Check out all of the details of this month's Patch Notes, featuring the RE:Life Update! https://mabinogi.nexon.net/news/74016/re-life-patch-notes-april-28th-2022
[NEW MILLETIANS] Please note that all new forum users have to be approved before posting. This process can take up to 24 hours, and we appreciate your patience.
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the Nexon Forums Code of Conduct. You have to register before you can post, so you can log in or create a forum name above to proceed. Thank you for your visit!

PSA: Please summon candy sprites near candy npc's

Comments

  • stormhammerstormhammer
    Mabinogi Rep: 1,265
    Posts: 47
    Member
    Helsa wrote: »
    Of course we can include Libertarianism. It's about reducing the size of government to a minimum in order to reduce taxation to a minimum. If the government only offers basic services say, guarding the borders then of necessity the rest must be handled by the private sector. Authoritarianism is about maintaining the decision making apparatus regardless of the will of the people. Libertarians can be Authoritarian. You can find examples among third world dictatorships. They have armies and police forces and not much else, yet they also have strong men running the place and staying in power, either by direct threat, electoral tampering, and/or media manipulation.

    A libertarian authoritarian is an oxymoron.
    From wikipedia:
    Libertarianism is a political philosophy and movement that upholds liberty as a core principle. Libertarians seek to maximize autonomy and political freedom

    Definition of Authoritarianism:
    the enforcement or advocacy of strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom.

    These things are fundamentally opposite. You cant be an advocate for personal freedom that wants an all powerful government.

    Like you can be a libertarian that supports some tiny amount of government, but that just means you are a moderate libertarian, while a radical wants no government whatsoever. Just like you can be a little bit socialist, or a little bit capitalist, you can be a little bit libertarian, or a little bit authoritarian.

    And your example is not libertarian. Thats purely authoritarian. Just because a third world dictatorship has no support of basic needs beyond an army and a police force, does not mean it is libertarian, because it still demands obedience from its population. You dont have personal freedom if you cant make a news agency that exposes facts about the dictatorship. Thats authoritarian.

    441px-Political_Compass_standard_model.svg.png

    this is like, the standard political compass. some people call it inaccurate, but its a general rule of thumb.
  • HelsaHelsa
    Mabinogi Rep: 21,550
    Posts: 4,935
    Member
    Crimsọn wrote: »
    aeternitis wrote: »
    Oh man, I'm sorry my reply caused this. I was just trying to stand up for those who work for their tickets.

    And regarding the shopping cart analogy. Posting a thread asking to spawn near Clodagh is more like asking me to take YOUR shopping cart back to where it belongs since I'm taking mine anyway. Now I may see your shopping cart sitting out in the lot long after you are home enjoying your Rice Krispies and at that point I may or may not take your cart back simply to make the supermarket parking lot a better place, but no one has asked me to do so and therefore I do it out of the kindness of my heart or perhaps just because it bothers me. The whole point is that when someone "requests" it of you, it changes into me doing their job. That was my only point.

    I did say please. :D

    I doubt you're worrying about it and you shouldn't. What they said notwithstanding, there's no harming in asking. Folks do have the option to just say no or ignore the request entirely.
  • HelsaHelsa
    Mabinogi Rep: 21,550
    Posts: 4,935
    Member
    Helsa wrote: »
    Of course we can include Libertarianism. It's about reducing the size of government to a minimum in order to reduce taxation to a minimum. If the government only offers basic services say, guarding the borders then of necessity the rest must be handled by the private sector. Authoritarianism is about maintaining the decision making apparatus regardless of the will of the people. Libertarians can be Authoritarian. You can find examples among third world dictatorships. They have armies and police forces and not much else, yet they also have strong men running the place and staying in power, either by direct threat, electoral tampering, and/or media manipulation.

    A libertarian authoritarian is an oxymoron.
    From wikipedia:
    Libertarianism is a political philosophy and movement that upholds liberty as a core principle. Libertarians seek to maximize autonomy and political freedom

    Definition of Authoritarianism:
    the enforcement or advocacy of strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom.

