Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Marxist Libertarianism

Options
24

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 3,182 ✭✭✭demfad


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    If the party were clever they would have educated it's citizens to be informed and think strategically (they still may not agree with YOUR politics be warned). Thus if they get booted out its either the correct decision by an informed electorate or a lesson for Government to take education seriously.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 778 ✭✭✭BabyCheeses


    Re Sutherland, try googling:

    “somehow this result needs to be overturned”

    I assume you don't have concerns about Soros funding pro-abortion lobbying here.

    I found a tweet lacking any mention of plebs. We had Farage talking about "unfinished business"

    I don't really care about Soros. Tend to gloss over anytime he gets mentioned as it usually leads to conspiracies about the all powerful Soros being able to pay everyone to do what he wants but isn't smart enough to just bribe politicians like everyone else. Funding abortion campaigns is an odd choice to pick out, where does lolek and youth defense's money come from?

    The pickings for these all powerful liberal elites is laughable. If this is all they have I don't know why anyone is worries about them, they can't even arrange a piss up in a brewery. Even when Soros pays everyone 100 million euro to attend. You can get politicians to deny basic science and maths with enough money, it's not tough.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 646 ✭✭✭hungry hypno toad


    I found a tweet lacking any mention of plebs. We had Farage talking about "unfinished business"

    I don't really care about Soros. Tend to gloss over anytime he gets mentioned as it usually leads to conspiracies about the all powerful Soros being able to pay everyone to do what he wants but isn't smart enough to just bribe politicians like everyone else. Funding abortion campaigns is an odd choice to pick out, where does lolek and youth defense's money come from?

    The pickings for these all powerful liberal elites is laughable. If this is all they have I don't know why anyone is worries about them, they can't even arrange a piss up in a brewery. Even when Soros pays everyone 100 million euro to attend.

    He wants to overturn a democratic decision, he is smart enough not to use the term 'pleb' but the intent is 100% clear.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 778 ✭✭✭BabyCheeses


    He wants to overturn a democratic decision, he is smart enough not to use the term 'pleb' but the intent is 100% clear.

    So it is you that thinks they are plebs and assuming everyone else does too.

    Still haven't had it explained how Johnson, Farage, Trump etc are all plebs.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,257 ✭✭✭Yourself isit


    demfad wrote: »
    Don't you think the rich get enough benefits ans influence in western democracies without giving them extra voting power?

    There is a huge group of people in democracies with NO vote and no chance to vote: This who are not old enough to vote.

    This people should be entitled to representation just as everyone else.

    As they are not old enough to represent themselves their parent|s/guardian|s
    should be given their vote.

    That might concentrate Government minds on key areas relating to children, childcare and education.

    Currently we have a situation where arguably the most important part of a citizens life: childhood development, is not proportionally (or even close) represented in democratic society.

    That's absurd. It would effectively give a permanent majority to the fecund, and distribute power from the single, gay (in general) or childless. It would give some non taxpayers vastly more voting rights than some taxpayers and encourage over population


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 646 ✭✭✭hungry hypno toad


    So it is you that thinks they are plebs and assuming everyone else does too.

    Still haven't had it explained how Johnson, Farage, Trump etc are all plebs.

    What are you talking about? Where did I mention Farage, Johnson or Trump? Are you claiming that Farage and Trump are marxist libertarians?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 778 ✭✭✭BabyCheeses


    What are you talking about? Where did I mention Farage, Johnson or Trump? Are you claiming that Farage and Trump are marxist libertarians?

    I brought them up earlier in the thread but nobody has been able to explain how they are plebs and not elites trying to control the "plebs" as you call them.

    Instead all I got was the liberal elite cabal is made up of a woman with a PhD, a man who tweets, and the scary Soros bogyman.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 646 ✭✭✭hungry hypno toad


    I brought them up earlier in the thread but nobody has been able to explain how they are plebs and not elites trying to control the "plebs" as you call them.

    Instead all I got was the liberal elite cabal is made up of a woman with a PhD, a man who tweets, and the scary Soros bogyman.

