CFC Off Topic Turned Me Into a Fascist

[Ecofarm]

Taking my money away and doing with it what YOU want is authoritarian. No two ways about it. Of course, representation makes it tolerable when minimal.

Taxation and nationalization are fundamentally authoritarian, not "to some extent". Those things take power from private citizens and give it to the government. Limiting the use of my labor and capital is no different than limiting my speech.

 

[Godwynn]

thread delivers

 

[RedRalph]

you can take a horse to water...

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Taking my money away and doing with it what YOU want is authoritarian. No two ways about it. Of course, representation makes it tolerable when minimal.

Taxation and nationalization are fundamentally authoritarian, not "to some extent".

Remind me of this thread the next time we discuss racism would you?

 

[Ecofarm]

You mean because of the racist stuff in this thread? Ok.

But I have no idea how racism relates to my point.

Reaching into my pocket and withdrawing my capital, labor and speech is authoritarian. No way around that.

Regulations can be put in place to prevent racism from being a part of private business. So? I already said that minimal taxation and nationalization (with representation) is needed to create a free-market (regulations). That doesn't make it less authoritarian; it just makes it justified authority.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

You mean because of the racist stuff in this thread? Ok.

No.

But I have no idea how racism relates to my point.

Being liberal with what words mean does.

 

[RedRalph]

Eco are you arguing that taxes are a freedom of speech restriction?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Eco are you arguing that taxes are a freedom of speech restriction?

I like the potentials of the "stealing money is attacking freedom" position. I'm sure you can see why.

 

[RedRalph]

I like the potentials of the "stealing money is attacking freedom" position. I'm sure you can see why.

Absolutely not, because apparently, according to Ecofarm,

Now, every modern free-market has protection for people not to be exploited and defrauded

I hadn't heard this, had you? Time to hang up our ideologies, methinks

Love the new Avatar and locaiton, by the way

 

[Princeps]

He gets no credit because the only right thing he did during the war was finally, after many humiliating defeats and gigantic loss of life, allowing his generals to run the show. But that is not a bright or difficul decision, that is the least one would expect from a sane ruler with no military experience. So he was not at all instrumental in defeating the Nazis, quite the opposite. The Soviets triumphed despite Stalin, who was a burden.

I rarely agree with luiz, but he is absolutely right in this matter. Stalin was stupid and incompetent. From his collectivization policies to purging the army, he dangerously comprimised elementary Russian national security, and whatever industrialization he acheived could have been done with much more moderate intervension (like taxes on agriculture instead of collectivization as I mentioned before). But the war is not really his fault, Soviet unpreparedness certainly was.

Taking my money away and doing with it what YOU want is authoritarian. No two ways about it. Of course, representation makes it tolerable when minimal.

Taxation and nationalization are fundamentally authoritarian, not "to some extent". Those things take power from private citizens and give it to the government. Limiting the use of my labor and capital is no different than limiting my speech.

No. Taxes by democratic government are not authoritarianism, just as the enforcement of property by a democratic government isn't authoritarianism. Both property laws and tax laws restrict some people's freedoms and entitlements through force.

Furthermore, the concept of authoritarianism usually also means the lack of elected representatives and democracy.

 

[RedRalph]

I agree that his mishandling made things worse, but that doesnt mean morally those deaths were his fault. Its like saying that because someone didnt fight off a burglar well enough, then its their fault stuff got stolen. Its not.

theres a difference between unintentionally causing something and being morally culpable for something.

 

[Ecofarm]

Eco are you arguing that taxes are a freedom of speech restriction?

Yes, money is speech/influence. A justified restriction (sometimes).

Look, I get the same argument from republicans and democrats.


Republicans say that their social authoritarianism is not actually meant to hurt anyone's freedoms and that actually the policies ADD to people's freedom by making the world a better place for everyone.

Democrats say that their economic authoritarianism is not actually meant to hurt anyone's freedom and that actually the policies ADD to people's freedom by making the world a better place for everyone.

Both parties would better serve themselves by not denying the authoritarian nature of their policies and instead justifying them.

Furthermore, the concept of authoritarianism usually also means the lack of elected representatives and democracy.

No, that would be tyranny. Let's not ignore the existence of authorized/justified authority.


ps. Hey, Cheezy... do you consider Stalin a communist? Because in another thread someone said you did and IIRC you don't (and I said so). Just checking.

 

[RedRalph]

Yes, money is speech/influence. A justified restriction (sometimes).

I agree. So do you agree that a system which allows those with more money to have more access to freedom of speech and influence is inherently unfair?