    These things are fundamentally opposite. You cant be an advocate for personal freedom that wants an all powerful government.

    Like you can be a libertarian that supports some tiny amount of government, but that just means you are a moderate libertarian, while a radical wants no government whatsoever. Just like you can be a little bit socialist, or a little bit capitalist, you can be a little bit libertarian, or a little bit authoritarian.

    And your example is not libertarian. Thats purely authoritarian. Just because a third world dictatorship has no support of basic needs beyond an army and a police force, does not mean it is libertarian, because it still demands obedience from its population. You dont have personal freedom if you cant make a news agency that exposes facts about the dictatorship. Thats authoritarian.

    441px-Political_Compass_standard_model.svg.png

    this is like, the standard political compass. some people call it inaccurate, but its a general rule of thumb.

    Okay so we can agree then that Authoritarianism is strictly about power and not whether societal requirements are provided by the public sector or the private sector. Since Socialism is about providing societal requirements by the public sector and is not about how decision makers gain office or how those decision makers are succeeded then saying Socialism is inherently Authoritarian is incorrect. Furthermore, since Libertarianism is about reducing the size of the government to the minimum required level AND PERSONAL FREEDOMS, and since Liberatarianism is not Anarchy, since it does not call for the full dismantlement of the government, we then can say then that, economically speaking, Liberatarianism is Socialist even if the bare minimum to meet the definition.

    Folks may call themselves Libertarians for many reasons. Perhaps the personal freedom folks do so because, say, they want to keep their guns, but most do so because they like the bare minimum taxation part. So regarding the economic philosophy of reducing the government to the bare minimum, in order to reduce government spending and so taxes and have the private sector involved in providing societal requirements to a fuller extent, being called Libertarianism is not unreasonable, them being mindful of personal freedoms notwithstanding. But for those who are strict about labels, when I've been saying Libertarianism, I'm talking about it's economic side not it's personal freedoms side.
  • stormhammerstormhammer
    Mabinogi Rep: 1,265
    Posts: 47
    Member
    Helsa wrote: »
    Okay so we can agree then that Authoritarianism is strictly about power and not whether societal requirements are provided by the public sector or the private sector. Since Socialism is about providing societal requirements by the public sector and is not about how decision makers gain office or how those decision makers are succeeded then saying Socialism is inherently Authoritarian is incorrect. Furthermore, since Libertarianism is about reducing the size of the government to the minimum required level AND PERSONAL FREEDOMS, and since Liberatarianism is not Anarchy, since it does not call for the full dismantlement of the government, we then can say then that, economically speaking, Liberatarianism is Socialist even if the bare minimum to meet the definition.

    Folks may call themselves Libertarians for many reasons. Perhaps the personal freedom folks do so because, say, they want to keep their guns, but most do so because they like the bare minimum taxation part. So regarding the economic philosophy of reducing the government to the bare minimum, in order to reduce government spending and so taxes and have the private sector involved in providing societal requirements to a fuller extent, being called Libertarianism is not unreasonable, them being mindful of personal freedoms notwithstanding. But for those who are strict about labels, when I've been saying Libertarianism, I'm talking about it's economic side not it's personal freedoms side.

    1- yes, i 100% agree that socialism is not inherently authoritarian. It oftentimes screws authoritarian because you generally need a powerful government to enforce certain specific socialist policies, such as capital redistribution, but you can have socialists that lean either authoritarian or libertarian. The difference is the ideal end goal of communism, which is libertarian, and the intermediary state that is necessary to instill that form of communism, which is authoritarian.

