Is Marxism Feasible?

[Stewbert 08]

Just my observation that the people who are most riled about Teh Commies, two decades after the cold war ended, = fundy protestants mostly.

 

[Damnyankee]

Just my observation that the people who are most riled about Teh Commies, two decades after the cold war ended, = fundy protestants mostly.

So you have evidence to support that claim, right?

 

[Stewbert 08]

Putting "evidence" in this thread would qualify as threadjacking, wouldn't it?

 

[Damnyankee]

Putting "evidence" in this thread would qualify as threadjacking, wouldn't it?

Well, you can make a thread about it, then it wouldn't.

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

Is libertarianism feasible?

Yes. Nothing is new or particularly radical about it. It just hasn't been implemented all at once by one politician.

Putting "evidence" in this thread would qualify as threadjacking, wouldn't it?

You have 448 posts and none of them are funny.

 

[Stewbert 08]

I can't compete with "there is nothing radical about libertarianism."

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

I can't compete with "there is nothing radical about libertarianism."

Most libertarians, which is a broad bloc in the first place, support gay rights, gun rights, cuts in military and government spending, open immigration, lower taxes, school vouchers, and marijuana legalization.

I am a little more out there, but I am speaking for the average joe.

Which of those are "radical?"

 

[Damnyankee]

I can't compete with "there is nothing radical about libertarianism."

Your right, you can't. No revolutionary's, no mass murder in the streets, Libertarianism is the absence of the initiation of force, Libertarians believe that Government should run by the consent of the people, and not the other way around.

 

[Lotus49]

Liberty and justice for all, man. Have some sherbe(r)t.

 

[Stewbert 08]

If libertarians actually were "a broad bloc" and actually supported no more than the issues you list, then Michael Badnarik wouldn't cry himself to sleep at night and 43% of MySpace wouldn't hang themselves in their parents' basement after Ron Paul comes in 43rd in the Iowa primaries.

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

If libertarians actually were "a broad bloc" and actually supported no more than the issues you list, then Michael Badnarik wouldn't cry himself to sleep at night and 43% of MySpace wouldn't hang themselves in their parents' basement after Ron Paul comes in 43rd in the Iowa primaries.

Broad bloc as in beleifs. There are discrepencies over abortion and such.

And yes, there are more issues than that. But unless you are interested in blocks of text, I am not typing up every political issue in America.

Edit: But hey, good job dodging my question!

 

[Vince-G]

Is libertarianism feasible?

Well, yes, because all it entails is the state not doing anything.

 

[Arwon]

So why libertarianism and not anarcho-syndicalism, then?

 

[Vince-G]

Because anarcho-syndicalism assumes a certain element to human nature which doesn't exist.

 

[Arwon]

Bollocks. It's been put into practice in the past, has anarcho-capitalism or libertarianism? You don't think libertarianism runs contrary to many human collectivist and social instincts?

 

[Princeps]

Because anarcho-syndicalism assumes a certain element to human nature which doesn't exist.

And that is?

If anything, libertarianism is entirely unfeasible. Libertarianism is a paradox, as its essential believe is that the rights of the induvidual are important . . . that private power should be protected by violent state power over collective interests. In a genuine system of libertarianism, we would see massive private, totalitarian, secrative tyrannies, corporations and well... basically kingdoms. We'd quickly return to feudalism. We would see massive concentration of private power and wealth, which means that the government could no longer even remotely secure induvidual rights -- thus making libertarianism a paradox.

In my idea of anarchism, which is close to anarcho-syndicalism, we'd abolish industrial-feudalism, abolish massive centralized nation-state systems and return to logical, small regions ruled by direct democracy.

 

[Tycoon101]

And that is?

If anything, libertarianism is entirely unfeasible. Libertarianism is a paradox, as its essential believe is that the rights of the induvidual are important . . . that private power should be protected by violent state power over collective interests. In a genuine system of libertarianism, we would see massive private, totalitarian, secrative tyrannies, corporations and well... basically kingdoms. We'd quickly return to feudalism. We would see massive concentration of private power and wealth, which means that the government could no longer even remotely secure induvidual rights -- thus making libertarianism a paradox.

In my idea of anarchism, which is close to anarcho-syndicalism, we'd abolish industrial-feudalism, abolish massive centralized nation-state systems and return to logical, small regions ruled by direct democracy.

In a genuine system of Libertarianism, there would be more than a few nutjobs who would happily blow the head off of one of those kings and their "kingdoms".



Is Marxism feasible? For a short amount of time, until a man with drive decides to take over the community.

 

[Princeps]

In a genuine system of Libertarianism, there would be more than a few nutjobs who would happily blow the head off of one of those kings and their "kingdoms".

No, in a system of libertarianism, we'd see a massive growth in private power, meaning we'd see a massive concentration of wealth, two classes (the super rich and super poor), private armies, private ownership of absolutely everything, absolute property (absolute theft). We'd basically have the opulent powerful, with their personal armies and realms, owning everything, the land, the economy and so forth. Thus we would relatively quickly decline back to feudalism.

It would probably look like, ironically, something from the Soviet Union because these massive private tyrannies would evantually form their own totalitarian government.

 

[Norton II]

And that is?

If anything, libertarianism is entirely unfeasible. Libertarianism is a paradox, as its essential believe is that the rights of the induvidual are important . . . that private power should be protected by violent state power over collective interests.

Libertarians don't want "violent state power" used to protect any interests! Most libertarians believe a (very small) government is necessary to protect people's rights, but people are on their own as far as their interests are concerned.

 

[Princeps]

Libertarians don't want "violent state power" used to protect any interests!

Yes, they do. they want the government (which is a violent institution, always) to protect induvidual rights.

Most libertarians believe a (very small) government is necessary to protect people's rights,

Which, it cannot do, because private tyrannies will grow so enourmous.

but people are on their own as far as their interests are concerned.

Precisely, there is no concept of community in libertarianism, no community interests, only induviduals and a limited state institution.