Board 8 > Freedom, Liberty, Ron Paul - Iranian War 4.0 Edition [dwmf]

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1021234525626609666

Hopefully he'll reinstate the draft when this (and NK inevitably) blows up. That will teach Americans to appreciate their country again.

Also looks like he read 1984:
https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/1021832796342562817
---

eh, not quite as good as Hillary's "1984 taught us that we need to trust the government" comment
---

That's just Hillary thinking the story is democrats vs repuglicans, while Trump legitimately thinks the government are the good guys
---

If you liked "Venezuela isn't really socialist", you'll love "Stalin wasn't really communist."

Brought to you by fucking reason, because of course it is...

http://libertyhangout.org/2018/07/reason-magazine-editor-claims-joseph-stalin-not-a-communist-leader/
---

A semantics argument that only matters to people who desperately need to justify their support for 8 million murders
---

well, stalin wasn't a communist in the classical marxist sense.

i was talking about this in another topic several days ago but this is why people really shouldn't use the term "communism" - it's vague as fuck and it can mean a million different things. unless someone is literally going "communism is so cool i love how stalin murdered all those people," saying "YOU'RE A COMMUNIST" doesn't actually mean anything. you're only saying it to make yourself feel better. it's like how vlado calls everyone he disagrees with "globalists."
---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17DkMDvKqw0" data-time="

A great talk by Tom Woods about how the nazis were, in fact, socialists. They hated free markets and private industry. Greatly admired Stalin's planned economy.
---

Today I learned that the National Socialist German Workers' Party had some socialist policies.
---

spoilers: socialists don't hate the free market.

i've used this example a million times before but find me one socialist who goes "THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD OWN ALL THE BAKERIES!"

as usual, this is a disgusting demonization of socialists by woods.
---

i've used this example a million times before but find me one socialist who goes "THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD OWN ALL THE BAKERIES!"

marx, stalin, lenin, castro, etc.

as usual, this is a disgusting demonization of socialists by woods.

This post hasn't been up long enough for you to watch the video, but it's also obvious you didn't because he doesn't really talk about socialists in it much at all. He talks about the nazis and how much they hated capitalism and free markets and admired soviet socialism.
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

i've used this example a million times before but find me one socialist who goes "THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD OWN ALL THE BAKERIES!"

What? This is probably the most common example of socialism in history, state-owned production of bread. What do you think the lines were for in soviet russia?

Mr Lasastryke posted...

unless someone is literally going "communism is so cool i love how stalin murdered all those people,"

The problem with this though is that it's implied.

Someone says "oh I don't like mass murder and starvation, I just like all the good stuff that comes from communism". But how do you get there without mass murder and starvation? You don't. So you are implicitly advocating going that route. You think the costs are worth it.

It's like when nationalists want white superiority in the US, they are implicitly advocating for a totalitarian police state that has the authority to kill or imprison anyone. There's no other way to get to the goal.
---

SmartMuffin posted...

marx, stalin, lenin, castro, etc.

nope. all of them are communists. after all these years you're literally still acting like there's no difference between communists and socialists. fucking unbelievable.

(yes, i realize that it's hypocritical of me to use the word "communist" when i just said people shouldn't be using that word, but it's honestly not important. the main point i'm making is that these people are NOT socialists.)

This post hasn't been up long enough for you to watch the video, but it's also obvious you didn't because he doesn't really talk about socialists in it much at all.

no because lol tom woods

i'll watch it later maybe

He talks about the nazis and how much they hated capitalism and free markets and admired soviet socialism.

he may not directly be saying "socialists are nazis," but by talking about nazis being socialists he's clearly trying to get his audience to associate socialists with nazis.
---

he may not directly be saying "socialists are nazis," but by talking about nazis being socialists he's clearly trying to get his audience to associate socialists with nazis.

So what, you're not allowed to explain the policies the nazis actually held because that might be considered to be insulting to socialists?

