Let me guess, foreshadowing of Mark come next year? When his Christmas wish list turns to coal, coal that he can't even burn without making the Earth Mother cry.
And if you dream and wish hard enough, Widdle Marky, someday you'll be a real boy, too!
For after all, we are all the children of the Government, and we all owe everything, yea even our very lives, to the Government and to it's chief executive, President Barrack Hussein Obama. Why, it's almost as if Marky and Nikto dream of some other form of extra-constitutional government that doesn't have to worry about so many niceties and just go directly to the awesomeness of the good they will provide. And those of us who express doubt are deniers, wreckers, even.
Well, you came and left a comment, and I thought I'd return the favor, but really? This is what you got out of the hyper-individualism post? That government is our daddy and people who believe in personal sovereignty and individual rights are petulant teenagers?
Yo, dude, this Mark cat's got it right. The .gov IS Big Daddy, and what Big Daddy's saying is that you bitches been holding out on us. Now cough it up before we haves to pimp slap yo' asses stone cold stupid.
I'm not the one who sets up the "daddy-adolescent" relationship, Kevin. That's you guys.
It saddens me greatly that you view people like me as being against personal liberty simply because we recognize the need for government. Make no mistake about it: I'm not the one attacking here, Kevin. Again, that's you guys. I'm pointing out a severely warped perception that you have Barack Obama, Democrats, liberals, progressives and me.
BWA-HA-HA-HA!!! Blogger puts up a post mocking others in a cartoonishly wrong-headed misunderstanding of their positions, then gets pissy because his laughably inapt analogy is mocked in return. Good lord, you'd have to have a heart of stone in order to read this exchange and not laugh your ass off. Snort. Snicker. Giggle...
I'm not the one who sets up the "daddy-adolescent" relationship
Well actually that is all about you as well. You like that concept, it makes you feel kinda warm inside, doesn't it M?
It saddens me greatly that you view people like me as being against personal liberty simply because we recognize the need for government.
Right, because anyone who ever criticizes the govt and everyone who doesn't want at least as much govt as you do - HATES ALL GOVT. A reflective man might contemplate why he so badly misrepresents what other people say.
Quite frankly, I'm sick of your lying.
Now that's funny. Really, that is funny. I sure hope you meant that as a joke.
No, I didn't obviously. I'll make a deal with you, juris. This goes for Kevin as well. Stop lying about liberals. Completely. And you know what I mean. If this happens to enough of a degree that any bitching about liberals is minimal, I'll change the tenor of this blog.
>It saddens me greatly that you view people like me as being against personal liberty simply because we recognize the need for government.
So do we. As a matter of fact, I don't think anyone here has ever argued for the elimination of government. Yet you still claim that that is what we are advocating. Why do you insist on being so dishonest?
Oh btw - a little reading assignment for you. Go figure out what a fallacy of composition is and see if you can figure out how you engage in said fallacy when you do your little, "You don't like something the government does? You must hate all aspects of government, like roads and courts!"
The Raison d'être of this blog is so you can talk smack about conservatives
This blog started as a way to work out my thoughts and feelings about 9-11. Then it became more political in 2004 when right wing blogs decided that John Kerry was a French war criminal. Since that time, I have sought to expose the out and out lying and complete insanity that comes from the right on a daily basis. Stop lying and I will write about something else. I have plenty of things to write and/or rant about other than conservatives.
How about we start with something simple? Admit that Barack Obama and I aren't socialists.
Why do you insist on being so dishonest?
Because that's what you keep saying. I'm not the one who started this silliness, Hap, as I mentioned above. You want change? Start with yourself. Until then, I'm going to continue to highlight the insanity and comment on it, exposing the lies.
Why don't you start with a retraction of this comment?
What I am suggesting is that culture matters. And black culture, at this point in history, does not celebrate academic achievement.
>What I am suggesting is that culture matters. And black culture, at this point in history, does not celebrate academic achievement.
