23, 2008, 10:01:00 AM
The reason is simply. Really there are not such a thing as Libertarian Right.
There could be libertarian left, center-left and center.  But Libertarian Right is a joke and many ''libertarian''-right wingers can be exposed to pro-Authotarian thinkers. So freedon is in left and center not in right.

So my opposition the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the militarization of the police force, the suppression of free speech, state support of religion, violations of the Posse Comitatus Act, the denial of habeas corpus, giveaways of money & privilege to corporations, eminent domain, the War on Drugs, NSA surveillance, CIA machinations, institutionalized discrimination, torture, imperialism, militarism, nationalism, etc. - I oppose all these and I'm somehow an authoritarian?

That's just insulting.

Quote from: soldierjane on December 23, 2008, 10:06:44 AM
The Libertarian Right is much more anarchistic than authoritarian really. Think ferocious Randian individualism as more of a source.

Yeah... although lots of us think Rand was a cruel bitch in her personal life and her total philosophy of Objectivism was a bit... problematic, to say the least.  Her "solution" to Hume's is-ought problem is the finest example of question-begging I've ever read. 

Sorry. I did not mean to offend. Perhaps you should think have your views and political right wing very much common. I am not saying that you are an Authotarian. I might be saying that you are not right-winger.

Quote from: goingdown on December 23, 2008, 02:39:47 PM
Sorry. I did not mean to offend. Perhaps you should think have your views and political right wing very much common. I am not saying that you are an Authotarian. I might be saying that you are not right-winger.

I don't think of myself as a right-winger - I'm basically an Agorist - but since just about everyone classifies me as right wing (including the political compass test), I assumed you were talking about people like me.  I'm sorry if I misunderstood.   

I do wonder, though... if I'm not right wing, where do people like me fit into the whole "left/right libertarian/authoritarian" thing?  Are we doomed to be political exiles?