    2- i disagree. Libertarian is a scale, going from 0 (Anarchist libertarian) to 100 (Dictatorial authoritarian). A radical libertarian does want anarchy and dismantlement of government. There is no inherent socialist or capitalist leaning.
    If you want examples of libertarian thinkers

    Socialist Libertarian - Pyotr Kropotkin, Karl Marx, Noam Chomsky,
    Centrist Libertarian - Lysander Spooner (more socialist than capitalist), Max Stirner, The Unibomber
    Capitalist Libertarian - Murray Rothbard, Milton Friedman, Ayn Rand

    Note, these are not recommendations or "heros", Max Stirner and the Unibomber are certifiably insane, and Ayn Rand is just one of the worst types of people.

    None of the capitalist libertarians want socialist policies. The centrist libertarians are indifferent. the Socialist libertarians, obviously are socialists.
    There is no inherent tie between socialism and libertarianism.

    3- Libertarianism has several important characteristics.
    Personal freedom - will the power structures in place stop me from doing the things that i want to do?
    Political freedom - will the power structures maintain order, and stop me from gaining political power? If i try to make a change to these structures, will they stop me?
    Financial freedom - will the power structures tax me/ inhibit the market?

    If we only pay attention to taxation, then it still doesn't make libertarians socialist or capitalist.
    Milton Friedman would be libertarian because he was against taxation and government influence on the free market, which is what you are saying is inherently socialistic. But Milton Friedman is one of THE textbook capitalists.
  • HelsaHelsa
    Mabinogi Rep: 21,550
    Posts: 4,935
    Member
    Helsa wrote: »
    Okay so we can agree then that Authoritarianism is strictly about power and not whether societal requirements are provided by the public sector or the private sector. Since Socialism is about providing societal requirements by the public sector and is not about how decision makers gain office or how those decision makers are succeeded then saying Socialism is inherently Authoritarian is incorrect. Furthermore, since Libertarianism is about reducing the size of the government to the minimum required level AND PERSONAL FREEDOMS, and since Liberatarianism is not Anarchy, since it does not call for the full dismantlement of the government, we then can say then that, economically speaking, Liberatarianism is Socialist even if the bare minimum to meet the definition.

    Folks may call themselves Libertarians for many reasons. Perhaps the personal freedom folks do so because, say, they want to keep their guns, but most do so because they like the bare minimum taxation part. So regarding the economic philosophy of reducing the government to the bare minimum, in order to reduce government spending and so taxes and have the private sector involved in providing societal requirements to a fuller extent, being called Libertarianism is not unreasonable, them being mindful of personal freedoms notwithstanding. But for those who are strict about labels, when I've been saying Libertarianism, I'm talking about it's economic side not it's personal freedoms side.

    1- yes, i 100% agree that socialism is not inherently authoritarian. It oftentimes screws authoritarian because you generally need a powerful government to enforce certain specific socialist policies, such as capital redistribution, but you can have socialists that lean either authoritarian or libertarian. The difference is the ideal end goal of communism, which is libertarian, and the intermediary state that is necessary to instill that form of communism, which is authoritarian.

    2- i disagree. Libertarian is a scale, going from 0 (Anarchist libertarian) to 100 (Dictatorial authoritarian). A radical libertarian does want anarchy and dismantlement of government. There is no inherent socialist or capitalist leaning.
    If you want examples of libertarian thinkers

    Socialist Libertarian - Pyotr Kropotkin, Karl Marx, Noam Chomsky,
    Centrist Libertarian - Lysander Spooner (more socialist than capitalist), Max Stirner, The Unibomber
    Capitalist Libertarian - Murray Rothbard, Milton Friedman, Ayn Rand

    Note, these are not recommendations or "heros", Max Stirner and the Unibomber are certifiably insane, and Ayn Rand is just one of the worst types of people.

    None of the capitalist libertarians want socialist policies. The centrist libertarians are indifferent. the Socialist libertarians, obviously are socialists.
    There is no inherent tie between socialism and libertarianism.

    3- Libertarianism has several important characteristics.
    Personal freedom - will the power structures in place stop me from doing the things that i want to do?
    Political freedom - will the power structures maintain order, and stop me from gaining political power? If i try to make a change to these structures, will they stop me?
    Financial freedom - will the power structures tax me/ inhibit the market?

