Total Posts:42|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Barfy Banality of Libertarian Fascism

charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2011 10:06:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
That cranky ideological camp populated by lay free-marketarian economic theoreticians (who scholastically speculate on how many unangelic capitalists will be able to dance on the head of a pin made in America by sweatshop labor once they're unfettered from all government regulation) and armchair ultraists in the cause of self-ownership, grandiosely called "libertarianism" (and the lunatic fringe of this lunatic fringe called anarcho-capitalism) has, alas, little more to offer than a Paleolithically conservative platform for public policy of warmed-over-from-the-19th century laissez-faireism and social Darwinism.

Hardly cutting edge, the démodé doctrines of "libertarianism" were already fighting the eternal war of ideas with a dull and rusty blade even before Keynes. But this doesn't seem to much bother "libertarians", for there's no detectable intellectual stigma or embarrassment attached to banality in the "libertarian" movement's ideological culture.

But in a rather ironic way it's precisely the banality, the abject unoriginality and socio-ethical superficiality of the caricaturally typical "libertarian" that prevents "libertarianism" from becoming even more sh*tty a movement. How so?

Well, since Joe and Jane Six-pack "libertarian" (I'm not talking about the budding and anally logical "libertarian" cognoscenti who dominate online forums like this one) tend not to thoroughly digest the ideological cooking of von Mises & Rothbard, et al, they aren't wont to poop out new philosophical turds of their own. Rather, their pseudointellectual inclination is to swallow the manna of theoretical rationalizations proffered by the professional thinkers of the movement and to promptly regurgitate said casuistic theory to give their egoistic political attitudes legitimacy and loftiness.

Thus and so it is that the pseudosophical intellectualizings of the typical "libertarian" don't rise to the level of sh*t, but rather can be more aptly characterized as ideological vomitus. Now then, perhaps the most barfy banality of "libertarianism" is its intellectually dishonest pretense of being libertarian in any standard English sense of the term.

I'm sorry, but I'm just going to be bluntly pointed (to be oxymoronic) here, the principles and theoretical vision of "libertarianism" are ideological doublespeak that dissemble egoism and, potentially, fascism. Say what?! It's not that complicated. The "liberty" that right-libertarians tout and fantasize is actually license, license for egoistically individualistic folks to live in the unabashedly atomized and selfish fashion that real-world societies sanely allow only a limited scope for.

That is, "libertarians" daydream of an every-man-for-himself socioeconomic system, a Wild-West form of capitalism in which were all at liberty to wantonly pursue the egoistic life-goal of becoming alpha capitalists. Of attaining alpha male/female status and social dominance by way of attaining economic success and supremacy in an off-the-chain of government regulation and social responsibility capitalist food chain.

Now of course such a society isn't going to be very free for most of its low-caste blue-collar members. The omega workers who find themselves living and toiling under the socioeconomic dominance of alpha owners would certainly find the word "libertarian" to be a deceitful and cruel misnomer to describe such a social order.

Indeed, a "libertarian" society would be a cruel joke on ordinary wage-earning folks who would find that the concept of freedom had been reduced to the freedom of capitalist fat cats to have their way with the laboring underdogs who make up the bulk of humanity.

And it wouldn't take long for such an economic system to degenerate into one composed of a few self-commissioned generals of big business commanding a vast workforce of buck privates. In other words, the off-the-hook economic power of uber capitalists and corporations in a "free-market" utopia would enable them to co-opt and control public institutions and the state in an even more unchecked fashion than they already do. The result would be a dictatorship of the plutotariat, one that could quite conceivably eventually attain to a degree of despotism that would qualify it, not at all hyperbolically speaking, as fascism.

Is this all merely fear-mongeringly hypothetical? Hardly. We're already into the genesis of such a fascist capitalism prettified by free-marketarian rhetoric. More and more the uber capitalists and corporations of the new global order empower themselves at the expense of the civil liberties and economic well-being of the little guy. And what do those on the ideological right recommend? Accelerating the process by further deregulating business! Just brilliant, if your goal is to devolve our democracy into an idle and irrelevant bystander at the birth of a capitalist tyranny that will prove to be its demise. Not so brilliant if you're at all interested in protecting the general welfare and preserving the smidgeon of democracy we still have left.

Behold the economic gap between the rich and the poor, behold how wildly it's widened since the Reagan Era brought "free-market" philosophy into vogue, since Milton Friedman and his ideological posterity have become the in crowd in the field of economics and the halls of government. And consider the impact that this has had on politics. Has government become more solicitously representative of the interests of the common people? Or do we now have, more blatantly than ever before in the memory of anyone alive today, a "government of the profits, by the profits, for the profits" (in the words of Sinclair Lewis)?

The trend, even with what little rule of law and government oversight big business is still subject to anymore, is pretty unmistakably already toward the dominion of a capitalist elite, toward a capitalist fascism, at the risk of sounding melodramatic. It's quite simple, although conservatives and "libertarians" don't seem to get it, economic power translates into political clout & control. And if you unfetter the economic power of capitalists, you likewise unfetter their ability to subvert the system and take it over.