What do you want from him? He spends most of the video literally quoting Hitler and other top nazi officials. You can draw your own conclusions from that.
---

foolm0r0n posted...

What? This is probably the most common example of socialism in history, state-owned production of bread. What do you think the lines were for in soviet russia?

et tu, foolmo? i expect the "there's no difference between communism and socialism" bullshit from muffin (and tom woods) but you're usually more reasonable...
---

SmartMuffin posted...

So what, you're not allowed to explain the policies the nazis actually held because that might be considered to be insulting to socialists?

not when you're incorrectly calling the policies the nazis actually held "socialism," no. again, "the free market is terrible" is not a socialist belief.
---

"the free market is terrible" is not a socialist belief.

the free market is the only alternative to socialism
---

SmartMuffin posted...

the free market is the only alternative to socialism

when you see everything in terms of black and white (like you do), sure.

let me blow your mind: i, as a socialist, am in favor of capitalism.
---

that is logically impossible

socialism and free markets are completely and wholly incompatible
---

it sounds like y'all are talking about different kinds of socialism tbh
---

SmartMuffin posted...

that is logically impossible

socialism and free markets are completely and wholly incompatible

no, they're not.

let me ask you a question since this is obviously going nowhere: you'll agree with me that alexandria ocasio-cortez is a socialist, right? do you earnestly believe she wants the government to own all of the bakeries?
---

Kenri posted...

it sounds like y'all are talking about different kinds of socialism tbh

nah, muffin is just talking about communism when he claims he's talking about socialism.

he doesn't want to admit that the "communism = socialism" thing he's been spouting for the past 18 years is bullshit, so to try and save his ass he's going "HOW CAN THIS BE THIS IS LOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE"
---

Socialism referring to a system where the government basically controls everything is not exactly some weird fringe idea, it was pretty mainstream until relatively recently when for whatever reason people started using socialism to just refer to anything left wing. Originally, the Soviet Union as it ended up would be the definitive example of socialism, and communism was the idea that such a system would be best off by eventually transitioning to some sort of weird anarchic system that no one can really define or explain. Foolmo and Muffin aren't doing any sort of trolling by talking about socialism as a system that oppose private industry and favours government oversight of basically everything, that's pretty much what socialism has always meant, especially in North America where it seems like the whole "like capitalism but I guess with higher taxes" thing took longer to start being called "democratic socialism" than it did in Europe
---

you'll agree with me that alexandria ocasio-cortez is a socialist, right? do you earnestly believe she wants the government to own all of the bakeries?

as a long term end, yes, absolutely she does
---

SmartMuffin posted...

as a long term end, yes, absolutely she does

...

i think we're done here.

this explains so much about why you're so vitriolic and unreasonable about the left, though. you literally think every socialist who goes "gee, maybe the government should take care of the poor a little" is a communist flag-waving revolutionary who dreams of long lines of people waiting for bread the government hands out. i guess that did make this debate valuable.
---

this explains so much about why you're so vitriolic and unreasonable about the left, though. you literally think every socialist who goes "gee, maybe the government should take care of the poor a little"

Except every time they get "a little" they never stop. They always demand more. Always. The US government spends trillions of dollars "taking care of the poor" right now. Modern socialists aren't asking for "a little help." They're asking for more help beyond what already exists - which is a hell of a lot.

And I don't recall a single one of them, even the moderate ones, declaring, upon the institution of a new government program, "Great, now we have what we want." Is there ANYONE on the left who thinks Obamacare sufficiently solved the problem of poor people getting health care? Anyone at all not calling for more intervention? Nope. It was just the next step on the path to what they really want - a completely and entirely centrally planned economy.
---

SmartMuffin posted...

this explains so much about why you're so vitriolic and unreasonable about the left, though. you literally think every socialist who goes "gee, maybe the government should take care of the poor a little"

Except every time they get "a little" they never stop. They always demand more. Always. The US government spends trillions of dollars "taking care of the poor" right now. Modern socialists aren't asking for "a little help." They're asking for more help beyond what already exists - which is a hell of a lot.