 

[Ecofarm]

No. As long as there is equal opportunity. People can choose how much voice they want and work accordingly. And there are alternate methods to speech besides money, such as... speech. There are many paths and combinations to arrive at your desired level and style of influence, and as long as everyone gets equal opportunity - no problem.

To just force everyone to have an equal voice, regardless of desire or effort... is stupid (and counter-productive).

 

[RedRalph]

No. As long as there is equal opportunity. People can choose how much voice they want and work accordingly. And there are alternate methods to speech besides money, such as... speech. There are many paths and combinations to arrive at your desired level and style of influence, and as long as everyone gets equal opportunity - no problem.

Do you believe everyone in America has equal opportunity? do you believe that its morally right that the rich should have greater freedom of speech (irregardless of whether or not they had equal or unequal opportunities)? why do you think that is a just system? Explain please.

 

[Ecofarm]

If a parent wants to work their whole life just to set their kids up comfortably, that is there right. And one doesn't have to give the balance of their life's work to their kids... they can give it to anyone or any cause, that's their right and their freedom. They earned it, let them decide what to do with it. Who are we to abscond with their labor?

Anyone can do it. Equal opportunity. Let the individual decide.

If someone is pissed because their parents didn't do it for them, then perhaps they should do it for their children. For some people, inheritance is of less importance and they spend their money. Some parents just don't want to work that much. Some parents want their kids to earn their own money, and give everything to charity. That's called freedom. I see no reason to impose a standard level of rewards; I prefer a system with choices and incentives that transcends generations, so that people can make long-term decisions for their own family according to their own priorities.

 

[RedRalph]

That realy doesn't answer anyhting I asked at all. I'll rephrase. Please explain

1) why you believe that is it right that wealth should determine how much freedom of speech one has

2) Why you think everyone in America has equal opportunity

 

[luiz]

I agree that his mishandling made things worse, but that doesnt mean morally those deaths were his fault. Its like saying that because someone didnt fight off a burglar well enough, then its their fault stuff got stolen. Its not.

theres a difference between unintentionally causing something and being morally culpable for something.

Of course it is impossible to properly assign how many deaths are his fault and how many were unavoidable given the German invasion.

But wouldn't you agree that if his stupidity and incompetence caused millions of unnecessary deaths, he ought to be morally blamed for them? He can't be blamed for the deaths that were unavoidable as a result of the German action, but he can be blamed for all those who died because of his idiotic decisions.

 

[Ecofarm]

That realy doesn't answer anyhting I asked at all. I'll rephrase. Please explain

1) why you believe that is it right that wealth should determine how much freedom of speech one has

2) Why you think everyone in America has equal opportunity

1) It is inherent in the system and good. It provides an additional avenue to influence the world beyond ability to speak and good looks; it is not the sole determination of influnce.

2) In the US, there is equal opportunity.

Look, I have no doubt that if you wanted to you could work a ton and save up all kinds of money to give your kids (your not stupid or impaired). If you choose to spend your time on an internet forum instead of a monetarily gainful activity, that's your decision. But don't go asking for stuff from someone who choose to forego extra social interaction so as to save money for their kids. Maybe you think it is more important to improve your own interaction abilities and clarity of ideology and that will benefit your kids more; maybe you think that you being happy with your own luxury level will help your kids more... that's your choice, your freedom.

People make their choices, and I believe in the US there is equal opportunity. Do I need to give you rags to riches examples??

In the third world it is different. There, if you are born poor you die poor. Perhaps your ideology is more appropriate there, for short-term/temporary fixes at the cost of freedom.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Absolutely not, because apparently, according to Ecofarm,

I hadn't heard this, had you? Time to hang up our ideologies, methinks

Love the new Avatar and locaiton, by the way

Thanks.

In light of the below quote, I'm inclined to think that Mr. Farm isn't interested in rule of the demos at all.

Yes, money is speech/influence. A justified restriction (sometimes).

And you call yourself a (small D) democrat? Get outta here.

ps. Hey, Cheezy... do you consider Stalin a communist? Because in another thread someone said you did and IIRC you don't (and I said so). Just checking.

He was a communist as he was a member of the Communist Party of Russia, and believed in the socialist cause. So far as his initiatives involved advancing Russia towards a socialist existence, yes, I think those actions were, for the most part socialist. But that should not be mistaken for the many actions he took which were not in the nature of socialism, and in my opinion did far more to hurt both Russia and the socialist cause than to help it.

Christ I shouldn't have to write a dissertation every time I want to say "yes" without having it twisted into some sort of immoral bloodthirsty slander.