"Libertarians" and conservative free-marketeers, who unconscionably advocate going full steam ahead with the dismantling of the government's already well-dismantled regulatory apparatus for reining in corporate greed & influence, and the annihilation of the social safety net, threaten to bring upon us a worst case scenario in which the powers and principalities of Wall Street (who are already sufficiently ensconced in the catbird seat to cause a global recession with impunity) and their proxies on Pennsylvania Avenue establish the regime of the rich à la a Pinochet-style domination of society.

The utopian chimera of the "libertarian" creed is of course a society of capitalists who play by the rules of the "free market", a productive and prosperous society of deregulated freeholders who brook no free riders. This might sound appealing to some, but it most assuredly is a chimera. Remove all restrictions on the avarice and will-to-power of capitalists and they'll always and inexorably find a way to rig the games of economics and politics and establish their sociopolitical hegemony over the rest of us. If society were ever foolish enough to try to implement the naïve idealism of "libertarians" the predictable result would not be a system along the lines of a USSR (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) of course, which "libertarians" paranoidly fear socialism leads to; but rather a UCCF, a Union of Corporate Capitalist Fiefdoms – and a population abjectly reduced to vassalage.

The conclusion is located directly below
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2011 10:07:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Conclusion

"Libertarians" then, I'm afraid I have to say, are not the innocent ideologues of freedom that they often pass for, they propound a pack of trite and pukey ideas that threaten us with a new form of fascism.

And this is not at all a new threat. Let us recall that wealthy industrialists were backers and beneficiaries of the fascist regimes of Messrs. Mussolini & Hitler back in the day of fascist regimes that actually called themselves "fascist". Mm-hmm, capitalist elites are always behind-the-scenes boosters of fascism.

A 21st century American fascism of course won't look exactly like European fascisms of the 1930s, and it certainly won't go by the name "fascism", but it will be surreptitiously sanctioned and supported by the same sort of capitalist boosters. Beware of capitalists, and beware of their ideological apologists, conservatives & right-libertarians. And remember the words of Sinclair Lewis and how they might one day apply to our own history, "… the worst fascists were they who disowned the word ‘fascism' and preached enslavement to capitalism under the style of constitutional and traditional native American liberty. For they were thieves not only of wages, but of honor. To their purpose they could quote not only scripture but Jefferson."
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
sadolite
Posts: 8,837
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2011 10:43:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
A wall of eye bleed, Could you cut it down to a couple of paragraphs.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2011 10:52:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Short version:

Libertarianism advocates deregulation which allows businesses to take control of the people.

One sentence.
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2011 11:23:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I read as much as I can with the mouse scrolling down at full speed. If Mongo Bro #2 is correct, then I'd have to agree.
Rob
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2011 11:23:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
You say that in the modern system, economic power easily translates into political power than can then lead to more economic power. I agree. It is always a sad day when a newspaper reports that as one company cuts down its R&D budget, another hires a new fleet of lobbyists.

You then suggest removing the economic power by increasing the political power. I disagree. The economic power would eat up this political power as well, and be even stronger than before.

I say we minimize the political power so that it can no longer be used by economic power to perpetuate itself. Big business wouldn't get any advantages from being friends with the government, allowing small business to more effectively compete.
DaveElectric
Posts: 107
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2011 3:34:04 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I have a couple more things to say:

"Libertarians" are selfish; so are the leftists who want a democratic society so they can avoid the responsibility of having to obey a boss. People who complain about the selfishness of others are the most egoistic of individuals since they are demoralizing the egoism of others in order to moralize their own egoism. Altruism is the egoism of the weak! Charles accuations that libertarians are selfish are purely selective, conveniant, and hypocritcal outrage. He clearly hates the avarice and will to power of capitalists yet he is completely okay with the avarice and will to power of everybody else.

There are lot of irresponsible uses of "facism" in this post. Authority =/= facism. Facism is the statist stimulation of national solidary coupled with nominal private ownership of resources. It isn't the mere fact that authority and hierarchy exist. "Anti-authoritarians" love to use the word "facism" to describe any sort of hierarchy or law code in order to moralize the lack of both. The claim of facism is a good indictator of someone who is selfish and extremely full of it. It's the ultimate appeal to emotion. The institutions that keep the human species alive are more important than the butt hurting of mere individuals! The fact that a system of governance is rigid or authoritarian doesn't make it wrong. Virtous men have a responsibility to cut through socialized thinking and assert authority. He can shove his accusations of facism. Even if they were true they would be nothing but tired appeals to emotion. The utlimate form of facism comes not with using the gun but using popularity and the power of the people as the source for your authority. It's one thing to defend yourself from a gun. It's another thing entirely to defend yourself from a mass of people with a warped and confused view of what "individualism" is; who all believe you have no right to control them even if their freedom means the destuction of civilization itself!

Progressivism is succeeding on all fronts like Marx predicted yet he claims it is free market philosophy that is dominating. A classic trick by progressives and communists alike is to claim that capitalism is succeeding right now rather then the application of their viewpoints.