    Did I bring 'plebs' into the thread? My first post in the thread quotes you using the term 'plebs'.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,182 ✭✭✭demfad


    That's absurd. It would effectively give a permanent majority to the fecund, and distribute power from the single, gay (in general) or childless. It would give some non taxpayers vastly more voting rights than some taxpayers and encourage over population

    You disagree with one person one vote?
    Everyone has the same voting rights. This is not the case now where children are not represented by a vote even though development is a critical period of life. You invest more in children you get better citizens.

    Speaking of absurd you also seem to be saying that people would choose to have extra children just to get their votes. Would you?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,257 ✭✭✭Yourself isit


    demfad wrote: »
    You disagree with one person one vote?
    Everyone has the same voting rights. This is not the case now where children are not represented by a vote even though development is a critical period of life. You invest more in children you get better citizens.

    Speaking of absurd you also seem to be saying that people would choose to have extra children just to get their votes. Would you?

    I agree with one adult one vote.

    You want to vote for a 1 year old? Not going to happen.

    Would I have extra children to have more votes. No. But people with more children would automatically in your absurd idea have more votes.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 21,102 Mod ✭✭✭✭Brian?


    ScumLord wrote: »
    My problem is I can't find the right label for me. Sometimes I like conservative stuff, sometimes I like Liberal stuff, I have yet to find any ideology that is actually able to cover all of life's issues. But I feel left out not being part of some camp where we all have to think the same.

    Classic liberal? Soft libertarian? Social Democrat? Third Way advocate?

    I'd say he's an anarcho-disgruntlist.

    they/them/theirs


    And so on, and so on …. - Slavoj Žižek




  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 21,102 Mod ✭✭✭✭Brian?


    Saw the thread title and thought "finally, my time to shine!" But it's just another "elitists caused a populist backlash" thread.

    they/them/theirs


    And so on, and so on …. - Slavoj Žižek




  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 21,102 Mod ✭✭✭✭Brian?


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    Oh, of course not. You'd be hard-pressed to find anyone complaining about the electoral college after coming out on the winning side. But if you lose, instead of conceding defeat, you can whinge about how the system is unfair. It's all a bit immature, really.[/quote]

    I'll challenge this point a little. The electoral college is questioned every time a POTUS is elected without carrying the popular vote. When the popular vote looked marginal in 2012 the GOP mouthpieces were tearing the electoral college to shreds. The same people who were remarkably quiet in 2000 and 2016.

    It just so happens that the only presidents to have won he electoral college without winning the popular vote were GOP. Since reliable record keeping began anyway.

    What's my point? The GOP never actually have reason to complain about the electoral college so it's a one sided argument.

    they/them/theirs


    And so on, and so on …. - Slavoj Žižek




  • Registered Users Posts: 3,182 ✭✭✭demfad


    I agree with one adult one vote.

    You want to vote for a 1 year old? Not going to happen.

    Would I have extra children to have more votes. No. But people with more children would automatically in your absurd idea have more votes.

    Just because an idea is novel doesn't make it absurd. A guardian represents the child in all other aspects of life. Why not in what the state does for the child?

    Perhaps many of our horrendous issues with how we deal with children and educate them might dissapear if they are represented at the ballot box.


  • Registered Users Posts: 28,789 ✭✭✭✭ScumLord


    Brian? wrote: »
    I'd say he's an anarcho-disgruntlist.
    Anarchy is the politics of a spoilt child, it's against the nature of this social ape. Guess again.


  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 21,102 Mod ✭✭✭✭Brian?


    ScumLord wrote: »
    Brian? wrote: »
    I'd say he's an anarcho-disgruntlist.
    Anarchy is the politics of a spoilt child, it's against the nature of this social ape. Guess again.

    I was clearly joking.

    But it raises a good point. What do you think is childish about arachism?

    I'm asking because I think you may fundamentally misunderstand what anarchism is.

    they/them/theirs


    And so on, and so on …. - Slavoj Žižek




  • Registered Users Posts: 28,789 ✭✭✭✭ScumLord


    Brian? wrote: »
    I was clearly joking.

    But it raises a good point. What do you think is childish about arachism?