    If we only pay attention to taxation, then it still doesn't make libertarians socialist or capitalist.
    Milton Friedman would be libertarian because he was against taxation and government influence on the free market, which is what you are saying is inherently socialistic. But Milton Friedman is one of THE textbook capitalists.

    I think we have a situation here of differing understanding of terms. When I say Libertarian, I'm referring to the economic platform of the Libertarian Party of the United States and it's policy of Limited Government. Limited Government does not call for it's dismantlement therefore the Libertarian Party of the United States is not Anarchistic. If one is not Anarchistic then they are Socialist in the same way that if one is not Communist then they are Capitalist.

    If Libertarianism is defined simply as not Authoritarian, of course, then economics would not really enter into it. As originally conceived perhaps Libertarianism was anarchistic and that since then the Libertarian Party has been co-opted into a Limited Government policy that may be at odds with Libertarianism's original principles. Nonetheless, Limited Government is the case now and this is what I'm referring to when I use the terms Libertarian and Libertarianism.


  • stormhammerstormhammer
    Mabinogi Rep: 1,265
    Posts: 47
    Member
    Helsa wrote: »
    I think we have a situation here of differing understanding of terms. When I say Libertarian, I'm referring to the economic platform of the Libertarian Party of the United States and it's policy of Limited Government. Limited Government does not call for it's dismantlement therefore the Libertarian Party of the United States is not Anarchistic. If one is not Anarchistic then they are Socialist in the same way that if one is not Communist then they are Capitalist.

    If Libertarianism is defined simply as not Authoritarian, of course, then economics would not really enter into it. As originally conceived perhaps Libertarianism was anarchistic and that since then the Libertarian Party has been co-opted into a Limited Government policy that may be at odds with Libertarianism's original principles. Nonetheless, Limited Government is the case now and this is what I'm referring to when I use the terms Libertarian and Libertarianism.

    The American Libertarian party is really just a moderate libertarian party. They understand that full on anarchy is an insane policy, so they just want some libertarian policies to improve the current state of the country. Smaller government, not no government. Its like calling yourself a socialist, because you like the general state of America, and you want to add some socialist policies like universal healthcare, but you dont want a full on socialist commune without money.

    Mostly agree with your second paragraph, except American Libertarianism is not incompatible with the original idea of libertarianism, its just an application of some of its ideas, but not all of them.

    What i dont agree with, is that if you are not anarchist, then you are socialist.
    The first socialists were anarchists, before lenin, trotsky and stalin.
    And anarchism is a subset of libertarianism. Its just the most extreme kind of libertarianism.
  • HelsaHelsa
    Mabinogi Rep: 21,550
    Posts: 4,935
    Member
    Helsa wrote: »
    I think we have a situation here of differing understanding of terms. When I say Libertarian, I'm referring to the economic platform of the Libertarian Party of the United States and it's policy of Limited Government. Limited Government does not call for it's dismantlement therefore the Libertarian Party of the United States is not Anarchistic. If one is not Anarchistic then they are Socialist in the same way that if one is not Communist then they are Capitalist.

    If Libertarianism is defined simply as not Authoritarian, of course, then economics would not really enter into it. As originally conceived perhaps Libertarianism was anarchistic and that since then the Libertarian Party has been co-opted into a Limited Government policy that may be at odds with Libertarianism's original principles. Nonetheless, Limited Government is the case now and this is what I'm referring to when I use the terms Libertarian and Libertarianism.

    The American Libertarian party is really just a moderate libertarian party. They understand that full on anarchy is an insane policy, so they just want some libertarian policies to improve the current state of the country. Smaller government, not no government. Its like calling yourself a socialist, because you like the general state of America, and you want to add some socialist policies like universal healthcare, but you dont want a full on socialist commune without money.

    Mostly agree with your second paragraph, except American Libertarianism is not incompatible with the original idea of libertarianism, its just an application of some of its ideas, but not all of them.

