the limits of fascism

[henry quirk]

these are the folks who'll leash us, for our own good

That's the thing. Socialists always use the language of "caring and sharing," of "community" and "equality"; but what they mean is, "Knuckle under, Bud."

I have no doubt scott and advocate believe in all that rot...neither strikes me as an overt (wanna be) slaver...but what they promote leads to to the abattoir, just the same

[Immanuel Can]

I have no doubt scott and advocate believe in all that rot...neither strikes me as an overt (wanna be) slaver...but what they promote leads to to the abattoir, just the same

Absolutely. But they will be horrified and hurt that you suggest so, because they'll say, "Well I never intended that to happen! How dare you accuse me of leaning in that direction..."

Still, Socialism always operates according to its own rationale. Scott and Advocate are just its...useful...followers...who follow along with its rhetoric, taking it all at face value, because its promises are what they, in well-meaning confusion, would like to see come about. That Socialism has NEVER, delivered ANY of the goods they so fervently desire makes no impact on their thinking, because they have no concept of the actual history of Socialism. They just keep assuming that what they want it to be, it will be: especially if they are allowed a crack at it.

But neither is the type that the Socialist elites will ever let run things. They are the "faithful Socialists," the third level of people who get thrown into the Socialist meat grinder.

[henry quirk]

I have no doubt scott and advocate believe in all that rot...neither strikes me as an overt (wanna be) slaver...but what they promote leads to to the abattoir, just the same

Absolutely. But they will be horrified and hurt that you suggest so, because they'll say, "Well I never intended that to happen! How dare you accuse me of leaning in that direction..."

Still, Socialism always operates according to its own rationale. Scott and Advocate are just its...useful...followers...who follow along with its rhetoric, taking it all at face value, because its promises are what they, in well-meaning confusion, would like to see come about. That Socialism has NEVER, delivered ANY of the goods they so fervently desire makes no impact on their thinking, because they have no concept of the actual history of Socialism. They just keep assuming that what they want it to be, it will be: especially if they are allowed a crack at it.

But neither is the type that the Socialist elites will ever let run things. They are the "faithful Socialists," the third level of people who get thrown into the Socialist meat grinder.

here's the thing: it matters not at all to me that socialism doesn't or does provide

take the affordable care act as a concrete example...

very often, conservatives, and a fair number of libertarians, cite, as their number one reason for opposin' the ACA, that it doesn't work...the embedded implication is, if it did work, they'd be okay with it

me: I don't care if the ACA is the most successful gov program ever...I oppose it cuz it defines me as sumthin' other than what I am

socialism is the same: it could be a wildly successful economic and social system, and I'd still resist it

I'm not a cog, not a piece or part

some things are not permissible between and among men, no matter how well the greater good might be served by those things

[Advocate]

Socialism causes major harm when people deny or ignore socialist principles, such as the ones us avowed socialists believe in lieu of libertarian impossibility. Capitalism Always harms those who have the least. If you want a bugbear, it's right under your ass.

[Advocate]

>you don't seem to understand Bastiat's point: [i]free men require no regulators or legislators[/i]

That idea is 1% right, 99% bullshit. Free men with knowledge, conscientiousness, and intelligence don't require regulators or legislators, except when they deal with issues of scale or with others who don't share those attributes. The whole reason we have governments is that "free men" of your kind are the ones who end up despotic, and all systems of power that do Not value at minimum the ensured protection of the least of the sentient beings under their control, and the equality of opportunity of all cognizant beings likewise, perpetuate themselves directly into evil.

[Immanuel Can]

Socialism causes major harm...

You could stop there, and have spoken perfect truth.

...when people deny or ignore socialist principles,

It's not the people who deny or ignore Socialist principles who have killed so many millions. It's the Socialists.

Funny how every generation of new Socialists claims, "The others just never really got Socialism right," with the arrogant implication, of course, that if THEY had control of the Socialism, or if people who agree with them did, then all the stupid Socialists in Russia, China, Cambodia...etc. would realize that THEY had the "true" Socialism.