Why would I retract it? At most I'd add a few words to make clear that I'm making a general observation, for those like you who trade in throwing out accusations on the basis of feeling rather than reason. Otherwise, I think it is quite true. Your response to that was to call me racist because.. well, just because.
>Because that's what you keep saying.
Nope. You're lying. You have been told how and why you are lying in multiple threads, multiple times. Yet you persist, which is why I call it a lie. It is a composition fallacy, but, more than that, I think it is just an article of faith for you.
>Until then, I'm going to continue to highlight the insanity and comment on it, exposing the lies.
And you will continue to be rightly ridiculed for caricature, fallacies, and lack of reasoning.
Btw - a "lie" is a knowing falsehood, as you tend to be unclear on such things. Who has lied, and what did the lie consist of?
This is an important insight, not only into the way the left debates and otherwise communicates, but into the way the left thinks--or fails to think. The book's subtitle, after all, promises an instruction in "Thinking and Talking Democratic." Lakoff and Wehling command their readers not only to act as if opposing arguments are without merit, but to close their minds to those arguments. What comes across to conservatives as a maddening arrogance is actually willed ignorance.
Nope. You're lying. You have been told how and why you are lying in multiple threads, multiple times. Yet you persist, which is why I call it a lie. It is a composition fallacy, but, more than that, I think it is just an article of faith for you.
Well, there is an easy way to test your theory and mine. This goes for juris as well.
Answer the following questions...honestly...
#1-Do you agree with Allen West when he says "there's about 78 to 81 members of the Democrat Party who are members of the Communist Party?"
#2-Do you think that Barack Obama is a socialist? A fascist? A communist?
#3-Do you think that I am a socialist? A communist? A fascist?
Bonus question
Do you think Michele Bachmann is accurate when she says that the Muslim Brotherhood has infiltrated our government?
>Do you agree with Allen West when he says "there's about 78 to 81 members of the Democrat Party who are members of the Communist Party?"
No. If he was being serious, it's a pretty silly claim.
>Do you think that Barack Obama (or Mark) is a socialist, fascist, or a communist?
No. You're both statists. To be clear what I mean by that, I'd say that a statist is someone who believes that the government is the default and best way to solve pretty much anything they perceive to be a problem. There's quite a bit of space between a statist and a communist, fascist, or a socialist in my opinion, though its not difficult to play the smear by association game and say that a statist is like an -ist in certain ways, which is pretty useless IMO. Such smears are one of your standard things: libertarianism and anarchism. Conservatism and anarchism. Or conservatism and Nazis. Pretty much whoever disagrees with you.
>Do you think Michele Bachmann is accurate when she says that the Muslim Brotherhood has infiltrated our government?
Um, no. That's out in wackyland if you ask me.
I'd ask you to answer the question about the composition fallacy, but there just doesn't seem to be much a point. I think you much prefer blissfully whacking away at your strawman caricatures than substantive, honest discussion.
#1-Do you agree with Allen West when he says "there's about 78 to 81 members of the Democrat Party who are members of the Communist Party?"
What are the practical differences between a communist, a socialist and a progressive?
Are they a difference in basic first principles or of degree?
If of degree, is there a delineation or some line that if crossed one stops being one and becomes the other?
If there is no line, what happens when one is so close to the other that they may be observed to act like something they do not personally identify themselves as?
#2-Do you think that Barack Obama is a socialist? A fascist? A communist?
See above.
#3-Do you think that I am a socialist? A communist? A fascist?
No all the way. Want to bet I could put up four questions that you would get wrong?
Well, I'm glad to hear it and glad to be wrong, juris.
#1 The only difference between a libertarian and a conservative is that a libertarian smokes pot? (T/F)
False. Libertarians are also pro choice, pro sex with whomever the fuck and are usually (but not always) anti conservative Christian-like you!
