no you didn't. You used the term "libertarian" differently than it is generally used in the USA.
That is pretty much what I meant. I have no use for Stalin style bureaucracy. I used to be what some might call a Trotskyist, but the more I learn about him the more I worry that, while I agree with his criticisms of the USSR, I feel his way could be twisted into a Stalinist type state so I am starting to seriously question the Vanguard. Lately I have read a lot about Council Communism which seems to be a much more democratic an grassroots system.
Actually, I pointed out the historical context of the term, which contradicted the statement to which I was responding.
It doesn't matter if that isn't how it's used in the U.S. He pointed out the historical nature of the term and where it originated from. The fact is Left-libertarianism was the first type of libertarianism. You can reject the validity of the philosophy, but you can't reject the historical fact that it exists and it was the original use of the term libertarianism. I don't know why you are fighting this battle, it isn't over philosophy it's just a matter of who coined the term first. It has no bearing on whether the philosophy is correct or not.no you didn't. You used the term "libertarian" differently than it is generally used in the USA.
Yeah I've started reading a few of them, I honestly am very uncomfortable with the idea of a Vanguard. It gives too much power in too few hands.Yeah, Trotskyism shares that authoritarian streak. Also, there's Trotsky's conduct; his gleeful participation in crushing The Krondstadt Rebellion, and the Makhnovschina, etc. If you're going the Marxist route, I'd look into Anton Pannekoek, also Karl Korsch, Rosa Luxemburg, Gorter, etc.
a silly semantic argument. Using libertarian as generally accepted in the USA among both popular culture and those trained in political science, to describe a socialist redistribution of income is improper
its fun watching socialists pretend that their faux brand of libertarian thought is authentic. it is not. If you support government redistribution of income you are not a libertarian you are a collectivist
socialism is contrary to current libertarian thought which is essentially true liberalismObviously, yes (not the "silly semantic" part, which is beneath you, by the way, and not at all compelling), but this has absolutely nothing to do with the post to which I responded.
This is what you said:
I responded to this by pointing out that there is a notion of libertarianism - one that is several decades older than libertarianism in the modern sense, and one that was specifically addressed in the post to which you were responding - that actually would involve a hybrid notion of communism and anarchism (i.e. would embrace collective notions of property while rejecting the government even existing, let alone redistributing anything), and would be wildly distinguishable from from libertarianism in the modern sense.
In short, my argument is not semantic, it's historical.
socialism is contrary to current libertarian thought which is essentially true liberalism
How is it "true" libertarianism if the term was appropriated by people you would consider to be either socialists or collectivists (or some other similar term along those lines)? Saying something like that is just as stupid as someone saying that modern liberalism is "true" liberalism. It doesn't mean anything, and it certainly doesn't contribute to rejecting the existence of a concept that pretty obviously does exist.
want real proof of who benefits the most from government? ask yourself who on these threads want more government?
what do you think the term libertarian means to 98% of those who actually understand political science in the USA. Rand Paul Ed Clark etc or socialist income redistribution?
want real proof of who benefits the most from government? ask yourself who on these threads want more government?
"Communists like him have no idea how you reach civil liberties just like libertarian socialist of today have no idea how you manage it"
You're arguing against the underlying value or utility of the political philosophy in question. This has nothing to do with what I'm talking about, which is that the political philosophy does exist, and was the linguistic basis of the term libertarianism. I frankly couldn't care less about whether or not it's a viable system.
LOL! Is that evidence in the "court" of Turtledude??? How about we break down each government service and determine who derives the most benefit. We can start with the military and wars. The military and wars are to protect the nations wealth.
The problem and what I have been getting at is he came up with a new term to just talk about communism to further the idea it protects liberty when it doesn't. That is why I said they are just communists because frankly they are.
The military is to protect the people. Your argument fails.
LOL! Is that evidence in the "court" of Turtledude??? How about we break down each government service and determine who derives the most benefit. We can start with the military and wars. The military and wars are to protect the nations wealth. The Rich own 80% of the wealth in the country, so their share of costs for the military and wars is 80%
Since the wealthiest the top 10 percent pay 68 percent of taxes, and the lowest 50% pay little or no income tax at all, and yet all the welfare, it seems to me that most of the benefits go to the poor.
I believe everyone benefits equally from the Military protecting all our Security not the wealth.
But that is my opinion, but it is based on what I have been able to find out about who pays what % of Taxes.
LOL! Is that evidence in the "court" of Turtledude??? How about we break down each government service and determine who derives the most benefit. We can start with the military and wars. The military and wars are to protect the nations wealth. The Rich own 80% of the wealth in the country, so their share of costs for the military and wars is 80%
The top ten percent pay a lesser percentage of their income in taxes than their percentage of the nations wealth. Thanks to 3 decades of 30 years of trickle down economics, 1 in 7 Americans are poor, millions more on unemployment and seniors barely getting by, there's your 50 %. They are ones you want to pay for your wars to protect the rich's wealth. You got to be ****ing kidding me!
The GOP voted for the optional war in Iraq, let them eliminate their clients tax cuts to pay for it.
You need some perspective, look at what taxes used to be when they were progressive, back before 3 decades of failed trickle down economics.
The fact is catawba --you are constantly whining about the rich and demanding they pay more taxes. You constantly whine about the plight of the poor and who their lot is due to the predatory actions of the rich. You also want more government. The only logical conclusion of your position is that you see government as helping the poor and lower middle class and hurting the rich.
More lies, the top taxpayers pay a higher share of the federal income burden now than at any time in the last 70 years. True rates are lower but those in the bottom 90% are paying far less income tax as well and this has caused the burden borne by the rich to INCREASE
and since you constantly demand more government spending and more taxes on the rich you obviously believe more government will help everyone but the rich more.
You cannot have it both ways
Still have that reading comprehension problem 'eh "counselor." I just said I want to cut the size of government and reduce our deficit by almost a half trillion a year!!!! And without further suffering of the our seniors and the poor.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?