It never occurs to them that the problem with Socialism is that it imagines that human beings are all honest, compassionate and full of goodwill...so long as they're Socialists. Of course, what always turns out to happen is that they've put ordinary, corrupt human beings in charge of the new Socialism, and so the same futile and deadly patterns always repeat.

Always. Because the flaw is in Socialist ideology itself: in it's failure to be realistic about human beings.

[Advocate]

[quote="Immanuel Can" post_id=487669 time=1609614653 user_id=9431]
[quote=Advocate post_id=487664 time=1609613618 user_id=15238]
Socialism causes major harm...[/quote]
You could stop there, and have spoken perfect truth.

[quote]...when people deny or ignore socialist principles,[/quote]
It's not the people who deny or ignore Socialist principles who have killed so many millions. It's the Socialists.

Funny how every generation of new Socialists claims, "The others just never really got Socialism right," with the arrogant implication, of course, that if THEY had control of the Socialism, or if people who agree with them did, then all the stupid Socialists in Russia, China, Cambodia...etc. would realize that THEY had the "true" Socialism.

It never occurs to them that the problem with Socialism is that it imagines that human beings are all honest, compassionate and full of goodwill...so long as they're Socialists. Of course, what always turns out to happen is that they've put ordinary, corrupt human beings in charge of the new Socialism, and so the same futile and deadly patterns always repeat.

Always. Because the flaw is in Socialist ideology itself: in it's failure to be realistic about human beings.
[/quote]

Once again, there has never been part of any version of socialism that said it's ok to murder people. Central planning is a problem if you really want to go there, but it's a problem with every form of government, not socialist ones alone. At least they're trying to be for the good of everyone, even if they fail. Capitalists are Never for the good of everyone, Especially when they succeed.

It's quite clearly libertarianism, democracy, and anti-stateism that imagine human beings are all honest, etc. I have no doubt that any persons put in power over socialism will be insufficient because the kind of people who are sufficient aren't the kind of people who seek out power over others under the veil of a bullshit system, they overthrow it. That does not mean they good leaders do not exist, or that any given system run by fools is necessarily insufficient in and of itself, but that it is insufficient in choosing it's leaders.

But i can also guarantee you that in a system where wealth confers power, the people in charge literally cannot and will never be the finer clay, because those attributes are weeded out immediately. If you want to mix in psychology, capitalism fails because the people in power have no viable concept of ethics, and socialism fails because the people in power weren't allowed to have any access to power to practice with before they threw their very necessary revolution.

[Immanuel Can]

...there has never been part of any version of socialism that said it's ok to murder people.

Of course there's not. Do you think they could sell it, if there were? What there is, instead, is a system that gives homicidal people all the power they need in order to do it anyway.

100%. That's the failure rate of Socialism. 100%, and by far, the worst record of killing people in history. And you still assume that what it promises is actually what it's going to deliver?

Central planning is a problem if you really want to go there,

Now you're onto something. The government is the tool the despots use to kill people, and the ideology of Socialism is the delusion they use to sanctify their killing. After all, the gulags were said to be "necessary" because of "enemies of Socialism."

..it's a problem with every form of government, not socialist ones alone.

No, all forms of governments have problems; not all have the problems of gulags, exterminations, purges, secret police, and shooting people into ditches. Those are problems that Socialism has, to a degree that none other has ever had.

At least they're trying to be for the good of everyone, even if they fail.

Ah, the road of good intentions...where does it go, now?

It's quite clearly libertarianism, democracy, and anti-stateism that imagine human beings are all honest, etc.

The opposite is true. All of them assume that the rights of individuals will inevitably be trampled by the State, if the State becomes too powerful. And they're all quite right.

I have no doubt that any persons put in power over socialism will be insufficient because the kind of people who are sufficient aren't the kind of people who seek out power over others under the veil of a bullshit system, they overthrow it.