"If you can cut off people from their history then they can be easily persuaded."
-Karl Marx

Business owners face more controls and regulations then ever before yet they think capitalism is succeeding. Even though every statute book is gaining thousands and thousands of new pages over the years, capitalism is still succeeding. Even though taxes have been increasing for over a century now capitalism is still succeeding. Even though every nation has a centrally controlled currency capitalism is succeeding. Even though every nation is advancing their welfare states capitalism is succeeding. What more can we conclude that leftists will only believe capitalism is failing until socialism is fully realized!

Liberals create the societal problems and "conservatives" get elected in to avoid having to fix those problems. That is the cold hard reality of every Western democracy. Every "conservative" victory has been nothing more than a delaying of the goals of progressivism. There is no study out there you can point to that shows they have done anything meaningful to reverse it. They may have the most minor of minor victories at times, but generally speaking they are losing.

But let's assume all of his claims are true. Let's assume the rich are getting richer because capitalism is succeeding. So what? A good economy divides the productive labor from the unproductive labor. It makes no sense to reward all labor equally.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2011 2:47:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/5/2011 3:34:04 AM, DaveElectric wrote:

"Libertarians" are selfish; so are the leftists who want a democratic society so they can avoid the responsibility of having to obey a boss.

"... avoid the responsibility of having to obey a boss", hmm. Shall I make a perhaps obvious observation, only someone who sees the world from the perspective of a boss or a wannabe boss would put such a negative spin on the desire of human beings to be free from the dominance of bosses and managerial masters. By the way, I wonder how many times in the old Soviet Union condescending commissars dismissed the yearning of their fellow Russians to be free with a similar comment, such as "Dissidents are just people who want to avoid the responsibility of having to submit to the discipline of the party for the common good"?

People who complain about the selfishness of others are the most egoistic of individuals since they are demoralizing the egoism of others in order to moralize their own egoism.

No, people who groundlessly read egoism into the psychology of those of us who are critical of the selfish ethos of capitalist society are projecting their own egoistic thought patterns and outing themselves as the most egoistic of individuals.

Altruism is the egoism of the weak!

Spoken like someone who uses a satanic-looking star as his icon.

Charles accuations that libertarians are selfish are purely selective, conveniant, and hypocritcal outrage. He clearly hates the avarice and will to power of capitalists yet he is completely okay with the avarice and will to power of everybody else.

Hmm, where, pray tell, did I say that I'm completely okay with the avarice and will to power of the Mafia, the Mexican drug cartels, the ancient Roman Empire, Attila's Huns, and all the other non-capitalists in the world and in history who ruthlessly expressed a hunger for wealth and power? (Btw, perhaps I shouldn't have included the Mafia and drug cartels in my short list of greedy non-capitalists, they do after all express the capitalist ethos in its purest form.)

There are lot of irresponsible uses of "facism" in this post. Authority =/= facism.

But I never said anything as simplistic as authority = fascism. However, a capitalist utopia in which alpha capitalists are completely unfettered and have arrogated too much authority and social dominance, thus putting everyone else in society in fetters, would = fascism.

Facism is the statist stimulation of national solidary coupled with nominal private ownership of resources.

Private profiteering in Nazi Germany, for example, was hardly nominal. I quote an academic who has studied capitalism under the Nazis, Germà Bel, who points out that "... the last governments of the Weimar Republic took over firms in diverse sectors. Later, the Nazi regime transferred public ownership and public services to the private sector... Privatization in Nazi Germany was also unique in transferring to private hands the delivery of public services previously provided by government." Policies that, to state the obvious, were higly lucrative for capitalists. Also, interestingly, we're seeing the same trend toward the privatization of public services in the United States thanks to the reining conservative zeitgeist. Of course this policiy of privatization, to quote professor Bel again, worked in Nazi Germany, and likewise works today to ""facilitate the accumulation of private fortunes and industrial empires by [the regime's] foremost members and collaborators.". It's also a step in the direction of increasing the capitalist elite's ownership and dominance of our society, from the means of production to our supposedly democratic public institutions.

It isn't the mere fact that authority and hierarchy exist. "Anti-authoritarians" love to use the word "facism" to describe any sort of hierarchy or law code in order to moralize the lack of both.

I find it telling that someone on the right, such as you appear to be, is inclined to try to refute my point of view by defending authoritarianism. Of all the tacks you could take in critiquing my post's thesis, this is the one you naturally choose. This just goes to confirm my amateur psychoanalysis of conservatives as people with an authoritarian and social dominance-oriented mentality.

The claim of facism is a good indictator of someone who is selfish and extremely full of it.

So, it someone is concerned about the prospect of fascism arising in one's society he/she is probably "selfish" and "extremely full of it". I'll let this statement stand and fall on its own demerits, its rubbishy nature is too obvious to require refutation.

It's the ultimate appeal to emotion. The institutions that keep the human species alive are more important than the butt hurting of mere individuals!

Institutions that in a democratic society are supposed to serve individuals are more important that individuals? Spoken like a fascist!

The fact that a system of governance is rigid or authoritarian doesn't make it wrong.

Please do rage on with your authoritarianism and fascism my friend, you reveal the mentality behind your disagreement with my thesis and save me the trouble of speculating on it.

He can shove his accusations of facism. Even if they were true they would be nothing but tired appeals to emotion.