    I'm asking because I think you may fundamentally misunderstand what anarchism is.
    Maybe I do. I've always read it as every man for himself, no state, no tax, if there is a community spirit it's not formalised. I say it's childish because it seems self serving with no plan for the bigger picture.


  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 21,102 Mod ✭✭✭✭Brian?


    ScumLord wrote: »
    Brian? wrote: »
    I was clearly joking.

    But it raises a good point. What do you think is childish about arachism?

    I'm asking because I think you may fundamentally misunderstand what anarchism is.
    Maybe I do. I've always read it as every man for himself, no state, no tax, if there is a community spirit it's not formalised. I say it's childish because it seems self serving with no plan for the bigger picture.

    You do indeed. Essentially anarchism is striving for a non hierarchical structure based on voluntary participation. It's absolutely not about every man for himself. It's about the exact opposite.

    I'll dig some reading material out for you anon.

    they/them/theirs


    And so on, and so on …. - Slavoj Žižek




  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,257 ✭✭✭Yourself isit


    Brian? wrote: »
    You do indeed. Essentially anarchism is striving for a non hierarchical structure based on voluntary participation. It's absolutely not about every man for himself. It's about the exact opposite.

    I'll dig some reading material out for you anon.

    An astrologer could dig out astrology books but it wouldn't prove much. Try explain how Ireland would be restructured to a Marxist libertarian state.


  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 21,102 Mod ✭✭✭✭Brian?


    Brian? wrote: »
    You do indeed. Essentially anarchism is striving for a non hierarchical structure based on voluntary participation. It's absolutely not about every man for himself. It's about the exact opposite.

    I'll dig some reading material out for you anon.

    An astrologer could dig out astrology books but it wouldn't prove much. Try explain how Ireland would be restructured to a Marxist libertarian state.

    Why the aggression?

    they/them/theirs


    And so on, and so on …. - Slavoj Žižek




  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,257 ✭✭✭Yourself isit


    Brian? wrote: »
    Why the aggression?

    Why not respond. This is a thread about your philosophy. Explain it?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 21,102 Mod ✭✭✭✭Brian?


    Brian? wrote: »
    Why the aggression?

    Why not respond. This is a thread about your philosophy. Explain it?

    The thread so far has been about a lot of things. Libertarian socialism hasn't actually been one of those things.

    I'll respond when I have time, but can you drop the aggression.

    they/them/theirs


    And so on, and so on …. - Slavoj Žižek




  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 21,102 Mod ✭✭✭✭Brian?


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    I don't know how that challenges my point. When you win, and the system is working in your favor, you celebrate. When you lose narrowly, as the Democrats did in 2000 and 2016, and the Republicans did in 2012, you complain about the unfairness of the system.[/quote]

    I didn't really challenge your point. You're correct. I just wanted it noted that the Republicans actually have no reason to complain about the EC.

    they/them/theirs


    And so on, and so on …. - Slavoj Žižek




  • Registered Users Posts: 658 ✭✭✭johnp001


    ScumLord wrote: »
    Maybe I do. I've always read it as every man for himself, no state, no tax, if there is a community spirit it's not formalised. I say it's childish because it seems self serving with no plan for the bigger picture.
    Brian? wrote: »
    You do indeed. Essentially anarchism is striving for a non hierarchical structure based on voluntary participation. It's absolutely not about every man for himself. It's about the exact opposite.

    I'll dig some reading material out for you anon.

    I think that anarchism is something that is very widely misunderstood. The popular perception is that it is brutal and scary but its modern roots as defined by Kant (law and freedom without force) and Proudhon (the absence of a master, of a sovereign) couldn't be further from this considering that most of the terror and brutality in the world has been enacted by force on the part of those carrying out the orders of the legitimate authority of some sovereign or state.

    In terms of anarchism being childish I would disagree strongly, under socialism/communism every citizen is effectively a dependent of the state
    which serves to infantilize a population. In an anarchical situation every person is fully responsible for themselves and fully empowered to create a just society around them. Hence the increased value of voluntary co-operation between free people in order to provide for themselves and their futures.