#2 Both anarchists and libertarians believe there should be zero govt. (T/F)
False. Remember, though, you were the one that said that Kevin's site runs libertarian to anarcho-capitalist so there is a range there and it's the ones on the anarcho side that seem to have taken over a pretty significant part of the right.
#3 The Constitution is the law of the land, the flexibility built in is based on the ability to amend. (T/F)
I'd say that a statist is someone who believes that the government is the default and best way to solve pretty much anything they perceive to be a problem.
That's not true. I think there are more things than you do, though, that the government can and should solve. As I have said many times, the problem here is your sensitivities about government.
I'd ask you to answer the question about the composition fallacy
Well, I haven't seen the words "I couldn't have made it in my business without the government" yet so we can't really have a substantive discussion about how I inferred a whole when it should have been just a part of the truth.
As I said with juris, I'm happy to be wrong regarding your answers to my questions. Wackyland, indeed!
GD, that's a pretty vague answer and I've now realized a mistake that I have made. It's obvious that juris and Hap have a different perception than you do (thankfully) and I need to stop painting all three of you with such a broad brush.
If you are questioning the practical differences between socialism, fascism, communism and proggressivism than I'm not certain we can continue a discussion due to the fact that you may think there are none.
Hmm...I wonder how you would react if I answered a question with a question...?
I know the differences - but I don't think you do.
Heading me off at the pass again, are ye?
juris and Hap seemed to have no problem answering the questions so, unless you have something you are embarrassed to admit (ahem), then just answer the questions.
But I was setting up a certain context that you have missed in the other answers. Sometimes if you just follow along with someone elses train of thought you might gain greater insight, but too often you'd just rather be a dick.
#1-Do you agree with Allen West when he says "there's about 78 to 81 members of the Democrat Party who are members of the Communist Party?"
No. But if you actually watched the full clip where he said that it seems that he doesn't either.
#2-Do you think that Barack Obama is a socialist? A fascist? A communist?
No. He's a statist.
#3-Do you think that I am a socialist? A communist? A fascist?
You are also a statist and about 3/4 collectivist as well.
Do you think Michele Bachmann is accurate when she says that the Muslim Brotherhood has infiltrated our government?
She didn't. She cited concerns and asked for those concerns to be investigated. That is a big difference and you should probably widen your base of news sources.
So the president and I are statists...well, your and Hap's view.
But the problem is that you are wrong and, once again, your hyper sensitivity about government blinds you. Let's see if we can have a breakthrough here....
Just as you say I erroneously represent you guys as anarchists who want no government, you do the same to me and say that I think that the government should control all economic and social policy. This is really the crux of the problem here as statism is indeed the opposite of anarchy.
In truth, I think that a middle ground (welfare capitalism) is the best route to go. Obviously having complete state control inhibits innovation and clearly has been shown to decrease prosperity. But having totally unregulated markets without some social programs also is detrimental. The trick is to find the balance that works best which is certainly a shade of gray...something with which you traditionally have a problem.
I guess what bothers me about your use of the word "statist" is that it is clearly meant to be derogatory. Yet, as the president remarked the other day and you agreed, certain elements of statism are just fine with folks like you. So, maybe you could admit there is room for gray as well?
Check this out...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statist
Some anarchists use the term statist in a derogatory sense.
In looking at the second link, I find it difficult to see the differences between your views and Mr. Hornberger's view. But you aren't anarchists? What am I missing?
This is really the crux of the problem here as statism is indeed the opposite of anarchy.
Once again Mr. Black-and-White strikes!
Statist is akin to fascist as a derogatory - it is meant to indicate that the person believes in the state first and the individual second (if that). When an anarchist uses the term he means it in the black-and-white sense; for someone else it may have more a shade of gray meaning. For a fascist or totalitarian it wouldn't be derogatory at all.
say that I think that the government should control all economic and social policy.
It is very rare for you to actually find a govt policy you don't support. Your orientation is very much the opposite of the liberty interest (which tends to be the perspective we have).
