The Liberal Mentality

[Cavebear]

And here is the retarded contention that started this ^

Imagine having your shitty position put into such an inescapable corner that you literally contend that it's okay to arbitrarily shift definitions around because one of the terms you're doing it to don't really have many people who believe in it any more. Somehow if you have the belief that communists don't exist, that makes it okay to call people who like social safety nets socialists, and then socialists communists.

Yeah...

I've read the previous arguments and not been quite sure what was actually being argued.  But if you are saying that people like to shift arguments around to protect their worldview, I agree.  And I also agree that when someone takes an argument that there should be social safety nets and  turns that into socialism and then communism, that is entirely inaccurate.

For example, I don't see the point in poor children being in taught in under-funded schools and expecting them to be able to compete for a college education and the better jobs that come with that.  And that makes me a Communist?

[Baruch]

Hakurei - "A true post-scarcity economy could be the most liberal you've ever seen, yet would not even have the smallest whiff of capitalism in it because goods and services would literally be too cheap to sell."

That is what Marx meant by communism ... aka an advanced technical/cultural version of Native American or Polynesian society (Rousseau's favorites).  But this is just Tahiti syndrome, which wasn't so good for Capt. Bligh.  Not going to happen.  Yes, the definition of Lenin/Stalin/Mao etc is the only one worth paying attention to.

This is also how Christians describe Heaven.  Except John of Patmos imagined a rather uncomfortable gold Borg cube with gem incrustation.

[Hakurei Reimu]

That is what Marx meant by communism ... aka an advanced technical/cultural version of Native American or Polynesian society (Rousseau's favorites).  But this is just Tahiti syndrome, which wasn't so good for Capt. Bligh.  Not going to happen.  Yes, the definition of Lenin/Stalin/Mao etc is the only one worth paying attention to.

This is also how Christians describe Heaven.  Except John of Patmos imagined a rather uncomfortable gold Borg cube with gem incrustation.

And I was clearly using "true post-scarcity society" as a hypothetical, to illustrate that liberalism (as Gil defines it) and capitalism aren't as wedded to each other as he imagines. After all, I recognize all economies as means to an end, rather than ends in of themselves.

[Cavebear]

And I was clearly using "true post-scarcity society" as a hypothetical, to illustrate that liberalism (as Gil defines it) and capitalism aren't as wedded to each other as he imagines. After all, I recognize all economies as means to an end, rather than ends in of themselves.

There is no benefit in trade other than fair trade.

[Baruch]

There is no benefit in trade other than fair trade.

There is no fair trade, without communism worldwide under Chinese single party leadership.  Hope you invest in yuans.  Xi is now a Chinese god, the Jade Emperor.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlBOnXXw-T4

The Monkey King represents "everyman".  China can only be brought down, by its own people, when they choose to resist maniac hubris.

[Cavebear]

And I was clearly using "true post-scarcity society" as a hypothetical, to illustrate that liberalism (as Gil defines it) and capitalism aren't as wedded to each other as he imagines. After all, I recognize all economies as means to an end, rather than ends in of themselves.

Liberalism and capitalism are not wedded.  Though, I suspect they are somewhat at odds, but can be balanced in a democracy with some regulation.  And, quite frankly, I like the results.  But the goal of capitalism is to control production, wages and sales and that is not good for the populace.  So capitalism has to be controlled to some degree by government for the benefit of the workers.

[Baruch]

If the government represents the workers, better than the unions.  But the unions are castrated, and the government is in the hands of Deep State nut jobs and banksters.  So no, the oligarchy doesn't want regulation, and isn't being regulated, since about 1981.

[Cavebear]

And I was clearly using "true post-scarcity society" as a hypothetical, to illustrate that liberalism (as Gil defines it) and capitalism aren't as wedded to each other as he imagines. After all, I recognize all economies as means to an end, rather than ends in of themselves.

May I ask how define the goals of each marketplace (or anti-marketplace)?

[Baruch]

May I ask how define the goals of each marketplace (or anti-marketplace)?

Adam Smith was a British monarchist and imperialist.  He was shilling for a better British Empire.  And specifically shilling for Glasgow drug lords (tobacco, sugar, rum, slaves).  Think apologist for a Columbian cartel.  There are no free markets, because there is no free lunch.  Markets are always government controlled entities, going back to ancient times.  And they exist for government purposes, not some hidden hand, unless we mean the Koch brothers.

[Draconic Aiur]

There is no fair trade, without communism worldwide under Chinese single party leadership.  Hope you invest in yuans.  Xi is now a Chinese god, the Jade Emperor.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlBOnXXw-T4

The Monkey King represents "everyman".  China can only be brought down, by its own people, when they choose to resist maniac hubris.

I like goku better.

