One could argue that taxation causes starvation. How much prosperity is redirected or discouraged by the state? How much money that probably would have gone into higher order needs like charity and security/education/welfare etc goes to state boondoggles?
But then, that is taxation. You take from the productive, and let the unproductive decide how it will be distributed. Like throwing money into a hole.
What do you think happens to people when they don’t pay their taxes? What happens if they resist? Do you think the state sends them flowers?
No. They destroy their lives. They put them in cages (prison) or if it gets violent, the state kills them. It takes their homes, their bank accounts, their children away.
Socialism requires violence. Hell, socialism is synonymous with violence. Man is not geared towards redistribution. It’s unnatural. Charity, compassion, these are natural things. Stealing by force is not. That is not dignified, moral or natural behaviour.
Theft at the end of a gun, knife or club is not new. This is not progressive liberalism. Violence is as old as mankind itself.
“We” libertarians oppose all aggressive violence. You will have a hard time staking out the moral high ground against us.
And since the President’s authority is illegitimate, it is simply might makes right.
So what is “Socialist” then? Any government that forcibly takes any tax? I’m pretty sure that would put every single government in the history of humanity in the realm of Socialism … including Libertarians who aren’t for the complete overthrow of the state.
Also, Giles, I’m afraid I don’t understand your sig. What does feudalism have to do with Libertarianism?
Liberals still don’t get this whole “incentives” business.
I’ve answered this very question in this very thread. But yes, all states, are by defintion socialist.
A better word would be manoralism, but there’s a topic on this around here called “Feudal Land Arrangements in Anarcho Capitalism” in which I answer that question.
I’m having an argument with a genuine socialist about this very issue right now.
Personally I think it is merely semantic, but yes, any form of socialisation of resources, control (etc) is socialism. The degree of said socialisation is the factor which we usually take into account. A minarchist is a mild socialist, a mixed-economy conservative is a half-socialist, a leftist/“liberal” is a quasi-socialist, and a communist is a pure-socialist.
I also find it funny how fast they run from Communism when they declare themselves socialists.
The root of socialism/communism is central economic planning, redistribution, and state control of the means of production.
Many socialists who resent being called communists will say they have nothing in common with Mao or Stalin, but their economic and social ideals lead exactly to tyranny as was seen in the PRC and USSR. Socialism is violence!
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2215413740&ref=mf
I am having a large amount of trouble deciphering what this guy is actually saying. I am trying to be conciliatory, but I genuinely don’t understand what he’s going on about. He conflates capitalism with the state, and yet at the same time advocates the existence of a powerful state in socialism.
Could anyone help explain what he means? I’d like to understand him.
He probably doesn’t know what he’s talking about either.
It’s very simple, you see.
See we think like this
the state is bad, therefore it should be shrunk or destroyed. A->B
They think like this:
The state is bad and the state is good. sometimes, when I decide it is. therefore the state should be massively expanded. ( A ^ ~A) → ~B
I hate to sound objectivist but A is in fact A. You really just can’t burn and freeze at the same time.
I’m oversimplifying, but they believe in a contradiction. They can therefore justify whatever emotivist argument that feels right. It’s really the definition of insanity. All you can do is attempt to make the contradiction obvious. If he still can’t see what’s under his nose, then there’s nothing more you can do but continue to harp on his contradiction. If he can’t get that he’s saying something utterly nutzo, that is that he’s admitting that the states we have now have such large problems but then requesting we massively increase their, he is entirely insane.
Indeed. I doubt that there has ever been an instance of socialism that was not tied in some way to obscurantism.
Socialism is love.
Love is hate.
worst.lyrics.ever.