    Anarchy is not utopian, as some more coercive forms of government are in theory but when a society is unjust anarchy empowers and requires members of society to address and solve that through voluntary collaboration. With coercive government if society is unjust every citizen is subject to the injustice and complicit in its perpetuation.

    In short, with anarchy you get to live in a society you create that is as fair, altruistic, sustainable, etc as the people who live in it.
    The belief that a society imposed by force on a population by an authority would somehow be "better" than that which they would choose to create for themselves is not coherent.


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,453 ✭✭✭✭mariaalice


    johnp001 wrote: »
    I think that anarchism is something that is very widely misunderstood. The popular perception is that it is brutal and scary but its modern roots as defined by Kant (law and freedom without force) and Proudhon (the absence of a master, of a sovereign) couldn't be further from this considering that most of the terror and brutality in the world has been enacted by force on the part of those carrying out the orders of the legitimate authority of some sovereign or state.

    In terms of anarchism being childish I would disagree strongly, under socialism/communism every citizen is effectively a dependent of the state
    which serves to infantilize a population. In an anarchical situation every person is fully responsible for themselves and fully empowered to create a just society around them. Hence the increased value of voluntary co-operation between free people in order to provide for themselves and their futures.

    Anarchy is not utopian, as some more coercive forms of government are in theory but when a society is unjust anarchy empowers and requires members of society to address and solve that through voluntary collaboration. With coercive government if society is unjust every citizen is subject to the injustice and complicit in its perpetuation.

    In short, with anarchy you get to live in a society you create that is as fair, altruistic, sustainable, etc as the people who live in it.
    The belief that a society imposed by force on a population by an authority would somehow be "better" than that which they would choose to create for themselves is not coherent.

    That great but answer me one question : I would love to drive in the bus lane and not be stuck in a traffic jam I am fairly sure I don't do it because I don't want to get caught braking the law get penalties on my licences and end up paying may more in insurance.

    In a voluntary system we would obey because of what? in a free voluntary society want is the incentive to keep to the rules that are beneficial to society.


  • Registered Users Posts: 658 ✭✭✭johnp001


    mariaalice wrote: »
    That great but answer me one question : I would love to drive in the bus lane and not be stuck in a traffic jam I am fairly sure I don't do it because I don't want to get caught braking the law get penalties on my licences and end up paying may more in insurance.

    In a voluntary system we would obey because of what? in a free voluntary society want is the incentive to keep to the rules that are beneficial to society.

    The incentive to keep to rules that are beneficial to society is to live in a society that enjoys those benefits.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 38,257 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    johnp001 wrote: »
    The incentive to keep to rules that are beneficial to society is to live in a society that enjoys those benefits.

    This is just a completely empty statement. I've been burgled before so if I were to ask what the disincentive for committing such a crime would be and what punishment it would entail, your answer is basically that burglary and theft wouldn't exist because people who would commit these crimes don't themselves want to be stolen from?

    We sat again for an hour and a half discussing maps and figures and always getting back to that most damnable creation of the perverted ingenuity of man - the County of Tyrone.

    H. H. Asquith



  • Registered Users Posts: 658 ✭✭✭johnp001


    This is just a completely empty statement. I've been burgled before so if I were to ask what the disincentive for committing such a crime would be and what punishment it would entail, your answer is basically that burglary and theft wouldn't exist because people who would commit these crimes don't themselves want to be stolen from?

    It's not an empty statement, it really is just that simple!

    Without a state law enforcement body the onus on members of society to prevent and address crime is much greater. An anarchical society does not preclude people from voluntarily collaborating to protect their own and each other's property.

    The fundamental argument is that if a service is important people will pay for and organise it themselves. People have fundamental rights to their person and property and they can enforce or delegate these rights as they see fit.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 38,257 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    Translation, "Everyone for themselves" and "I'm alright, screw everyone else". There's a good reason that people won't vote for this nonsense. It falls apart upon the slightest bit of examination.

    We sat again for an hour and a half discussing maps and figures and always getting back to that most damnable creation of the perverted ingenuity of man - the County of Tyrone.

    H. H. Asquith



Advertisement