All socialists lie. Unfortunately it’s true. Every one I have ever met lies and when you ask them difficult questions they insult you. Over many years I have tried to have rational discussions with them and it’s pointless. they take advantage of our fairness but teh time should now change and we should give them the same XXXX that they give out.
Um, no. “We” shouldn’t do anything (of that sort, no less), and I’d recommend that you personally don’t do that either. Not your best introduction to a forum, I imagine.
You seem to be very frustrated and angry right now. If you want that to go away, ask as specific and dry a question as you can on this forum about the social sciences, legal theory, social philosophy etc.
Venting and comming up with lists of “us v them”, “sinners saints”, and “my top ten purging list” will only add fuel to your fire of frustration and in most contexts will do no good anyway, anywhere, anytime. If you want to make the most of this site, focus on “dry and specific hard nosed” questions and you will find your frustrations and fears of other people slowly evaporate.
My two cents
“In politics, as in religion, it is equally absurd to aim at making proselytes by fire and sword. Heresies in either can rarely be cured by persecution.”
-Alexander Hamilton
Well if you personally didn’t it would be a first. Maybe because this isn’t a place they get to dominate then they have to be better behaved. Everwhere else I have encountered them they use personal abuse at every juncture. I have had 5 years on various forums and everywhere socialists have existed they have been personally abusive. Then is their constant accusations of ‘racism’ or ‘fascism’.
Rather than debate, I think it would be fitting if you challenged each to a duel.
Try to remember that they subconsciously want to make you angry, and then you will pity them.
Because the “Calculation Problem” is so evident and so overwhelming that socialists can not get beyond it so they have to resort to other means of defending their positions. Look at the Venus Project where they will make the very best of everything? Who decides what is best and what is the best method to make something? A machine? What happens if someone comes along and decides how to do something better?
To Arristipus
Given my forum name that is entirely appropriate. Well spotted sir!
To Bogart
What is the’calculation problem’ and the ‘venus project’?
I’ve never lied, apples are clear, and you’re a jerk!
You: fascist
Me: socialist
The “Calculation Problem” or “Socialist Calculation Problem” was the problem outlined in the phamplet “Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth” by Mises written in the early 1920s. The phamplet argues that Socialism is not not possible as a means of economic organization because absent market prices determined by buyers and sellers of goods, there is no way for an entrepreneur to perform economic calculation and determine critical decisions like: 1. How best to create a product or service from the possible inputs around them. 2. How many laborers he can hire with his resources. 3. How many or much of a good or service can be sold at a given price. 4. How much profit can the entrepreneur expect to make and does that profit justify the expense.
I try to avoid “libertarian socialists” not because they’re liars (impossible to know really), but because they tend to be, as a rule, completely uninformed and/or lack sufficient reasoning abilities. Their framework has absolutely no theoretical support and aims at altering reality rather than dealing with certain given conditions (such as scarcity, human nature, etc). Traditional interventionists attempt to substantiate their positions by turning to Keynes’ framework, communists obviously refer to Marxian political economy (or the Neo-Ricardian framework), but anarcho-communists, as far as I can tell, dismiss economics altogether.
This makes fruitful conversation with them nearly impossible. They have no theory and are uninterested in empirical facts (remember, their world is “entirely different”). They’re forced to equivocate in order to substantiate their ridiculous positions. But debating well-informed Marxians, post-Keynesians, and Ricardians can be quite enjoyable and informative (though Marxians are usually very combative).
Read up some of the tons of literature on here and you should be able to calmy crush them, then passively watch as they blow steam. No lies needed 
They reach their conclusions because they have bad fundamentals. They’re subscribing to the fiat-theory of political philosophy, where you can take any arbitrary setup and claim its a viable political philosophy.
For example, Democrats want a government with transparency and accountability and justice and egalitarianism and prosperity. Hur hur hur. Well that’s an END point, not a starting point. The starting point is an aggressive monopolist on arbitration. Hmm…
Similarly with workers communes and free labor.
psy op the psy opers as i say. Psy op means psychological operation, it is through the counter intelligence that we can manipulate the enemy to destroy itself. But is it realy within the libertarian framework to stoop to that level.
Did you do this on purpose? If so, that’s kind of funny.
"For example, Democrats want a government with transparency and accountability and justice and egalitarianism and prosperity. Hur hur hur. Well that’s an END point, not a starting point. The starting point is an aggressive monopolist on arbitration. Hmm…
Similarly with workers communes and free labor."
It’s funny you brought this up, because it kind of epitomizes what I was going to bring up: that most of the criticism here is aimed at authoritarian socialism (especially the Calculation Problem).
One of many of the major dividing points between anarchists and authoritarian socialists was the ends vs. means issue. Authoritarians were concerned with establishing their “dictatorship of the proletariat,” while anarchists were ready to start acting and just establish communes and coops, not wait around for the state to do so. The statists went on to impose their socialism, while anarchists did and continue to just establish their own communes and coops as an end and means. Most of the criticisms here are shared by libertarian socialists of authoritarian socialists.
Anyway, to the OP, assholes come in all sizes, shapes, and political ideologies. RevLeft (which is where it sounds like you’ve been) is one of the most ridiculous boards I’ve ever seen. For somewhere that’s supposedly anti-authoritarian, they really let authoritarians run crazy with accusations of fascism, which really takes away from the fact that there are actual fascists out there. And I’ve seen many an anarcho-communist not welcome on supposedly socialist boards. Basically, all kinds of people can be assholes. Sorry you’ve only met asshole libsocs.
@Birthday Pony
I have no problems with anarcho-communists, other than the obvious ones. But in a state of anarchy we can all (kinda) get along. We both choose ignoring the state as a means. I’d be okay living in an an-cap city thats a little down the road from a co-op. I don’t know about others on this forum but I’d respect a commune’s property. (Assuming they don’t try to use “mine”)
And I’d be fine living down the road from you as long as you don’t monopolize the means of production and alienate me from my labor. 