A person that understands human nature understands it isn't fixed, and therefore any fixed system is doomed to failure.
National Guard called into Minneapolis
- Thread starter crimson5pheonix
- Start date
- Status
A more sensible position, but ideologies still evolve over time and must be taken into account in order to have a holistic, informed view in the current moment. Like it or not, the spectre of rightism has reared its head among anarchist thought and that must be taken into account -- particularly since the ideological forebear of right-libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism is not actually Rand or Nozick, but Spencer. One might go so far as to argue communism has its own right-wing analog in the form of communitarianism.
It's interesting you want to say this, but are ignoring the choice to abolish the government and dissolve its coercive and regulative powers to the body politic is in and by itself a political decision, and representative of a governmental system. And likewise, downplaying the diverse, contradictory, and contentious body of political thought that justifies liberal democratic governance -- the left-right divide itself speaks to that. You're attributing criticisms to anarchism as a spectrum, that not only apply to liberal democracy as a spectrum but in vastly greater degree and order.
You want to say I'm comparing "shapes" and "colors"? Well, what qualifies as a "shape" and a "color" to you? Is it the distinction between federal and unitary systems? Unicameralism versus multicameralism? Presidential versus parliamentary? Single-member districts versus multi-member districts or proportional representation? Planned, mixed, or market economy? Common law or civil law? It's telling you accept my mere utterance of the term "liberal democracy", but don't seem cognizant how problematic a term it actually is to political scientists considering it's employed so expansively it has practically zero meaning in and of itself.
The irony of both this and the above-quoted post, is they're telling of one distinctly 20th Century phenomenon: the overriding impact of the Cold War, Cold War propaganda, and the three-world model on not just political theory but political epistemology. "Liberal democracy" is simply shorthand for the political systems of the former "first world", or today the "economic north".
Here's a fun thought experiment, I'm going to describe a real government that actually exists right now, and without clicking the spoiler, think about whether I'm describing a liberal democracy or not. It has a federal system, it's multicameral and has a semi-presidential system with shared executive powers, its legislature is hybridized between proportional representation and single-member districts, it's a civil law country and it has a mixed economic model. Picture-perfect model of a liberal democracy, right?
I'm describing the Russian Federation.
If by "communist" you mean "the Framers of the Constitution" and more broadly, "founding fathers", then yes because that's exactly why the US government was nominally designed to have checks and balances and separation of powers in the first place. I'd point specifically to James Madison, the literal author of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, writing in Federalist no. 51.
Of course, this is the same man who, writing in Federalist no. 10, poo-pooed the idea of interest group liberalism being a harmful and destructive influence on American governance -- a position he could come to regret even before the end of Washington's first term of office.
You're again talking about qualities as though they are the nature of the thing. Liberal democracies can have infinite different methods of trying to achieve their goals, but the name tells you the goal is fundamentally the same. Two liberal democracies can disagree on every method, but still be fundamentally the same in their agreement on the purpose and nature of government. The opposite is also true: two entities can have seemingly identical methods but be fundamentally opposed. The US right-wing is a great example of this. In many instances, a conservative, a libertarian, and an evangelical theocrat can support the same policy, but disagree loudly as to why.
But we weren't comparing communism to liberalism now, were we? I by no means believe only a communist would try not to rely on human nature for the desired results... but the plan of anarchists is to abolish government and rely on human nature to achieve the desired result. Do you see the chasm between the two yet?
So let me get this straight.
For liberal democracies, the methods and underpinning theories are irrelevant because the goal -- a representative democracy adherent to rule of law -- is the same. Which is why understanding liberal democracy as a spectrum of belief is valid.
For anarchism, the methods and underpinning theories are all that matters, despite the goal -- abolition of the state -- being the same. Which is why understanding anarchism as a spectrum of belief is invalid.
Basically. Think Phoenix Jones, for an example that did it for a while years ago, went into retirement, and later became a drug dealer.
You're getting "4chan" and "literally any connection made by a liberal outlet" confused again. Media Matters "created" the idea that OK = white power based on a tweet showing the hand sign and including a frog emoji and #Pepe (they used an image of Pepe doing the OK sign as "proof" that the OK sign was associated with white supremacy), 4chan just put it on blast about two weeks later.
4chan's follow ups flopped by comparison, including "V sign = (Only) 2 Genders", dabbing as reverence for Hitler, and the entire ASL alphabet as hate symbols.
Things are about prime for a new one of those though. I'd say pick a number and make it a hate symbol, but a long list of numbers are already classed as hate symbols by the ADL. You can't even count to 20 without repeatedly announcing your white supremacist views.
EDIT: Weirdly, when I included a list of such numbers, the post wouldn't go through.
Do you think anarcho-capitalists and anarcho-communists have a shared goal or shared means?