Is Mr Hornberger an anarchist? Does he identify as one or is that your derogatory terminology? I didn't see anything in the second link that pointed to 'anarchist'.
Of course you don't see it, GD, because that word is just as derogatory is statist.
I think you guys like to use the word statist because you can't really use communist, socialist or fascist anymore because you sound to hysterical.
From the Hornberger link...
We believe that people should be free to engage in any occupation or profession without any government-issued license, permit, or other form of official permission. Let consumers, not the government, decide who engages in different lines of work.
Would this include patent rights? Property rights? It's not clear to me.
Would this include patent rights? Property rights?
Generally property rights start with the right to own your labor without govt interference (ie. occupational license). Anarchists believe you can secure property rights without govt, libertarians think that is a valid reason to have govt.
There is a divide on "intellectual" property (patents, copyrights) in libertarian circles. There are interesting arguments on both sides.
I find it curious how 'if' I felt there were no differences between communism, socialism and fascism then Mark "couldn't" continue the discussion with me.
But Mark then seemingly can't or won't tell the difference between libertarianism and anarchism.
37 comments:
So much projection...
Let me guess, foreshadowing of Mark come next year? When his Christmas wish list turns to coal, coal that he can't even burn without making the Earth Mother cry.
And if you dream and wish hard enough, Widdle Marky, someday you'll be a real boy, too!
For after all, we are all the children of the Government, and we all owe everything, yea even our very lives, to the Government and to it's chief executive, President Barrack Hussein Obama. Why, it's almost as if Marky and Nikto dream of some other form of extra-constitutional government that doesn't have to worry about so many niceties and just go directly to the awesomeness of the good they will provide. And those of us who express doubt are deniers, wreckers, even.
Well, you came and left a comment, and I thought I'd return the favor, but really? This is what you got out of the hyper-individualism post? That government is our daddy and people who believe in personal sovereignty and individual rights are petulant teenagers?
I was wrong. Not much has changed.
Yo, dude, this Mark cat's got it right. The .gov IS Big Daddy, and what Big Daddy's saying is that you bitches been holding out on us. Now cough it up before we haves to pimp slap yo' asses stone cold stupid.
I'm not the one who sets up the "daddy-adolescent" relationship, Kevin. That's you guys.
It saddens me greatly that you view people like me as being against personal liberty simply because we recognize the need for government. Make no mistake about it: I'm not the one attacking here, Kevin. Again, that's you guys. I'm pointing out a severely warped perception that you have Barack Obama, Democrats, liberals, progressives and me.
Quite frankly, I'm sick of your lying.
Yep. Nobody pushed for anarchy more than those people you teabaggers worship - the Founding Fathers.
You didn't see them instituting any Rule of Law!
"Anarchy! Fuck all y'all!" - James Madison, 1785
BWA-HA-HA-HA!!! Blogger puts up a post mocking others in a cartoonishly wrong-headed misunderstanding of their positions, then gets pissy because his laughably inapt analogy is mocked in return. Good lord, you'd have to have a heart of stone in order to read this exchange and not laugh your ass off. Snort. Snicker. Giggle...
I'm not the one who sets up the "daddy-adolescent" relationship
Well actually that is all about you as well. You like that concept, it makes you feel kinda warm inside, doesn't it M?
It saddens me greatly that you view people like me as being against personal liberty simply because we recognize the need for government.
Right, because anyone who ever criticizes the govt and everyone who doesn't want at least as much govt as you do - HATES ALL GOVT. A reflective man might contemplate why he so badly misrepresents what other people say.
Quite frankly, I'm sick of your lying.
Now that's funny. Really, that is funny. I sure hope you meant that as a joke.
No, I didn't obviously. I'll make a deal with you, juris. This goes for Kevin as well. Stop lying about liberals. Completely. And you know what I mean. If this happens to enough of a degree that any bitching about liberals is minimal, I'll change the tenor of this blog.
That's funny. The Raison d'être of this blog is so you can talk smack about conservatives. What you get in return is based upon what you've sown.