    What i dont agree with, is that if you are not anarchist, then you are socialist.
    The first socialists were anarchists, before lenin, trotsky and stalin.
    And anarchism is a subset of libertarianism. Its just the most extreme kind of libertarianism.

    Socialism is about Public Sector involvement in society, hence Socialism cannot exist without government. Socialism is a continuum regarding the degree of government involvement in society. The extreme form is called Communism the least is what I have been calling Libertarianism. What they share then is the desire to actually have a government. Anarchy is about having no government, with the private sector picking up the slack. Therefore, whether by design or happenstance, Anarchy is the absence of Socialism and so its' opposite. It's the same argument structure regarding Communism and Capitalism. Communism is the absence of free enterprise and so is the opposite of Capitalism.
  • CrimsọnCrimsọn
    Mabinogi Rep: 64,165
    Posts: 8,862
    Member
    GUYS, stap. Jesus christ. :D
  • stormhammerstormhammer
    Mabinogi Rep: 1,265
    Posts: 47
    Member
    Helsa wrote: »
    Socialism is about Public Sector involvement in society, hence Socialism cannot exist without government. Socialism is a continuum regarding the degree of government involvement in society. The extreme form is called Communism the least is what I have been calling Libertarianism. What they share then is the desire to actually have a government. Anarchy is about having no government, with the private sector picking up the slack. Therefore, whether by design or happenstance, Anarchy is the absence of Socialism and so its' opposite. It's the same argument structure regarding Communism and Capitalism. Communism is the absence of free enterprise and so is the opposite of Capitalism.

    I think the reason we have a disagreement, is because you are looking at this as a single continuum.
    On one side you have communism, on the other you have capitalism.

    The way I'm looking at it, is like the graph before. An X and Y axis. Authoritarian is up, libertarian is down. Socialist is left, Capitalist is right.

    So when you say the extreme of socialism is communism, i disagree with you. There are multiple extremes for socialism, and one of them is Communism. Communism is at the extreme of authoritarian, and the extreme of socialism, so the upper left of the graph.
    Marx's ideal for communism, a society without government, class, money, or private property, is at the extreme for libertarian (anarchist) and the extreme for socialist. This is the bottom left of the graph.

    You can be anywhere in between these two ideals, and still be the same amount of socialist. The difference that changes between these two, is how authoritarian you are.

    crowdchart?Bush=6.0%2C4.0&Castro=-5.0%2C3.0&China=-2.0%2C5.0&Chomsky=-8.0%2C-10.0&Friedman=5.0%2C-3.0&Gandhi=-6.0%2C-3.0&Hitler=3.0%2C9.0&Jefferson=2.0%2C-4.0&Johnson=10.0%2C-2.0&Lenin=-10.0%2C3.0&Luxemburg=-10.0%2C-2.0&Mandela=-6.0%2C-5.0&Mao=-10.0%2C5.0&Marxism=-10.0%2C-6.0&Mugabe=-5.0%2C6.0&Obama=3.0%2C2.0&Pakistan=-3.0%2C2.0&Paul=9.0%2C-4.0&Pinochet=10.0%2C10.0&Proudhon=0.0%2C-10.0&Rand=10.0%2C-7.0&Reagan=8.0%2C7.0&Rothbard=9.0%2C-9.0&Rucker=-4.0%2C-10.0&Russia=1.0%2C4.0&Sanders=-5.0%2C0.0&Saudi=3.0%2C7.0&Stalin=-8.0%2C9.0&Stein=-3.0%2C-2.0&Trotsky=-10.0%2C0.0&Trump=6.0%2C6.0&Vietnam=-8.0%2C2.0&ec=1&name=Washington&soc=-2

    Look at this graph.
    Marxism is at the bottom left, along with Noam Chomsky, Proudhon is in the bottom center. Id put Max Stirner here too. Rothbard and Ayn Rand are in the bottom right.
    All of these are libertarians, the difference between them is that they fall on different places on the socialist / capitalist continuum.