Well, your certainly getting quite emotional, now aren"t you?! Perhaps my views hit a certain nerve with you-all on the ideological right, perhaps I'm really on to something after all.

The utlimate form of facism comes not with using the gun but using popularity and the power of the people as the source for your authority.

When you own, as today a small capitalist elite does, the resources, wealth, media, institutions, etc. of a society then you can scam and manipulate the masses and use the power of the people to your own ends. This of course is what the political front men of big business in the Republican party are all about (Christie, Perry, Romney, et al). They are the agents of the creation of a capitalist fascism in our society.

It's one thing to defend yourself from a gun. It's another thing entirely to defend yourself from a mass of people with a warped and confused view of what "individualism" is; who all believe you have no right to control them even if their freedom means the destuction of civilization itself!

Somehow I don't think that you're a "libertarian", your emphasis is too much on the right of an authoritarian capitalist elite to exercise control over the misguided peons.

A classic trick by progressives and communists alike is to claim that capitalism is succeeding ...

I think you're a bit mixed up here, those of us on the left are the ones who point out that capitalism is most certainly not succeeding, which is why we're in a global recession. Which is why millions are out of work. Which is why the economies of country's such as Greece are in shambles. Which is why the cost of living just keeps going up and up and up. Which is why it's increasing difficult for people to join and remain in the "middle class", to get jobs that support a decent middle-class standard of living anymore, etc.

Business owners face more controls and regulations then ever before yet they think capitalism is succeeding.

Big business is in the catbird seat more than ever before.

Liberals create the societal problems and "conservatives" get elected in to avoid having to fix those problems.

Did "liberals" or deregulating conservatives set us up for The Great Recession? Is it liberals or conservatives who oppose universal health care, etc.

Let's assume the rich are getting richer because capitalism is succeeding.

The rich are getting richer while the train wreck of capitalism plays out.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
Aaronroy
Posts: 749
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2011 3:01:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
One cannot be a Libertarian and a Fascist at the same time. That's completely contradictory. As well, deregulation is all well and good; if alleged "businesses" were to take over control of the society then it wouldn't be a society. It would be nothing more than a crony corporate capitalist society.

Charles, don't point your guns at Libertarianism if you don't even have your basics in semantics down.
turn down for h'what
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2011 3:07:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/4/2011 11:23:51 PM, mongeese wrote:

You then suggest removing the economic power by increasing the political power.

Nope, I don't advocate "removing the economic power" of the capitalist elite "by increasing the political power" of the state. Rather, I advocate removing the ability of a capitalist ruling class to rule over us by abolishing private ownership of material resources and the means of production, and boldly handing over control of the economic sphere of society to the people, who will run their own economic affairs through a more authentic and direct democratic form of life. This of course means the abolition of the state as well as the capitalist elite, in favor of a people's society in which John & Jane Q. Public are no longer pawns of the political process, but rather the ones who carry it out. Which of course will render the state, defined as a controling authority above the people, a superannuated edifice of a bygone power structure. So no, my friend, I'm not "statist", what I promulgate is a radical transformation of the whole status quo, from the capitalist economic substructure up through the faux democratic superstructure of the state.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2011 3:14:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/5/2011 3:01:44 PM, Aaronroy wrote:
One cannot be a Libertarian and a Fascist at the same time. That's completely contradictory. As well, deregulation is all well and good; if alleged "businesses" were to take over control of the society then it wouldn't be a society. It would be nothing more than a crony corporate capitalist society.

Charles, don't point your guns at Libertarianism if you don't even have your basics in semantics down.

One can be a "libertarian" and an unwitting promoter of a fascist form of capitalism. The road to dystopia is paved with naive and flawed utopian ideologies. I'm of course not an anti-utopian cynic, my own sociopolitical weltanschauung is "utopian"; however, if one thinks critically one can detect defects in certain utopian visions, and "libertarianism", my friend, is riddled with defects.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2011 3:52:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/5/2011 3:07:17 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 10/4/2011 11:23:51 PM, mongeese wrote:

You then suggest removing the economic power by increasing the political power.

Nope, I don't advocate "removing the economic power" of the capitalist elite "by increasing the political power" of the state. Rather, I advocate removing the ability of a capitalist ruling class to rule over us by abolishing private ownership of material resources and the means of production,

Using what power? Political? Economic? Physical?

and boldly handing over control of the economic sphere of society to the people, who will run their own economic affairs through a more authentic and direct democratic form of life.

So you would walk up to Bill Gates and say, "You no longer own the company that you worked so hard to create any more than the guy you just temporarily hired to fix something"?

This of course means the abolition of the state as well as the capitalist elite, in favor of a people's society in which John & Jane Q. Public are no longer pawns of the political process, but rather the ones who carry it out.

If the state is abolished, what is left to abolish the businesses?

Which of course will render the state, defined as a controling authority above the people, a superannuated edifice of a bygone power structure. So no, my friend, I'm not "statist", what I promulgate is a radical transformation of the whole status quo, from the capitalist economic substructure up through the faux democratic superstructure of the state.

Yet how would this radical transformation occur, and how would it last? Most of your other leftists support increased political power in regulations, and you seem to support those movements, given your support of Obamacare and opposition to deregulation, even though I've already pointed out that increased regulation, as long as big business plays such a large part in politics, can never work.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2011 5:04:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Let me translant this long-winded rant.