It's obviously not Nozick or Rand, because they were clearly libertarians.
Anarcho-capitalism is, I believe, from Murray Rothbard - although there are "proto-anarcho-capitalist" antecedents, much as there are antecedents for pretty much any ideology.
Operation O-KKK started first. The Clinton campaign started referring to Pepe as a white supremacist symbol in September 2016, that was eagerly picked up by Media Matters and ADL, and /pol/ realized "if it bleeds it leads" was in as full effect as ever. Ergo, they started the hoax, believing (correctly) media would double down and latch onto any minor or completely fabricated controversy to drive ratings, but also believing (incorrectly) people wouldn't take it seriously and start cluing into how much of a three-ring circus American media really is.
The hoax turned into a self-fulfilling prophecy, when reverse psychology kicked in and white supremacists not in on the joke started using it unironically, having taken their cues from outlets like Media Matters and ADL as to what was and what was not a white power symbol.
Does helping win World War II and actually standing up to the actual Nazi and being one of the countrys leading the fight for many years count for anything?
yeh but it suggests trouble in paradise already lol
To what you're pointing is the incapacity of anarcho-capitalists to reconcile advocacy for statelessness, with the need of a body vested with the power to protect property and commerce. If that's the wagon you're hitching your horse to, to sell the notion there is no such thing as right-wing anarchism, I have some real bad news to tell you about the incapacity of anarcho-syndicalists and anarcho-communists to reconcile advocacy for statelessness with the need of a body vested with the power to protect socioeconomic equity and access to resources.
Which is why Rand would lose her shit in interviews in which she was asked about libertarianism, and dodge the question in a torrent of blame diversion for her own philosophical shortcomings. Nozick at least was capable of providing a half-answer, by admitting with reservation true statelessness was neither possible nor preferable, at least before making a half-hearted case minarchy isn't true statehood because it only enjoys a de facto monopoly on violence by consensus.
Rothbard came later, and his body of work was largely a response to Rand and Nozick.
Had you even heard of Edward Colston before his statue was thrown in a river? Being in a public space does not equate to being accessible
Then the statues most likely will be as well, being much harder to copy and replace
And a statue helps with that...how, exactly?
Edward Colston's statue presents him as a benefactor to people...conveniently he sold or died as a result of him trying to sell them. How is that not fully transforming him?
From simply your vague description I'd assume no trace of that ancestry is visible, so you don't get constantly treated as inferior due to your appearance. Some people do. The statue is a reminder of that. Hence removing it
Except the statue itself is pretending all that never happened so thats an argument that hold less water than a sieve
Rand was a narcissistic egomaniac with delusions about the perfection of her pseudophilosophy. She lost her shit with libertarians because they wouldn't sign up to her personality cult, and like any religious zealot, of course she ended up more upset with the heretics than the heathens. (It's a bit like Emo Philips's Golden Gate joke - truly a brilliant joke, but the loopy characteristation he'd adopted at the time to deliver his material I find unbearable to this day.)
Nozick is mostly only interesting for trying to advance a philosophical case for libertarianism different from an extension of classical liberalism.
The person who makes the leap gets the prize (albeit a wooden spoon, in this case). Formative influences are just formative influences.
Your timeline is totally off.
Operation O-KKK thread started with a post on 2/27/17. The tweet in question was 2/13/17, and the Media Matters article regarding it was published later the same day.
If you can find proof of O-KKK activity (as in specifically activity towards making the OK symbol be seen as a hate symbol, not merely Clinton liking Pepe to hate) before 2/27/17 or something prior to that Media Matters article dated 2/13/17 that makes the claim that the OK hand sign is a white supremacist symbol, I'd love to see it. But as far as I can tell the order of events regarding the OK sign was tweet->article asserting it is a white supremacist symbols solely because there's a Pepe doing it->Operation O-KKK.
I actually agree with you on this part. OKKK was a reaction to the stupidity in that article intended to do exactly what you said with exactly the results you describe. It only worked because there was a "legitimate" article suggesting it though, which is why the similar attempts with dabbing, the V sign, etc failed.
Some crazies shouting into the void isn't nearly as effective as some crazies putting on blast that thing backed by a "legitimate" source, even if that source largely fabricates the claim, even if that source is an opinion article. So long as it backs the outrage the target audience wants to feel.
I thought the whole point was that they didn't want police involved with them? Shouldn't their autonomous collective be able to deal with the violent crime that is certainly in no way connected to the explicit lack of law enforcement in a suitably just and non-violent manner?
Of course it does. But that's not his "full actual history", either. Why is it more appropriate to do that when it's positive?
Care to tell that to the Haynesville Police Department?
50 years later and they don't seem to have received the memo yet...
- Status