And I don't recall a single one of them, even the moderate ones, declaring, upon the institution of a new government program, "Great, now we have what we want." Is there ANYONE on the left who thinks Obamacare sufficiently solved the problem of poor people getting health care? Anyone at all not calling for more intervention? Nope. It was just the next step on the path to what they really want - a completely and entirely centrally planned economy.

Weird that people ask for more when you only give them a little of what they want in a way that doesn't actually solve the root problem they were trying to address.
---

Weird that people ask for more when you only give them a little of what they want in a way that doesn't actually solve the root problem they were trying to address.

Uh, yeah, exactly.

My point is these people believe "the root of the problem they were trying to address" is capitalism itself. So obviously they aren't satisfied with anything less than the complete destruction of free markets and private property.

Lasa's insistence that all the American left wants is "just one more tiny program to help the poor" is ridiculous. That's not at all what they want - and this has been proven time and time and time again.
---

https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1022007724903739392

The Occupy ICE encampment in Portland, under threat from outsiders who disagree with their value system, erected a giant wall and assigned people to patrol it, prohibiting entry from unauthorized outsiders
---

SmartMuffin posted...

My point is these people believe "the root of the problem they were trying to address" is capitalism itself. So obviously they aren't satisfied with anything less than the complete destruction of free markets and private property.

I guess? Like if the free market and private property really can't coexist with a healthy, financially secure society then we probably should destroy them. But no one's actually *calling for that*, so until you grant them the demands they *actually have* you won't know whether they want more.
---

I guess? Like if the free market and private property really can't coexist with a healthy, financially secure society then we probably should destroy them. But no one's actually *calling for that*, so until you grant them the demands they *actually have* you won't know whether they want more.

It's a pretty easily implied demand when you consider that the past 10,000 times they asked for just one more thing, they kept asking for more.

I've said before - if anyone on the left said "I want exactly this much new regulation AND THEN I PROMISE TO NOT ASK FOR ANY MORE" I'd take seriously their claim to not be a socialist. But precisely 0% of the left does this.
---

muffin is going berserk on my usage of the words "the little." to make the leap from "socialists aren't satisfied now" to "socialists want food rationing by the government" is fucking ridiculous.

regarding the obamacare thing, the thing with that is that most socialists think it fucking sucks. they never said "give us any form of healthcare by the government and you'll never hear us again," they said "we want GOOD healthcare provided by the government." no shit they're not satisfied when you give them a thing that sucks. and they point to other forms of governmental healthcare in european countries they DO like. this is like if a guy asks for a house to live in, gets a cardboard box, complains, and then muffin goes "SEE, HE GOT WHAT HE WANTS AND HE'S STILL COMPLAINING! HE'LL NEVER BE SATISFIED!"
---

SmartMuffin posted...

It's a pretty easily implied demand when you consider that the past 10,000 times they asked for just one more thing, they kept asking for more.

how often do they get all of their demands exactly met with no compromise or undermining later

like you brought up the ACA but that was not what socialists wanted at all so it hardly seems relevant

edit: should have read Lasa's post first lol WHOOPS
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

et tu, foolmo? i expect the "there's no difference between communism and socialism" bullshit from muffin (and tom woods) but you're usually more reasonable...

There's a difference but communism is socialism. Anything that values collective society over the individual is socialism. It's not that complicated.
---

foolm0r0n posted...

communism is socialism.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3y3QoFnqZc" data-time="
---

SmartMuffin posted...

socialism and free markets are completely and wholly incompatible

This makes no sense. All we know of in history is socialism mixed with free markets in various degrees. Free markets are naturally pervasive, and all governments in history have some degree of socialism at their core. That's why these 2 concepts are still alive and strong today, they are flexible and exist on a spectrum, unlike absolutist ideas like communism or ancap.
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

foolm0r0n posted...

communism is socialism.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3y3QoFnqZc" data-time="

---

This makes no sense. All we know of in history is socialism mixed with free markets in various degrees.