>It saddens me greatly that you view people like me as being against personal liberty simply because we recognize the need for government.
So do we. As a matter of fact, I don't think anyone here has ever argued for the elimination of government. Yet you still claim that that is what we are advocating. Why do you insist on being so dishonest?
Oh btw - a little reading assignment for you. Go figure out what a fallacy of composition is and see if you can figure out how you engage in said fallacy when you do your little, "You don't like something the government does? You must hate all aspects of government, like roads and courts!"
The Raison d'être of this blog is so you can talk smack about conservatives
This blog started as a way to work out my thoughts and feelings about 9-11. Then it became more political in 2004 when right wing blogs decided that John Kerry was a French war criminal. Since that time, I have sought to expose the out and out lying and complete insanity that comes from the right on a daily basis. Stop lying and I will write about something else. I have plenty of things to write and/or rant about other than conservatives.
How about we start with something simple? Admit that Barack Obama and I aren't socialists.
Why do you insist on being so dishonest?
Because that's what you keep saying. I'm not the one who started this silliness, Hap, as I mentioned above. You want change? Start with yourself. Until then, I'm going to continue to highlight the insanity and comment on it, exposing the lies.
Why don't you start with a retraction of this comment?
What I am suggesting is that culture matters. And black culture, at this point in history, does not celebrate academic achievement.
Stop lying about liberals.
I'm not the one lying about how the other side views govt. I'm not even exaggerating.
>What I am suggesting is that culture matters. And black culture, at this point in history, does not celebrate academic achievement.
Why would I retract it? At most I'd add a few words to make clear that I'm making a general observation, for those like you who trade in throwing out accusations on the basis of feeling rather than reason. Otherwise, I think it is quite true. Your response to that was to call me racist because.. well, just because.
>Because that's what you keep saying.
Nope. You're lying. You have been told how and why you are lying in multiple threads, multiple times. Yet you persist, which is why I call it a lie. It is a composition fallacy, but, more than that, I think it is just an article of faith for you.
>Until then, I'm going to continue to highlight the insanity and comment on it, exposing the lies.
And you will continue to be rightly ridiculed for caricature, fallacies, and lack of reasoning.
Btw - a "lie" is a knowing falsehood, as you tend to be unclear on such things. Who has lied, and what did the lie consist of?
Gosh, this sure sounds familiar...
This is an important insight, not only into the way the left debates and otherwise communicates, but into the way the left thinks--or fails to think. The book's subtitle, after all, promises an instruction in "Thinking and Talking Democratic." Lakoff and Wehling command their readers not only to act as if opposing arguments are without merit, but to close their minds to those arguments. What comes across to conservatives as a maddening arrogance is actually willed ignorance.
Nope. You're lying. You have been told how and why you are lying in multiple threads, multiple times. Yet you persist, which is why I call it a lie. It is a composition fallacy, but, more than that, I think it is just an article of faith for you.
Well, there is an easy way to test your theory and mine. This goes for juris as well.
Answer the following questions...honestly...
#1-Do you agree with Allen West when he says "there's about 78 to 81 members of the Democrat Party who are members of the Communist Party?"
#2-Do you think that Barack Obama is a socialist? A fascist? A communist?
#3-Do you think that I am a socialist? A communist? A fascist?
Bonus question
Do you think Michele Bachmann is accurate when she says that the Muslim Brotherhood has infiltrated our government?
Answer yes or no.
No all the way. Want to bet I could put up four questions that you would get wrong?
>Do you agree with Allen West when he says "there's about 78 to 81 members of the Democrat Party who are members of the Communist Party?"
No. If he was being serious, it's a pretty silly claim.
>Do you think that Barack Obama (or Mark) is a socialist, fascist, or a communist?