It's like "The Who" sang: "Meet the new boss / Same as the old boss. They called their song, "Won't Get Fooled Again," and it's about how revolutionaries always tell themselves this lie, and how they are always wrong.

History shows "The Who" to have been prophetic in that.

...capitalism fails because the people in power have no fucking conscience...

You really think that's true? None of them have a conscience? And Socialists do?

Do you think they are a different kind of person from you, or from the people you're going to trust to run your Socialist dream State? I promise you, my friend, they are no different from you and me. They are just as corruptible as anybody else, and no more corrupt than everybody else. Give anybody too much power, and they are going to be tempted. Give some people too much power, and in order to hold it, they'll start killing people.

You seem to think that the power of capitalist acquisition corrupts, but the power of Socialist leadership cannot corrupt. Can't you see how utterly absurd and woefully dangerous that supposition is?

The only safeguard against this problem is not giving anyone too much power. This is the wisdom of democracy: to have checks and balances, such as multiple parties, elections, limited terms, strict boundaries of mandate, the rule of law, separation of powers, restricted government mandates, and so on, to keep ALL people from becoming corrupt. But Socialism waves all these, gives all power to central planning, and just trusts that even with unrestrained power, its leaders will remain pure of heart.

And every time, they don't.

[Advocate]

>>...there has never been part of any version of socialism that said it's ok to murder people.[/quote]
>Of course there's not. Do you think they could sell it, if there were? What there is, instead, is a system that gives homicidal people all the power they need in order to do it anyway.

In order to overthrow an entrenched system you must have at minimum an unwarranted optimism bias, and when it works, you'll be therefore even more optimistic, but that isn't part of the ideology of socialism. Socialism does not imply method and every problem you're raising is either externally created or is a function of some inherent practical difficulty that likewise isn't part of the ideology of socialism. Straw men all the way down. If you want to attack socialism, attack it for being insufficient to Overcome those problems, which were not created by socialist ideology in any sense.

>>It's quite clearly libertarianism, democracy, and anti-stateism that imagine human beings are all honest, etc.[/quote]
>The opposite is true. All of them assume that the rights of individuals will inevitably be trampled by the State, if the State becomes too powerful. And they're all quite right.

The rights of individuals will inevitably be trampled by someone, and the state's responsibility is to try to prevent that from happening. You're substituting the idea of a failed state for all states. You do that a lot. There are successful socialist places outside of the difficulties of scale, which literally no ideology has sufficiently dealt with yet, even the ones that have spent the most time practicing having things their way. A state must be maximalist to ensure safety and minimalist to maximize efficiency and freedom. The legitimate state is the one that tries to find that point sustainably. There hasn't been one yet.

[quote]I have no doubt that any persons put in power over socialism will be insufficient because the kind of people who are sufficient aren't the kind of people who seek out power over others under the veil of a bullshit system, they overthrow it.[/quote]
It's like "The Who" sang: "Meet the new boss / Same as the old boss. They called their song, "Won't Get Fooled Again," and it's about how revolutionaries always tell themselves this lie, and how they are always wrong.

It is possible to have better ideas than the current system allows for, even if you don't yet know how to enact them, or the circumstances under which they will be enacted. Even if we fail 1000 times, revolution is preferable to letting things stagnant the way they are. We know with 100% certainty what the current state of affairs brings and we also know with 100% certainty lots of things that could be better. Any ideas that support not trying to upset the apple cart because you might break some eggs are morally and ethically bankrupt from their core. There can be no defense of anti-socialism because the core of socialism is the good of all beings, and that's the only good that is any good. All your objections are irrelevant by default and i've shown you why, if you care to see it.

>>...capitalism fails because the people in power have no fucking conscience...[/quote]
>You really think that's true? None of them have a conscience? And Socialists do?

Some more, some less. The socialists have more of that fuzzy thing because they have moral maturity (accounting for externalities) in their ideology than the pragmatic schools. They fail because of things beyond their ideology, as i've demonstrated repeatedly, and because they never get time to practice except in the chaos immediately after a revolution (or at much smaller scales, which is a separate sort of thing for that reason).