    Stalin is on the top left. Pinochet is on the top right. Both of these are authoritarian, the difference is that they fall on different places on the socialist / capitalist continuum.

    Stalin is on the top left. Marxism is on the bottom left. Both of these are socialist, the difference is that they fall on different places on the authoritarian / libertarian continuum.

    Reagan is on the top right. Rand is on the bottom right. Both of these are capitalist, the difference is that they fall on different places on the authoritarian / libertarian continuum.

    If you wanted to plot where the American Libertarian party is, its on the bottom center, closer to bottom right. Its not as far down as anarchist libertarians, because it still wants America to remain a government. Its closer to right than to left, because most American Libertarians vote for the republicans, which fall on right wing.

    Ron Paul, on this graph, ran for president as a libertarian in 1988. He is very capitalist.
  • HelsaHelsa
    Mabinogi Rep: 21,550
    Posts: 4,935
    Member
    Crimsọn wrote: »
    GUYS, stap. Jesus christ. :D

    What? We're having a pleasant dialect free of polemics. This was what internet was supposed to be ... I mean, other than the fact that we hijacked your thread and all.
    Helsa wrote: »
    Socialism is about Public Sector involvement in society, hence Socialism cannot exist without government. Socialism is a continuum regarding the degree of government involvement in society. The extreme form is called Communism the least is what I have been calling Libertarianism. What they share then is the desire to actually have a government. Anarchy is about having no government, with the private sector picking up the slack. Therefore, whether by design or happenstance, Anarchy is the absence of Socialism and so its' opposite. It's the same argument structure regarding Communism and Capitalism. Communism is the absence of free enterprise and so is the opposite of Capitalism.

    I think the reason we have a disagreement, is because you are looking at this as a single continuum.
    On one side you have communism, on the other you have capitalism.

    The way I'm looking at it, is like the graph before. An X and Y axis. Authoritarian is up, libertarian is down. Socialist is left, Capitalist is right.

    So when you say the extreme of socialism is communism, i disagree with you. There are multiple extremes for socialism, and one of them is Communism. Communism is at the extreme of authoritarian, and the extreme of socialism, so the upper left of the graph.
    Marx's ideal for communism, a society without government, class, money, or private property, is at the extreme for libertarian (anarchist) and the extreme for socialist. This is the bottom left of the graph.

    You can be anywhere in between these two ideals, and still be the same amount of socialist. The difference that changes between these two, is how authoritarian you are.

    crowdchart?Bush=6.0%2C4.0&Castro=-5.0%2C3.0&China=-2.0%2C5.0&Chomsky=-8.0%2C-10.0&Friedman=5.0%2C-3.0&Gandhi=-6.0%2C-3.0&Hitler=3.0%2C9.0&Jefferson=2.0%2C-4.0&Johnson=10.0%2C-2.0&Lenin=-10.0%2C3.0&Luxemburg=-10.0%2C-2.0&Mandela=-6.0%2C-5.0&Mao=-10.0%2C5.0&Marxism=-10.0%2C-6.0&Mugabe=-5.0%2C6.0&Obama=3.0%2C2.0&Pakistan=-3.0%2C2.0&Paul=9.0%2C-4.0&Pinochet=10.0%2C10.0&Proudhon=0.0%2C-10.0&Rand=10.0%2C-7.0&Reagan=8.0%2C7.0&Rothbard=9.0%2C-9.0&Rucker=-4.0%2C-10.0&Russia=1.0%2C4.0&Sanders=-5.0%2C0.0&Saudi=3.0%2C7.0&Stalin=-8.0%2C9.0&Stein=-3.0%2C-2.0&Trotsky=-10.0%2C0.0&Trump=6.0%2C6.0&Vietnam=-8.0%2C2.0&ec=1&name=Washington&soc=-2

    Look at this graph.
    Marxism is at the bottom left, along with Noam Chomsky, Proudhon is in the bottom center. Id put Max Stirner here too. Rothbard and Ayn Rand are in the bottom right.
    All of these are libertarians, the difference between them is that they fall on different places on the socialist / capitalist continuum.