No. You're both statists. To be clear what I mean by that, I'd say that a statist is someone who believes that the government is the default and best way to solve pretty much anything they perceive to be a problem. There's quite a bit of space between a statist and a communist, fascist, or a socialist in my opinion, though its not difficult to play the smear by association game and say that a statist is like an -ist in certain ways, which is pretty useless IMO. Such smears are one of your standard things: libertarianism and anarchism. Conservatism and anarchism. Or conservatism and Nazis. Pretty much whoever disagrees with you.
>Do you think Michele Bachmann is accurate when she says that the Muslim Brotherhood has infiltrated our government?
Um, no. That's out in wackyland if you ask me.
I'd ask you to answer the question about the composition fallacy, but there just doesn't seem to be much a point. I think you much prefer blissfully whacking away at your strawman caricatures than substantive, honest discussion.
OK M - let's see how you do:
#1 The only difference between a libertarian and a conservative is that a libertarian smokes pot? (T/F)
#2 Both anarchists and libertarians believe there should be zero govt. (T/F)
#3 The Constitution is the law of the land, the flexibility built in is based on the ability to amend. (T/F)
#1-Do you agree with Allen West when he says "there's about 78 to 81 members of the Democrat Party who are members of the Communist Party?"
What are the practical differences between a communist, a socialist and a progressive?
Are they a difference in basic first principles or of degree?
If of degree, is there a delineation or some line that if crossed one stops being one and becomes the other?
If there is no line, what happens when one is so close to the other that they may be observed to act like something they do not personally identify themselves as?
#2-Do you think that Barack Obama is a socialist? A fascist? A communist?
See above.
#3-Do you think that I am a socialist? A communist? A fascist?
See above.
#4) Does Mark scratch his asshole and then smell his fingers, if nobody is watching?
No all the way. Want to bet I could put up four questions that you would get wrong?
Well, I'm glad to hear it and glad to be wrong, juris.
#1 The only difference between a libertarian and a conservative is that a libertarian smokes pot? (T/F)
False. Libertarians are also pro choice, pro sex with whomever the fuck and are usually (but not always) anti conservative Christian-like you!
#2 Both anarchists and libertarians believe there should be zero govt. (T/F)
False. Remember, though, you were the one that said that Kevin's site runs libertarian to anarcho-capitalist so there is a range there and it's the ones on the anarcho side that seem to have taken over a pretty significant part of the right.
#3 The Constitution is the law of the land, the flexibility built in is based on the ability to amend. (T/F)
True.
I'd say that a statist is someone who believes that the government is the default and best way to solve pretty much anything they perceive to be a problem.
That's not true. I think there are more things than you do, though, that the government can and should solve. As I have said many times, the problem here is your sensitivities about government.
I'd ask you to answer the question about the composition fallacy
Well, I haven't seen the words "I couldn't have made it in my business without the government" yet so we can't really have a substantive discussion about how I inferred a whole when it should have been just a part of the truth.
As I said with juris, I'm happy to be wrong regarding your answers to my questions. Wackyland, indeed!
GD, that's a pretty vague answer and I've now realized a mistake that I have made. It's obvious that juris and Hap have a different perception than you do (thankfully) and I need to stop painting all three of you with such a broad brush.
If you are questioning the practical differences between socialism, fascism, communism and proggressivism than I'm not certain we can continue a discussion due to the fact that you may think there are none.
and it's the ones on the anarcho side that seem to have taken over a pretty significant part of the right.
Fail. That is your twisted filter at work - just as described in that "How to Think and Talk Democratic" link.
Well, I'm glad to hear it and glad to be wrong, juris
You've been told repeatedly yet you keep saying the same things. That is why I assume you just like to lie for effect.
Mark you are an idiot.
That wasn't an answer - it was a question.
I know the differences - but I don't think you do.
That wasn't an answer - it was a question.
Hmm...I wonder how you would react if I answered a question with a question...?
I know the differences - but I don't think you do.
Heading me off at the pass again, are ye?
juris and Hap seemed to have no problem answering the questions so, unless you have something you are embarrassed to admit (ahem), then just answer the questions.