>Do you think they are a different kind of person from you, or from the people you're going to trust to run your Socialist dream State? I promise you, my friend, they are no different from you and me. They are just as corruptible as anybody else, and no more corrupt than everybody else. Give anybody too much power, and they are going to be tempted. Give [i]some[/i] people too much power, and in order to hold it, they'll start killing people.

The socialist has the good of everyone at the core of their thinking. That's the difference. Ancient to modern states, for the largest part, do not. Socialism means, in the vernacular, that sort of government that comes next, which looks out for the good of everyone, like a family, not entrenched special interests which have rigged the game in every conceivable sense, and in many inconceivable ones because now they've got imaginary currency, AI, and derivatives and shit.

You're entirely correct in that it is a hard problem to figure out who should be in charge, but No Fucking Kind of Government has worked that out yet. Fuck you trying to put the whole weight of that universal problem on the shoulders of the best-intentioned of us, who do Not have the power to institute their ideas in any case. A system that tries to choose who should be in charge as part of it's ideology, like democracy, can be judged by how well it does that. An ideology like socialism which does not imply method, cannot be judged based on it's fucking method. Central planning is a necessary tool of socialism, not a part of it's intent. There are specific versions of socialism and capitalism which do require it intentionally, but they have their own names and do not represent the whole in that respect; most do not.

>You seem to think that the power of capitalist acquisition corrupts, but the power of Socialist leadership cannot corrupt. Can't you see how utterly absurd and woefully dangerous that supposition is?

Capitalism does not require any form of fairness, equity, equality, or justice. It cannot be a good idea. Some versions of capitalism attempt to rectify this situation in various ways but it's missing from the core, so they can't do it. Capitalism requires the idea of capital which is inherently destabilizing and unjust. You have to judge ideologies from their root up. You're always starting with the leaves. Apply circumstances, scale, and psychology to ANY ideology, however perfect at root, and you can still get failure. Those things are all arbitrary or at least contingent so they must be shaved off to understand what's underneath.

Socialism is the best world-view (in this most generic sense) because there is no better core ideology than "for the good of everyone" possible, and that's the central claim of all versions of socialism. The central claim of all versions of capitalism is that it's ok to get as much as you can get.

>The only safeguard against this problem is not giving [i]anyone[/i] too much power...

>... This is the wisdom of democracy: to have checks and balances, such as multiple parties, elections, limited terms, strict boundaries of mandate, the rule of law, separation of powers, restricted government mandates, and so on, to keep ALL people from becoming corrupt. But Socialism waves all these, gives all power to central planning, and just trusts that even with unrestrained power, its leaders will remain pure of heart.

>And every time, they don't.

We don't know that to be true because we've never had an even moderately reasonable method of vetting leaders yet.

I suspect it is, but that is what the system exists for. Someone must be in charge, and someone will be in charge. What's left is to decide under what criteria and for what reasons. How much power they have is up to them because if they're the person who should be in charge, they're the fucking expert. If they're actually for the good of everyone they won't go throwing their weight around any more than is really necessary. Power should be maximally delegated, sure. Power should also be available where and when it's needed to solve major problems that occur, and that's also 100% necessary.

[henry quirk]

Socialism causes major harm when people deny or ignore socialist principles, such as the ones us avowed socialists believe in lieu of libertarian impossibility. Capitalism Always harms those who have the least. If you want a bugbear, it's right under your ass.

and people can't help but deny or ignore socialist principles, cuz those principles are for crap

man is self-interested...socialism demands he not be...and therefore the state must make him be...that is: a bad thing becomes worse

capitalism (more accurately, free enterprise) aligns with man's nature as self-interested, competitive and cooperative

free enterprise only goes bad when it becomes a state-run affair...that is: a good thing goes bad

the bugbear is a socialist animal and the state

[henry quirk]