*fap fap fap fap fap fap*
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2011 5:38:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/5/2011 3:14:43 PM, charleslb wrote:
One can be a "libertarian" and an unwitting promoter of a fascist form of capitalism.
Fascism absolutely requires the total control of the state, including in economics

Why not try actually arguing instead of merely stringing insults together?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2011 7:19:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/5/2011 3:52:16 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 10/5/2011 3:07:17 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 10/4/2011 11:23:51 PM, mongeese wrote:

You then suggest removing the economic power by increasing the political power.

Nope, I don't advocate "removing the economic power" of the capitalist elite "by increasing the political power" of the state. Rather, I advocate removing the ability of a capitalist ruling class to rule over us by abolishing private ownership of material resources and the means of production,

Using what power? Political? Economic? Physical?

The same means and methods that have been used in other freedom movements to take power away from those who unduly exercise it over the lives of disenfranchised human beings and to redress the grievances suffered by a society's underdogs at the hands of its alpha dogs, as it were. What specifically are these means and methods, everything from satyagraha and sit-ins, protests and picketing (occupying Wall Street, for instance) to "monkeywrenching", to more uncivil forms of direct action, such as the kind of armed direct action engaged in by long-suffering Libyans fed up with Muammar Qaddaffi's rein of repression. The predatory plutocrats of the Western world who inflict an inhumane and often lethal level of poverty on the bulk of humanity living in the developing South, and increasingly high levels of economic hardship on the citizens of the affluent North, deserve no more quarter than Qaddaffi.

and boldly handing over control of the economic sphere of society to the people, who will run their own economic affairs through a more authentic and direct democratic form of life.

So you would walk up to Bill Gates and say, "You no longer own the company that you worked so hard to create any more than the guy you just temporarily hired to fix something"?

I would walk up to Bill Gates and say "You no longer get to lord your 'ownership' over a company that your employees worked so hard to create and continue to make so profitable. You no longer get to avariciously reap the lion's share of the fruits of other people's labor, to live like a king while the workingpeople who made you live like wage slaves. Society is no longer going to countenance the objectification of powerless human beings into the means to the greedy ends of fat-cat CEOs. Those days are over, for your company and for society as a whole. Now please be so wise as to step down from your throne with a little dignity and join the rest of humanity as an equal. If you resist the result will be the same, but you might get a wee bit ruffled up."

This of course means the abolition of the state as well as the capitalist elite, in favor of a people's society in which John & Jane Q. Public are no longer pawns of the political process, but rather the ones who carry it out.

If the state is abolished, what is left to abolish the businesses?

The people, who no longer wish to live under the domination of either the state or capitalist masters.

Which of course will render the state, defined as a controling authority above the people, a superannuated edifice of a bygone power structure. So no, my friend, I'm not "statist", what I promulgate is a radical transformation of the whole status quo, from the capitalist economic substructure up through the faux democratic superstructure of the state.

Yet how would this radical transformation occur, and how would it last? Most of your other leftists support increased political power in regulations, and you seem to support those movements, given your support of Obamacare and opposition to deregulation, even though I've already pointed out that increased regulation, as long as big business plays such a large part in politics, can never work.

The transformation of society is a process, and until the process has reached the point that government can be totally abolished, while government remains a necessary evil, it must be transformed from an instrument of the power of an elite into an instrument of social progress and compassion. There, now that's not so complicated, now is it?! Nor is it such a radical idea among leftist radicals such as moi. Karl Marx himself held that until the state can at last wither away it should be retained as a means for actualizing a socialistic form of society. Quite simply, we're not in a post-state world yet, and therefore government must be reimagined as something more serviceable to the common welfare and to the evolution of humanity beyond the need for any manner of government. We can't just retreat into a world of ideological make-believe and begin acting as if government is already a thing of the past.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2011 7:26:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
When I joined, ol' Charlie here was not active. So can someone tell me if he always lurks in the forums, spouting horrendously biased rants like this?
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2011 7:43:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/5/2011 7:26:07 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
When I joined, ol' Charlie here was not active. So can someone tell me if he always lurks in the forums, spouting horrendously biased rants like this?

Firstly, I wouldn't use the adjective "lurk". Secondly, that you describe me as "lurking" in forums implies that online political forums such as Debate.org are or ought to be the exclusive province of folks of your libertarian and rightist persuasion and that those of us who aren't in mental lockstep with your ideological ilk don't really belong and are just "lurking" and "trolling" the rightful habitués of your little chat sites. I know that you right-libertarians like to aggressively colonize political discussion sites, but what arrogance to think that you should never have to encounter anyone of a dissenting point of view "lurking" about. Lastly, "horrendously biased rant"? When I read that I immediately checked your profile to see if you're another teenage, self-described "libertarian", it was hardly a surprise that you are.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
DaveElectric
Posts: 107
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2011 7:46:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
""... avoid the responsibility of having to obey a boss", hmm. Shall I make a perhaps obvious observation, only someone who sees the world from the perspective of a boss or a wannabe boss would put such a negative spin on the desire of human beings to be free from the dominance of bosses and managerial masters. By the way, I wonder how many times in the old Soviet Union condescending commissars dismissed the yearning of their fellow Russians to be free with a similar comment, such as "Dissidents are just people who want to avoid the responsibility of having to submit to the discipline of the party for the common good?" - charleslb

"Freedom" is a relative idea. The freedom of capitalists requires the domination of the worker's union and the freedom of workers requires the domination of capitalists. It funny how your thoughts are so clear on the authoritarianism of capitalism on such forums as "My Problems with Khmer Rouge Libertarians" yet you are so foolish to proclaim the lack of force and authoritarianism of socialism. We both support authority. The only difference is who we think ought to have it.