    Stalin is on the top left. Pinochet is on the top right. Both of these are authoritarian, the difference is that they fall on different places on the socialist / capitalist continuum.

    Stalin is on the top left. Marxism is on the bottom left. Both of these are socialist, the difference is that they fall on different places on the authoritarian / libertarian continuum.

    Reagan is on the top right. Rand is on the bottom right. Both of these are capitalist, the difference is that they fall on different places on the authoritarian / libertarian continuum.

    If you wanted to plot where the American Libertarian party is, its on the bottom center, closer to bottom right. Its not as far down as anarchist libertarians, because it still wants America to remain a government. Its closer to right than to left, because most American Libertarians vote for the republicans, which fall on right wing.

    Ron Paul, on this graph, ran for president as a libertarian in 1988. He is very capitalist.

    Right, I'm not looking at this as two-or-higher dimensional. I'm looking strictly at the Public vs Private Sector axis. In this case the extreme Socialist side would be Communist and the extreme Capitalist side would be Anarchy where everything but Anarchy is Socialism and everything but Communism is Capitalism, meaning that Socialism and Capitalism mostly overlap. Regarding what you said of Communism, if Communism is Marxist-Leninism and not strictly Marxism then it would mean Authoritarianism is inherent, by definition, since Leninism, by the man's own words, is all about seizing and maintaining power. When I use the term Communism, I mean strictly Marxism. Considerations of who makes decisions for society and how they come to that position, I'm considering out-of-scope, as they would belong on other axes.
  • stormhammerstormhammer
    Mabinogi Rep: 1,265
    Posts: 47
    Member
    Crimsọn wrote: »
    GUYS, stap. Jesus christ. :D

    avatars-000476839350-kbz5ky-t500x500.jpg

    this thread is now about seizing the means of production Komrade
    Helsa wrote: »
    Right, I'm not looking at this as two-or-higher dimensional. I'm looking strictly at the Public vs Private Sector axis. In this case the extreme Socialist side would be Communist and the extreme Capitalist side would be Anarchy where everything but Anarchy is Socialism and everything but Communism is Capitalism, meaning that Socialism and Capitalism mostly overlap. Regarding what you said of Communism, if Communism is Marxist-Leninism and not strictly Marxism then it would mean Authoritarianism is inherent, by definition, since Leninism, by the man's own words, is all about seizing and maintaining power. When I use the term Communism, I mean strictly Marxism. Considerations of who makes decisions for society and how they come to that position, I'm considering out-of-scope, as they would belong on other axes.

    Ok, so we have one axis, public and private sector involvement.
    Why does libertarianism even fall on this scale?
    Because if you go to the left, towards socialism, you get both big and small governments.
    If you go to the right, towards capitalism, you get both big and small governments.

    But in general, if you ignore marxism, and think of communism as marxist leninism or stalinism, then you are all the way on the public sector, so big government = big socialism.
    Then going the other direction, anarcho capitalism is on the other end, correct?

    So the group of people called libertarians, who want small government, would be closer to those people, no? Cause those people want anarchy, which is no government. No government is closer to the ideals of american libertarianism than it is to big socialist government, right?
  • HelsaHelsa
    Mabinogi Rep: 21,550
    Posts: 4,935
    Member
    Crimsọn wrote: »
    GUYS, stap. Jesus christ. :D

    avatars-000476839350-kbz5ky-t500x500.jpg

    this thread is now about seizing the means of production Komrade
    Helsa wrote: »
    Right, I'm not looking at this as two-or-higher dimensional. I'm looking strictly at the Public vs Private Sector axis. In this case the extreme Socialist side would be Communist and the extreme Capitalist side would be Anarchy where everything but Anarchy is Socialism and everything but Communism is Capitalism, meaning that Socialism and Capitalism mostly overlap. Regarding what you said of Communism, if Communism is Marxist-Leninism and not strictly Marxism then it would mean Authoritarianism is inherent, by definition, since Leninism, by the man's own words, is all about seizing and maintaining power. When I use the term Communism, I mean strictly Marxism. Considerations of who makes decisions for society and how they come to that position, I'm considering out-of-scope, as they would belong on other axes.