Nope. Government force distorts the free market in all kinds of ways, such that it can no longer properly be called free.

And sure enough, the socialists have always made the same claim - that the existence of free markets anywhere threatens the socialist project everywhere. That's why they always insisted on global domination.
---

SmartMuffin posted...

Government force distorts the free market in all kinds of ways, such that it can no longer properly be called free.

this is actually a sensible thing to say but it still doesn't mean socialists want the government to 100% control everything (including bakeries). i'd say what you just described is what socialists actually want - a form of free market distorted by the government (sure you can say "but then it's not free market!" but that's just a semantic thing). again, communists are the ones who want the government to 100% control everything.

That's why they always insisted on global domination.

ok vlado
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

again, communists are the ones who want the government to 100% control everything.

the communist manifesto literally calls for abolishing all government?
---

Kenri posted...

the communist manifesto literally calls for abolishing all government?

>_>

see, this is why i'm saying that "people shouldn't use the word communist" thing and now i fell into the trap myself. dammit. it's too confusing.

i meant "communism" in the "more extreme version of socialism" way, not the original marxist way.
---

SmartMuffin posted...

Nope. Government force distorts the free market in all kinds of ways, such that it can no longer properly be called free.

It can be called free to the extent that it exhibits free trade dynamics, even when very deeply distorted. There has not and will never be a market that is completely undistorted. That absolutist rhetoric exists only to give "conservatives" an excuse to embrace totalitarianism/socialism (which they not so secretly love), by ignoring the difference between 80% free and 10% free.
---

Yeah we know you're using words in completely wrong ways Lasa
---

It can be called free to the extent that it exhibits free trade dynamics, even when very deeply distorted. There has not and will never be a market that is completely undistorted. That absolutist rhetoric exists only to give "conservatives" an excuse to embrace totalitarianism/socialism (which they not so secretly love), by ignoring the difference between 80% free and 10% free.

Someone who wants an "80% free market" does not want a free market.

In any case, we don't have anywhere close to 80% free as it stands today. Government taxes and regulates literally all forms of labor, and literally all forms of capital accumulation. There is no single part of the economy that is free in any meaningful sense.
---

foolm0r0n posted...

Yeah we know you're using words in completely wrong ways Lasa

yeah using a word in a way tons of people use it is wrong. because it's not like language has evolved since 1848.

am i also allowed to use kenri's "communists don't want government" point when you guys bring up the "communism killed 10000000 million people" argument again?
---

SmartMuffin posted...

Someone who wants an "80% free market" does not want a free market.

if i want a glass of water that's 80% full, i don't want a glass of water?
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

am i also allowed to use kenri's "communists don't want government" point when you guys bring up the "communism killed 10000000 million people" argument again?

to be fair, before the "abolish all government" thing was the "bloody revolution where lots of capitalists die" thing

but from marx's point of view they had it coming
---

Kenri posted...

to be fair, before the "abolish all government" thing was the "bloody revolution where lots of capitalists die" thing

but from marx's point of view they had it coming

well yeah but marx was like "the workers need to kill the capitalists." he didn't say "there should be a ruthless dictator who kills millions of people."
---

if i want a glass of water that's 80% full, i don't want a glass of water?

It's more like wanting a glass of water that's 80% water and 20% cyanide.

In which case no, you do not want water. If you asked for water and I gave you that, you'd be pretty damn angry, and rightfully so.
---

SmartMuffin posted...

There is no single part of the economy that is free in any meaningful sense.

Which is why you have no problem supporting an ethnocentric totalitarian police state. It's equally free, and hey you get some bonus racial supremacy, so might as well!

There's no doubt that you will ever have anything useful to think or say about freedom with this mindset, when you reject the simple notion that more freedom = good. You're just part of the problem, which I guess isn't surprising since the vast majority of people also are.
---

#FullCyanideNow
---