"No, people who groundlessly read egoism into the psychology of those of us who are critical of the selfish ethos of capitalist society are projecting their own egoistic thought patterns and outing themselves as the most egoistic of individuals."

Then why don't we define what "egoism" is then shall we? Egoism can mean two things. One is more innocent awhile the other has much darker slant. It means either
a)the desire to extract benefits
b)the desire to extract benefit at the expense of others

If a) is the definition of egoism you simply don't understand that every political policy benefits somebody. Capitalism benefits capitalists and socialism benefits socialists. The real question then should be is who needs to be benefitted.
If b) is the definition of egoism you use then you simply don't understand the relative nature of freedom. Every political policy hurts somebody. Capitalism hurts socialists and socialism hurts capitalists. The only question should be then who needs to be hurt.

"Hmm, where, pray tell, did I say that I'm completely okay with the avarice and will to power of the Mafia, the Mexican drug cartels, the ancient Roman Empire,"

Oh please don't act like you don't know who I am talking about. This is nit picking.

"But I never said anything as simplistic as authority = fascism. However, a capitalist utopia in which alpha capitalists are completely unfettered and have arrogated too much authority and social dominance, thus putting everyone else in society in fetters, would = fascism"

You say you didn't intend for facism to equal authority yet you keep highlighting the fact capitalism leads to authority and hierarchy as proof that it is facist. You are contradicting yourself.

"Private profiteering in Nazi Germany, for example, was hardly nominal. "

I understand that you quote an academic but this academic is wrong. Nazi Germany supported numerous price controls and controls on income.. If you just type in Nazism on google or something pretty much every source out there will assert the exact opposite. of what this person claims. There was also no free market in agriculture. The Nazi government was also the primary controller of investment and finance. That's hardly capitalism.

I haven't seen any other sources that show that the Nazi's supported the privatization of government run industries. That doesn't mean it didn't happen, but from every other source on Nazism we can easily conclude that this privatization was extemely nominal judging given by the Nazi's willingness to regulate every other private industry. It seems bizarre they wouldn't regulate the private industries that were once government run.

"I find it telling that someone on the right, such as you appear to be, is inclined to try to refute my point of view by defending authoritarianism. Of all the tacks you could take in critiquing my post's thesis, this is the one you naturally choose. This just goes to confirm my amateur psychoanalysis of conservatives as people with an authoritarian and social dominance-oriented mentality."

Yes as though you and your ilk are not in anyway shape or form authoritarian or inclined on social dominance. As though communism and/or progressivism is completely voluntary and lacks authority.

" Institutions that in a democratic society are supposed to serve individuals are more important that individuals? Spoken like a fascist!" -Charleslb

So you support appealing to every single individual out there even if that could screw everything up? We have to perform a cost-benefit analysis on things. We cannot treat every individual's demands; every individual's freedom as sacrosaint. The problem with Western democracies is they are overly concerned with with trying to benefit everyone or atleast doing what is the most popular thing to do even if doing so is destructive. This is why I find your moral qualms with authority and hiearchy so frustrating. Simply observing that a system is "authoritarian" is simply crafting an observation. It doesn't count as a judgement.

"I think you're a bit mixed up here, those of us on the left are the ones who point out that capitalism is most certainly not succeeding" -Charleslb

When I argued that capitalism not succeeding I wasn't saying capitalism doesn't lead to good results. I was criticizing one of two claims you were making
a)Capitalism exists
b)the existence of capitalism in society is increasing.

Both of which are easily proven to be false.

'Did "liberals" or deregulating conservatives set us up for The Great Recession? Is it liberals or conservatives who oppose universal health care, etc."

The Recession was created by bourgeoisie liberals thinking they can stimulate the economy simply by manipulating the nation's money. The conservatives may be trying now to revert back universal healthcare, but in the long run these conservatives will die out and the liberals of today will be the conservatives of tomorrow. A government program as well meaning as universal healthcare is pretty much eternal judging by conservative's ability to fulfill promises in the past.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2011 7:49:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/5/2011 7:43:26 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 10/5/2011 7:26:07 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
When I joined, ol' Charlie here was not active. So can someone tell me if he always lurks in the forums, spouting horrendously biased rants like this?