    Ok, so we have one axis, public and private sector involvement.
    Why does libertarianism even fall on this scale?
    Because if you go to the left, towards socialism, you get both big and small governments.
    If you go to the right, towards capitalism, you get both big and small governments.

    But in general, if you ignore marxism, and think of communism as marxist leninism or stalinism, then you are all the way on the public sector, so big government = big socialism.
    Then going the other direction, anarcho capitalism is on the other end, correct?

    So the group of people called libertarians, who want small government, would be closer to those people, no? Cause those people want anarchy, which is no government. No government is closer to the ideals of american libertarianism than it is to big socialist government, right?

    As far over to the Anarchy pole, without actually being Anarchy, like the American Libertarian party. Wanting only a public sector like Communism. If this is about terminology please say what I've been saying using the terms you'd prefer.

  • stormhammerstormhammer
    Mabinogi Rep: 1,265
    Posts: 47
    Member
    hmm, i dont think we are disagreeing by very much at all now.
    I think its just that "a public sector like communism" has the implication of way more socialist policies than id associate with libertarians, most of whom that ive met want a majority of services provided by the private sector.

    Ie, when obamacare was a thing, the libertarians i knew were unhappy that healthcare was trending towards public sector.

    If we're talking about the government being limited, but still providing basic services, like maintaining roads, public schools, public libraries, etc, then that does qualify as a fairly moderate libertarian stance.
  • HelsaHelsa
    Mabinogi Rep: 21,550
    Posts: 4,935
    Member
    hmm, i dont think we are disagreeing by very much at all now.
    I think its just that "a public sector like communism" has the implication of way more socialist policies than id associate with libertarians, most of whom that ive met want a majority of services provided by the private sector.

    Ie, when obamacare was a thing, the libertarians i knew were unhappy that healthcare was trending towards public sector.

    If we're talking about the government being limited, but still providing basic services, like maintaining roads, public schools, public libraries, etc, then that does qualify as a fairly moderate libertarian stance.

    I think of Libertarianism, economically, as the far capitalist side of the Capitalist/Socialist spectrum WITHOUT actually being the extreme end which I have labelled as Anarchy. The other pole I call Communist. What the far Socialist side of the Capitalist/Socialist Spectrum WITHOUT actually being Communism would be called I don't know. Perhaps you'd have a suggestion?

    I don't think Libertarianism (as I speak of it) can be seen as a specific set or specific size of set of public versus private requirements. I would suspect it is more than just a point on the spectrum but somewhat of a range. At what point the number of public sector entities reaches critical mass and can no longer be called Libertarianism, I haven't bothered to determine for myself. My cynical definiton though would be having the government provide those requirements that the rich and powerful directly benefit from and so would rather share the cost for them via taxation rather than bare the bill alone under Anarchy, and having those requirements that, for them, would be cheaper via the private sector rather than what percentage of their taxes would go to funding their share, or something like that.

    What I mean about that private sector part is this: I live in Canada, we have public health care. The US, as I understand it, has a private health care system. Imagine what your premiums would be via an American insurance company to have the equivalent of Canadian-Style health care. In Canada we pay for this via taxation. The government takes a certain percentage of what we pay each year to fund this. At some point, a Canadian's income will reach a level where that percentage equals what an American would pay. So, in terms of health care per unit cost, if you earn less than that then Canada is better, but if you earn more the US is better. What that critical point is, I don't know. But this is the primary reason that so many well-to-do Americans describe themselves as Libertarian.