3 ms·

>Cool, now do socialism. I didn’t “do” libertarianism? I recommended a book that I found interesting that’s related to the topic of the article that this discu

>Cool, now do socialism. I didn’t “do” libertarianism? I recommended a book that I found interesting that’s related to the topic of the article that this discussion thread is in response to. Socialism has been brought up a couple times in response to my book recommendation and I’m a little confused by that. Is the assumption that the reporter that spent years meticulously researching, interviewing, and documenting the factual record of events is a socialist? Am I a socialist for having read it? Is this like an amish thing where everybody outside of the orthodox group is called “english”? Anyway, it’s a good book and I stand by my recommendation!

mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago
There is an increasing tendency to interpret these things in false dichotomies, I've found. If you criticise libertarians you must be a socialist and vice versa. I had a similarly frustrating encounter the other day, where my critique of the interaction between capitalism and democracy in the US was constantly construed as some sort of glorification of socialism, even when I never mentioned it. My patience for this type of thinking is worn pretty thin these days. My view is simply this: there are numerous different consensus methods in our society. Democracy, academia, courts, markets, bureaucracy, technocracy, and hierarchical command structures. They all have strengths and weaknesses for different problems on which a consensus must be reached. But democracy sits above all these and plays the important role of slowly figuring out where these should be applied and how they should be weighted. This is a very hard problem, no ideology has a self-contained solution. Democracy must be an evolutionary process. The ideas that work stick around after a change of power, and the ones that don't go away, ideally. Based on this it's crucial for democracy and therefore the government to have some measure of regulatory power over all of these. This is where libertarianism really breaks down. It's far too corrosive to the usefulness of democracy, which is the only thing keeping everything together in the end.
- dalmo3 4y ago
  > But democracy sits above all these Does it? Isn't Earth's political system libertarian? The emerging conflict/cooperation between nation states is a market phenomenon. The UN is akin to a chamber of commerce. Democracy has, at most, continental reach (EU).
  - mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago
    This is a far too reductive view of diplomatic relations to be taken seriously.
vxNsr 4y ago
I didn’t reply to you so I’m not sure why you’re victimizing yourself here. I will say every time I’ve engaged someone here who got defensive about not being a socialist, even when I never implied they were, usually turned out to have heavy sympathy for socialist and communist ideals. To the point where it would be inappropriate to call them anything but a socialist. Again, I never engaged with you at all in this conversation you inserted yourself into a conversation and got upset about something that had little to do with you.

mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago

There is an increasing tendency to interpret these things in false dichotomies, I've found. If you criticise libertarians you must be a socialist and vice versa. I had a similarly frustrating encounter the other day, where my critique of the interaction between capitalism and democracy in the US was constantly construed as some sort of glorification of socialism, even when I never mentioned it. My patience for this type of thinking is worn pretty thin these days. My view is simply this: there are numerous different consensus methods in our society. Democracy, academia, courts, markets, bureaucracy, technocracy, and hierarchical command structures. They all have strengths and weaknesses for different problems on which a consensus must be reached. But democracy sits above all these and plays the important role of slowly figuring out where these should be applied and how they should be weighted. This is a very hard problem, no ideology has a self-contained solution. Democracy must be an evolutionary process. The ideas that work stick around after a change of power, and the ones that don't go away, ideally. Based on this it's crucial for democracy and therefore the government to have some measure of regulatory power over all of these. This is where libertarianism really breaks down. It's far too corrosive to the usefulness of democracy, which is the only thing keeping everything together in the end.

dalmo3 4y ago
> But democracy sits above all these Does it? Isn't Earth's political system libertarian? The emerging conflict/cooperation between nation states is a market phenomenon. The UN is akin to a chamber of commerce. Democracy has, at most, continental reach (EU).
- mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago
  This is a far too reductive view of diplomatic relations to be taken seriously.

vxNsr 4y ago

I didn’t reply to you so I’m not sure why you’re victimizing yourself here. I will say every time I’ve engaged someone here who got defensive about not being a socialist, even when I never implied they were, usually turned out to have heavy sympathy for socialist and communist ideals. To the point where it would be inappropriate to call them anything but a socialist. Again, I never engaged with you at all in this conversation you inserted yourself into a conversation and got upset about something that had little to do with you.