Firstly, I wouldn't use the adjective "lurk". Secondly, that you describe me as "lurking" in forums implies that online political forums such as Debate.org are or ought to be the exclusive province of folks of your libertarian and rightist persuasion and that those of us who aren't in mental lockstep with your ideological ilk don't really belong and are just "lurking" and "trolling" the rightful habitués of your little chat sites. I know that you right-libertarians like to aggressively colonize political discussion sites, but what arrogance to think that you should never have to encounter anyone of a dissenting point of view "lurking" about. Lastly, "horrendously biased rant"? When I read that I immediately checked your profile to see if you're another teenage, self-described "libertarian", it was hardly a surprise that you are.

I see what I've heard from other members about you was correct.

Anyway, I suppose I should apologize. There was no need for the aggression. But, if I may ask politely, why do you think that age has some sort of impact on the validity of vewpoints? Unless I'm mistaken, is that what you were implying?

Not only that, but I was in no way implying that--I really don't mind people with other viewpoints. In fact, I welcome it. It's just when people become hostile over them that I am irked. I'd like it if you could kindly not make assumptions about what I meant. I took those posts as hostile, and I irrationally lashed out. Once more, I apologize.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2011 7:49:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/5/2011 7:26:07 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
When I joined, ol' Charlie here was not active. So can someone tell me if he always lurks in the forums, spouting horrendously biased rants like this?

Every few weeks he comes in and posts some hilarious stuff where he equivocates crony and free market capitalism while throwing in a few French words for good effect. After that someone inevitably challenge him to debate which he declines because he thinks the set is too biased. He then runs away for a few more weeks while he works on his next anti-libertarian rant and repeats the process ad infinitum.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2011 7:51:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/5/2011 7:49:44 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 10/5/2011 7:26:07 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
When I joined, ol' Charlie here was not active. So can someone tell me if he always lurks in the forums, spouting horrendously biased rants like this?

Every few weeks he comes in and posts some hilarious stuff where he equivocates crony and free market capitalism while throwing in a few French words for good effect. After that someone inevitably challenge him to debate which he declines because he thinks the set is too biased. He then runs away for a few more weeks while he works on his next anti-libertarian rant and repeats the process ad infinitum.

Not that saying things and not debating them is okay, but don't you think he has a point, what with this websites libertarian supermajority?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2011 7:53:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/5/2011 7:51:40 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/5/2011 7:49:44 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 10/5/2011 7:26:07 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
When I joined, ol' Charlie here was not active. So can someone tell me if he always lurks in the forums, spouting horrendously biased rants like this?

Every few weeks he comes in and posts some hilarious stuff where he equivocates crony and free market capitalism while throwing in a few French words for good effect. After that someone inevitably challenge him to debate which he declines because he thinks the set is too biased. He then runs away for a few more weeks while he works on his next anti-libertarian rant and repeats the process ad infinitum.

Not that saying things and not debating them is okay, but don't you think he has a point, what with this websites libertarian supermajority?

False. The 'tories and liberals are the largest groups; check the demographics.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2011 8:00:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/5/2011 7:53:28 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 10/5/2011 7:51:40 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/5/2011 7:49:44 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 10/5/2011 7:26:07 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
When I joined, ol' Charlie here was not active. So can someone tell me if he always lurks in the forums, spouting horrendously biased rants like this?

Every few weeks he comes in and posts some hilarious stuff where he equivocates crony and free market capitalism while throwing in a few French words for good effect. After that someone inevitably challenge him to debate which he declines because he thinks the set is too biased. He then runs away for a few more weeks while he works on his next anti-libertarian rant and repeats the process ad infinitum.

Not that saying things and not debating them is okay, but don't you think he has a point, what with this websites libertarian supermajority?

False. The 'tories and liberals are the largest groups; check the demographics.

Not False. Those statistics are a cumulative account of DDO's overall membership since its founding. Look around you, an intimidating majority of the active members are libertarian, and if they don't explicitly label themselves as such on their profile, maybe promising commitment to the 'marijuana party' and such, they still express extremely libertarian views. The libertarian ideology is also used to influence voting in every serious debate. Where upon all this, you find it false that there is a libertarian majority, is beyond me.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2011 8:03:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/5/2011 8:00:38 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/5/2011 7:53:28 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 10/5/2011 7:51:40 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/5/2011 7:49:44 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 10/5/2011 7:26:07 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
When I joined, ol' Charlie here was not active. So can someone tell me if he always lurks in the forums, spouting horrendously biased rants like this?

Every few weeks he comes in and posts some hilarious stuff where he equivocates crony and free market capitalism while throwing in a few French words for good effect. After that someone inevitably challenge him to debate which he declines because he thinks the set is too biased. He then runs away for a few more weeks while he works on his next anti-libertarian rant and repeats the process ad infinitum.

Not that saying things and not debating them is okay, but don't you think he has a point, what with this websites libertarian supermajority?

False. The 'tories and liberals are the largest groups; check the demographics.

Not False. Those statistics are a cumulative account of DDO's overall membership since its founding. Look around you, an intimidating majority of the active members are libertarian, and if they don't explicitly label themselves as such on their profile, maybe promising commitment to the 'marijuana party' and such, they still express extremely libertarian views. The libertarian ideology is also used to influence voting in every serious debate. Where upon all this, you find it false that there is a libertarian majority, is beyond me.