>you don't seem to understand Bastiat's point: free men require no regulators or legislators

That idea is 1% right, 99% bullshit. Free men with knowledge, conscientiousness, and intelligence don't require regulators or legislators, except when they deal with issues of scale or with others who don't share those attributes. The whole reason we have governments is that "free men" of your kind are the ones who end up despotic, and all systems of power that do Not value at minimum the ensured protection of the least of the sentient beings under their control, and the equality of opportunity of all cognizant beings likewise, perpetuate themselves directly into evil.

no, the whole reason we have the current govs we're cursed with is becuz folks like yourself, so sure you know what's best, are willin' to, as I say, leash us all, for our own good

as for issues of scale: free men make do...they associate and cooperate, and they're capable of doin' so without gov oversight...I know it's disheartenin' to hear, but your kind are neither needed or wanted...your technocracy is rejected

[Advocate]

>man is self-interested...socialism demands he not be...and therefore the state must make him be...that is: a bad thing becomes worse

Nay, it demands the intellectual and moral maturity to recognize that the good of all is an inseparable component of the good of every individual.

>capitalism (more accurately, free enterprise) aligns with man's nature as self-interested, competitive and cooperative

Capitalism fails as a framework because checks and balances are not part of it's ideology. It is insufficient and much over-used. It aligns with the worst of man's nature, the capacity to get one over on everyone else.

>free enterprise only goes bad when it becomes a state-run affair...that is: a good thing goes bad

The state is birthed because free enterprise always goes bad unless it becomes a state-managed affair.

>the bugbear is a socialist animal and the state

Nay.

[henry quirk]

It's quite clearly libertarianism, democracy, and anti-stateism that imagine human beings are all honest, etc

what's quite clear is you don't know diddly-squat about natural rights libertarianism and how it relates to, as you say, anti-stateism

as for democracy: I'm no fan of it...in a minarchy, democracy isn't required cuz there's nuthin' to vote on

as for honest men: natural right libertarianism takes into account their frequent absence

[Advocate]

[quote="henry quirk" post_id=487682 time=1609619714 user_id=472]
[quote=Advocate post_id=487665 time=1609614216 user_id=15238]
>you don't seem to understand Bastiat's point: [i]free men require no regulators or legislators[/i]

That idea is 1% right, 99% bullshit. Free men with knowledge, conscientiousness, and intelligence don't require regulators or legislators, except when they deal with issues of scale or with others who don't share those attributes. The whole reason we have governments is that "free men" of your kind are the ones who end up despotic, and all systems of power that do Not value at minimum the ensured protection of the least of the sentient beings under their control, and the equality of opportunity of all cognizant beings likewise, perpetuate themselves directly into evil.
[/quote]

no, the whole reason we have the current govs we're cursed with is becuz folks like yourself, so sure you know what's best, are willin' to, as I say, leash us all, for our own good

as for issues of scale: free men make do...they associate and cooperate, and they're capable of doin' so without gov oversight...I know it's disheartenin' to hear, but your kind are neither needed or wanted...your technocracy is rejected
[/quote]

I didn't say anything about technology, but that would be a good conversation, whether or not you mean the electronic variety.

Men are capable of governing themselves in every sense that does not require understanding scale. As soon as you start talking about large areas of land, viruses, weapons, then you have to have a state to manage and govern those things. Anti-statism is 0% pragmatic.

[henry quirk]

it demands the intellectual and moral maturity to recognize that the good of all is an inseparable component of the good of every individual.

the great lie of interdependence...how very universalist of you


Capitalism fails as a framework because checks and balances are not part of it's ideology. It is insufficient and much over-used. It aligns with the worst of man's nature, the capacity to get one over on everyone else.

free enterprise only fails when a third party interposes itself into transaction, when a third party oversees

its checks and balance are the free men transactin' and the consequence of actin' in bad faith


The state is birthed because free enterprise always goes bad unless it becomes a state-managed affair.

the state is born of busy bodies who won't let people alone