Well, you didn't actually ask me.
But I was setting up a certain context that you have missed in the other answers. Sometimes if you just follow along with someone elses train of thought you might gain greater insight, but too often you'd just rather be a dick.
#1-Do you agree with Allen West when he says "there's about 78 to 81 members of the Democrat Party who are members of the Communist Party?"
No. But if you actually watched the full clip where he said that it seems that he doesn't either.
#2-Do you think that Barack Obama is a socialist? A fascist? A communist?
No. He's a statist.
#3-Do you think that I am a socialist? A communist? A fascist?
You are also a statist and about 3/4 collectivist as well.
Do you think Michele Bachmann is accurate when she says that the Muslim Brotherhood has infiltrated our government?
She didn't. She cited concerns and asked for those concerns to be investigated. That is a big difference and you should probably widen your base of news sources.
So the president and I are statists...well, your and Hap's view.
But the problem is that you are wrong and, once again, your hyper sensitivity about government blinds you. Let's see if we can have a breakthrough here....
Just as you say I erroneously represent you guys as anarchists who want no government, you do the same to me and say that I think that the government should control all economic and social policy. This is really the crux of the problem here as statism is indeed the opposite of anarchy.
In truth, I think that a middle ground (welfare capitalism) is the best route to go. Obviously having complete state control inhibits innovation and clearly has been shown to decrease prosperity. But having totally unregulated markets without some social programs also is detrimental. The trick is to find the balance that works best which is certainly a shade of gray...something with which you traditionally have a problem.
I guess what bothers me about your use of the word "statist" is that it is clearly meant to be derogatory. Yet, as the president remarked the other day and you agreed, certain elements of statism are just fine with folks like you. So, maybe you could admit there is room for gray as well?
Check this out...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statist
Some anarchists use the term statist in a derogatory sense.
That points to the following links...
http://www.aynrandbookstore2.com/prodinfo.asp?number=AR01N
http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd1101a.asp
http://www.anti-state.com/article.php?article_id=52
In looking at the second link, I find it difficult to see the differences between your views and Mr. Hornberger's view. But you aren't anarchists? What am I missing?
This is really the crux of the problem here as statism is indeed the opposite of anarchy.
Once again Mr. Black-and-White strikes!
Statist is akin to fascist as a derogatory - it is meant to indicate that the person believes in the state first and the individual second (if that). When an anarchist uses the term he means it in the black-and-white sense; for someone else it may have more a shade of gray meaning. For a fascist or totalitarian it wouldn't be derogatory at all.
say that I think that the government should control all economic and social policy.
It is very rare for you to actually find a govt policy you don't support. Your orientation is very much the opposite of the liberty interest (which tends to be the perspective we have).
But you aren't anarchists? What am I missing?
Is Mr Hornberger an anarchist? Does he identify as one or is that your derogatory terminology? I didn't see anything in the second link that pointed to 'anarchist'.
Of course you don't see it, GD, because that word is just as derogatory is statist.
I think you guys like to use the word statist because you can't really use communist, socialist or fascist anymore because you sound to hysterical.
From the Hornberger link...
We believe that people should be free to engage in any occupation or profession without any government-issued license, permit, or other form of official permission. Let consumers, not the government, decide who engages in different lines of work.
Would this include patent rights? Property rights? It's not clear to me.
Would this include patent rights? Property rights?
Generally property rights start with the right to own your labor without govt interference (ie. occupational license). Anarchists believe you can secure property rights without govt, libertarians think that is a valid reason to have govt.
There is a divide on "intellectual" property (patents, copyrights) in libertarian circles. There are interesting arguments on both sides.
Just like people who have actual communist tendencies prefer to call themselves progressives so people don't get all hysterical.
I find it curious how 'if' I felt there were no differences between communism, socialism and fascism then Mark "couldn't" continue the discussion with me.
But Mark then seemingly can't or won't tell the difference between libertarianism and anarchism.
Post a Comment