[Baruch]

Vegeta was a soy-boy conspirator ;-)

[Gilgamesh]

While this might be true in certain cases, there might be other forces that drive this trend that have nothing to do with people you would call socialist.
You missed the point here. These terms we use to describe peoples' political leanings are relative. I would take a socialist to be a person who thinks that more social policies than currently are in place are in order. It doesn't mean that if you're for even one social policy, then you're automatically a socialist in a political climate.
No, I call people who are for nationalized industries and the accompanying communist style control economy communist.
Oh, don't be obtuse, Gil. The classic socialist states you are obviously referring to have been traditionally been called 'communists,' and that is what I've been calling these kinds of societies all my life. You're committing the genetic fallacy by insisting that they be called 'socialists' due to its entemology when it is obvious that it's not how people are using the term.
This is not how 'liberal' has been traditionally used in the US. At least, not in my lifetime.
Actually, it's barter economies that tend to 'naturally exist' in this state.
Again, not how 'liberal' has been used in the US.
Agreed.
Again, according to your definition of what 'liberal' means.
It's already been redefined, moron, at least in the US. Mostly by the conservative twits who wanted to actually take rights away, by defining them in a way that brings them closer to the communists that were the bugbear of the Cold War era.
Who cares if 'real communists' and 'real socialists' think we're useful idiots? The important part is to not be one. Thing is, you can't defend personal liberties unless you're willing to bust the heads of individuals who violate the personal liberties of others. It's simply an inescapable fact of human nature that you're always going to have people who are selfish pricks willing to screw people over for their own gain. That's why people invented governments in the first place.

Furthermore, liberalism, as a practical exercise, is going to overlap somewhat with socialism and communism and marxism as you define it.
So? Ideals of personal liberty do not necessarily imply that you must be capitalist. Capitalism is just an economic system â€" a way of distributing goods and services. It has nothing to do with individual liberty, at least directly. A true post-scarcity economy could be the most liberal you've ever seen, yet would not even have the smallest whiff of capitalism in it because goods and services would literally be too cheap to sell.
This is literally the definition of engaging in a genetic fallacy.
I was born with all of these terms already muddled in the way I described. That ship's already sailed. The only thing you can do is be clear on what you believe.

A caveat to this post: I'm not going to engage any of the content of your post here. Therefore, it wouldn't be wrong for you to accuse me of deliberately ignoring information which may contradict my position. Maybe I am doing that, sure.

Now, an explanation for why I won't be engaging any of the content in this specific post: its format is, for lack of a better term, fucking retarded. Be more succinct. I respect both myself and the art of debate too much to engage bullshit like that.

If you get what I'm saying, and you feel so inclined, reiterate your post. I will be happy to reponde to its content, then.

(Seriously I used to format like that when I was 12. You know why I did it? Because rather than an attempting frame the interaction as an exchange of ideas that hopefully leads one or the other to a better understanding - I preferred creating as many instances of me being 'right' as was possible with the contents of my oppositions post. So I'd split it into as many different instances as possible, and attempt to '1-up' each instance.

Much healthier is to attempt understand what ones opponent is actually saying, and then responding only to the things which one divulges are both 1) relevant and 2) things which one understands him/her to actually believe. If I were to reduce what I'm trying to say here to its basic: Always try to only get to the 'meat' of the disagreement - be weary of creating pointless areas of contention.)

[Cavebear]

A caveat to this post: I'm not going to engage any of the content of your post here. Therefore, it wouldn't be wrong for you to accuse me of deliberately ignoring information which may contradict my position. Maybe I am doing that, sure.

Now, an explanation for why I won't be engaging any of the content in this specific post: its format is, for lack of a better term, fucking retarded. Be more succinct. I respect both myself and the art of debate too much to engage bullshit like that.

If you get what I'm saying, and you feel so inclined, reiterate your post. I will be happy to reponde to its content, then.

(Seriously I used to format like that when I was 12. You know why I did it? Because rather than an attempting frame the interaction as an exchange of ideas that hopefully leads one or the other to a better understanding - I preferred creating as many instances of me being 'right' as was possible with the contents of my oppositions post. So I'd split it into as many different instances as possible, and attempt to '1-up' each instance.

Much healthier is to attempt understand what ones opponent is actually saying, and then responding only to the things which one divulges are both 1) relevant and 2) things which one understands him/her to actually believe. If I were to reduce what I'm trying to say here to its basic: Always try to only get to the 'meat' of the disagreement - be weary of creating pointless areas of contention.)

If you don't respond to her post, I will respond to yours and it won't be polite.   Her post was rational and deserves a response from you.

I'll go by the avatar until the individual makes it clear.

[Baruch]

Hakurei Reimu is definitely male ;-)

[Unbeliever]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlBOnXXw-T4

Wow, those guys really take their Quidditch seriously!