Eh. Whatever the majority is makes no different. This place could be rife with communists and I'd still discuss.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2011 8:10:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/5/2011 7:49:05 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 10/5/2011 7:43:26 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 10/5/2011 7:26:07 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
When I joined, ol' Charlie here was not active. So can someone tell me if he always lurks in the forums, spouting horrendously biased rants like this?

Firstly, I wouldn't use the adjective "lurk". Secondly, that you describe me as "lurking" in forums implies that online political forums such as Debate.org are or ought to be the exclusive province of folks of your libertarian and rightist persuasion and that those of us who aren't in mental lockstep with your ideological ilk don't really belong and are just "lurking" and "trolling" the rightful habitués of your little chat sites. I know that you right-libertarians like to aggressively colonize political discussion sites, but what arrogance to think that you should never have to encounter anyone of a dissenting point of view "lurking" about. Lastly, "horrendously biased rant"? When I read that I immediately checked your profile to see if you're another teenage, self-described "libertarian", it was hardly a surprise that you are.

I see what I've heard from other members about you was correct.

Anyway, I suppose I should apologize. There was no need for the aggression. But, if I may ask politely, why do you think that age has some sort of impact on the validity of vewpoints? Unless I'm mistaken, is that what you were implying?

Not only that, but I was in no way implying that--I really don't mind people with other viewpoints. In fact, I welcome it. It's just when people become hostile over them that I am irked. I'd like it if you could kindly not make assumptions about what I meant. I took those posts as hostile, and I irrationally lashed out. Once more, I apologize.

I'm sincerely sorry if I offended you on a personal level with my thoughts on libertarianism and its potential for creating a very unhappy world for the bulk of humanity. I take no satisfaction whatsoever in making anyone feel individually maligned. However, I also don't think that libertarianism should be treated in a kid-gloved fashion. Rather, I consider it to be a somewhat insidious ideology that merits merciless critiquing. Well, just as the possibility of hurting the feelings of a Nazi would not deter me from denouncing Nazism, neither does the risk of running afoul of the sensibilities of individual libertarians constitute for me a reason to hold back from lambasting the lousiness of libertarianism. I hope that you understand.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2011 8:10:21 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/5/2011 8:03:59 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:

Eh. Whatever the majority is makes no different. This place could be rife with communists and I'd still discuss.

I don't think you're putting this in perspective. Have you tried discussing something when everyone around you is high-fiving and "this"ing your opponent, and voting against you, all to purport the perceived superiority of their ideals? It is annoying, and prevents one from getting a point across that can be received. That, for the libertarian majority, is the form, air, and picture of DDO at this moment.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2011 8:11:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/5/2011 8:10:08 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 10/5/2011 7:49:05 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 10/5/2011 7:43:26 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 10/5/2011 7:26:07 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
When I joined, ol' Charlie here was not active. So can someone tell me if he always lurks in the forums, spouting horrendously biased rants like this?

Firstly, I wouldn't use the adjective "lurk". Secondly, that you describe me as "lurking" in forums implies that online political forums such as Debate.org are or ought to be the exclusive province of folks of your libertarian and rightist persuasion and that those of us who aren't in mental lockstep with your ideological ilk don't really belong and are just "lurking" and "trolling" the rightful habitués of your little chat sites. I know that you right-libertarians like to aggressively colonize political discussion sites, but what arrogance to think that you should never have to encounter anyone of a dissenting point of view "lurking" about. Lastly, "horrendously biased rant"? When I read that I immediately checked your profile to see if you're another teenage, self-described "libertarian", it was hardly a surprise that you are.

I see what I've heard from other members about you was correct.

Anyway, I suppose I should apologize. There was no need for the aggression. But, if I may ask politely, why do you think that age has some sort of impact on the validity of vewpoints? Unless I'm mistaken, is that what you were implying?

Not only that, but I was in no way implying that--I really don't mind people with other viewpoints. In fact, I welcome it. It's just when people become hostile over them that I am irked. I'd like it if you could kindly not make assumptions about what I meant. I took those posts as hostile, and I irrationally lashed out. Once more, I apologize.

I'm sincerely sorry if I offended you on a personal level with my thoughts on libertarianism and its potential for creating a very unhappy world for the bulk of humanity. I take no satisfaction whatsoever in making anyone feel individually maligned. However, I also don't think that libertarianism should be treated in a kid-gloved fashion. Rather, I consider it to be a somewhat insidious ideology that merits merciless critiquing. Well, just as the possibility of hurting the feelings of a Nazi would not deter me from denouncing Nazism, neither does the risk of running afoul of the sensibilities of individual libertarians constitute for me a reason to hold back from lambasting the lousiness of libertarianism. I hope that you understand.

I understand. Thank you for the response.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2011 8:11:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/5/2011 8:10:21 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/5/2011 8:03:59 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:

Eh. Whatever the majority is makes no different. This place could be rife with communists and I'd still discuss.

I don't think you're putting this in perspective. Have you tried discussing something when everyone around you is high-fiving and "this"ing your opponent, and voting against you, all to purport the perceived superiority of their ideals? It is annoying, and prevents one from getting a point across that can be received. That, for the libertarian majority, is the form, air, and picture of DDO at this moment.

And what alternative to this would you prefer?
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus