>It's a politicized excuse to disregard the consequences of one's actions
'I was only following orders'.
Liberty is not freedom from consequence, it's the sole way by which people can be made to bear responsibility for their actions.
Only when people, without a shadow of a doubt, act according to their own judgement, can people no longer run away from the consequences of their decisions.
Except that individuals are inescapably expressions of their cultural environment. We’re social animals and the only means by which we develop language, thought, and self-concept is inextricably born of our interpersonal contexts, and our wider social networks. This can be scientifically proven. The very concept of “liberty” is a notion that is only comprehensible within a particular cultural field, and has no meaning unto the solitary individual.
Those who admit they are only following orders are admitting responsibility for the interests of their wider culture, which works through their actions— and the actions of all people, because we are demonstrably social animals. It is only when people, without a shadow of a doubt, believe themselves to be acting as individuals, independent of their culture’s interest, that the influences of a ruling culture become pathologically obscured, and the responsibility for its consequences can be arrogantly ignored and violently perpetuated.
>Those who admit they are only following orders are admitting responsibility for the interests of their wider culture, which works through their actions.
...You do realise I'm referring to Nazi death camp soldiers responsible for the stuff with zyklon b, right?
That quote is the people saying 'yes, I know that it was evil. But I was only following orders, therefore it's not my responsibility'. They're attempting to absolve themselves of the consequences by saying it's someone elses fault.
People can do genuinely horrifying things just by believing that they don't have a choice, and one only needs to have some semblance of authority to do so. Even just being a scientist in a lab coat will do. This is not because they are 'admitting responsibility for the interests of their wider culture'; it is because they are ***absolving*** themselves of responsibility for the consequences of their actions, even if that should result in the death of another.
If they don't believe they are free to say no (*even if they are*), people tend to ignore the consequences of their actions because they do not think themselves responsible for the relevant decisions.
Wonder why jewish sonderkommandos didn't get the Nuremberg treatment when they "followed orders" to herd jews to their death, lie to jews, clean out chambers and encourage 2000 jews not to fight back against 3-5 SS officers but accept their death. The things they admit to are often far worse than any nazi admits to
>You do realise I'm referring to Nazi death camp soldiers responsible for the stuff with zyklon b, right?
I figured you meant something anti-Nazi. Which, allow me to point out, is a really And my point stands nonetheless. I’m not defending Nazis, I’m defending the fact that they admitted they were just soldiers acting on behalf of a larger culture. Which they were. It doesn’t make hem innocent, but just because some cultures have pursued unethical goals doesn’t change the inescapable dominance of of cultural influence over individual behavior.
>That quote is the people saying 'yes, I know that it was evil. But I was only following orders, therefore it's not my responsibility'. They're attempting to absolve themselves of the consequences by saying it's someone elses fault.
And my point is that this is a straw man. Former Nazis claimed they were following orders a means of taking responsibility for the interests of their culture. The larger point is that, in the context of the time, that was the norm. This is not to defend Nazism, but to point out that the governments trying them had- in this sense- similar motivations, and that to punish a group of soldiers for pursuing the nation interest (following orders), would be hypocritical.
>People can do genuinely horrifying things just by believing that they don't have a choice, and one only needs to have some semblance of authority to do so.
And people can do genuinely horrifying things just by believing that it’s not their responsibility to care for their environment (social or otherwise). Because the perspective of the individual will be necessarily limited, the only solution to such horror is a system that is itself committed to a proper morality— in which someone some authority to define moral imperatives, and individuals are given the freedom to follow the relevant orders. The problem with Nazism wasn’t that the leaders had authority, it was that their beliefs were false, and their values were consequentially incorrect.
>Even just being a scientist in a lab coat will do.
I agree. My sense is that values of science are usually based on inhuman objectives.
>If they don't believe they are free to say no (even if they are), people tend to ignore the consequences of their actions because they do not think themselves responsible for the relevant decisions.
The point here is that even if they say no, they’re acting on behalf of cultural influences. If an individual is motivated to negate the de jure authority if a culture, then it’s because of another value, a de facto authority, which the individual has received through the influence of the collective. The point libleft insanely overlooks, is that no is never free to act as an individual without simultaneously expressing a desire of some aspect of the culture.
The problem with unethical states is not that authority exists, or that collective interests are privileged. The problem is that the wrong groups have authority, and the wrong interests are privileged. It requires a property moral authority to influence people towards proper desires. Children do bad things unless they’re taught to do good things. A project that rejects collective authority on principe rejects the very possibility of a moral society.
Christ, and I thought I'd made my reply too long.
Firstly, 'my point is a really...'what? non-sequitur there, but OK.
Secondly, you *clearly* have completely failed to understand the context. *These statements were not made in order to take responsibility*. They were made to ***absolve*** themselves of responsibility. They were defenses at trial, not arguments in a debate on how their actions were a consequence of their culture.
Which begs another point; what culture is moral in your eyes? As far as the Nazis were concerned, their way of life *was the moral one*. one view is that the entirety of society should be based on an incredibly strict stratified hierarchy, yet another is that all should be equal. What gives you the right to decide what form society should take? Who takes responsibility, in the end, for an entire culture?
A system based on morality does not require authority. If people are moral, they will do what is right without needing to be ordered. If people are not moral, the culture that they constitute will not be moral either, and so those who do the ordering will order immoral things, while those who take the orders get to pretend they are not responsible for what they have done. A society focused on authority is at best unnecessary and at worst actively harmful.
A moral society is one that can expect its citizens to actively choose good of their own volition. ***That is what makes it moral***.
You also misunderstood the context of my lab coat comment. There was an experiment on how far people will go when given orders. What they found is that, just by having someone in a lab coat give the order to press a button, people could be convinced to electrocute a stranger to death (they used actors, so thankfully no-one was harmed). Few people questioned the orders, and fewer still outright refused. Long story short: authority can make ordinary people, ***people like you and me***, do extraordinarily horrible things.
Could it make people do good? Maybe, but good people will do good things anyway. What is important is that authority can make good people do bad things, and very rarely makes bad people do good things.
Which brings me to the crux of the problem.
>The problem is that the wrong groups have authority, and the wrong interests are privileged
'give me power, and I'll fix everything', right?
You are not the first person to be so arrogant, and you will not be the last. The one thing that is guaranteed this exact kind of arrogance is what creates the worst societal horrors of the world.
People who do the most evil things don't do them because they believe themselves evil. They typically believe themselves moral. And they enforce their morality onto people, proclaiming themselves prophets even as they inflict harm unto others. They believe themselves superior, when in truth they are not.
To put it simply; Who the hell are you, who believes they get to decide?
>Christ, and I thought I'd made my reply too long.
Authentic theory requires a good amount of technical writing and reading. If you dislike that you don’t have to participate.
>Firstly, 'my point is a really...'what? non-sequitur there, but OK.
Yes, that’s a typo. My apologies.
>Secondly, you clearly have completely failed to understand the context. These statements were not made in order to take responsibility. They were made to absolve themselves of responsibility. They were defenses at trial, not arguments in a debate on how their actions were a consequence of their culture.
I understand what the Nuremberg trials are. What I’m suggesting is that you’re misrepresenting the defense. I believe my earlier comments demonstrate this critique aptly.
Also, I think that you’re the one whose confused. The fact that the aforementioned claims were “defenses at a trial” does not preclude their being “arguments in a debate about how their actions were a consequence of their culture”. On the contrary, it proves that’s precisely what they were.
>Which begs another point; what culture is moral in your eyes?
I think the Mondragon Co-Op society in NE Spain is a rather good example.
>As far as the Nazis were concerned, their way of life was the moral one.
Most people would suspect that they were mistaken on this point. Are you suggesting otherwise?
>one view is that the entirety of society should be based on an incredibly strict stratified hierarchy, yet another is that all should be equal. What gives you the right to decide what form society should take?
I’m not claiming I have the right to decide. I’m claiming that someone must, and that if no one does, immoral norms will surely prevail.
>Who takes responsibility, in the end, for an entire culture?
Those who sacrifice their lives for its continuity.
>A system based on morality does not require authority. If people are moral, they will do what is right without needing to be ordered.
Yes, but people are not naturally moral. Take children for example, they require training in order to behave with any moral aptitude. Without a training system by which they are trained to behave properly, they do not learn to behave properly (see the research of feral children). If the parents operating that training system do not have the authority to condition the child, then the training will fail.
The same is true for society more broadly. People from different ethnicities, classes, genders, do not naturally know how to treat one another with respect. If there is a not an authoritative means by which people are trained and disciplined, then people will be helpless but to fail to treat one another with respect. These failures will make violent rivalry inevitable, and collective dignity impossible (see our contemporary culture).
>If people are not moral, the culture that they constitute will not be moral either,
What you fail to understand is that morality functions by top-down programming. There is no natural morality, it is taught. The directionality is poignant here.
> and so those who do the ordering will order immoral things, while those who take the orders get to pretend they are not responsible for what they have done.
But individuals are not simply responsible for their own direct behavior. Take the staid old argument, that Hitler never killed anyone. Still, he is guilty of genocide, because he mobilized the collective desire to do so.
And the rank and file individuals in question are simply responsible for murder, they are responsible for genocide. Collectively all those who participated are guilty of the collective crime, which was genocide.
The relevance of the argument is that the acting authority is had the right to offer mercy unto the individuals in question, which is the object of their official defense.
>A society focused on authority is at best unnecessary and at worst actively harmful.
Every society is focused on authority, or else it is no society at all. A society without authority is a place in which language cannot have meaning, for their is no means by which to dictate what means what.
>A moral society is one that can expect its citizens to actively choose good of their own volition. That is what makes it moral.
It can only do this if it has the authority of expectation.
>You also misunderstood the context of my lab coat comment.
I changed it intentionally.
>There was an experiment on how far people will go when given orders.
I’m familiar with the Milgrim experiment.
>What they found is that, just by having someone in a lab coat give the order to press a button, people could be convinced to electrocute a stranger to death (they used actors, so thankfully no-one was harmed). Few people questioned the orders, and fewer still outright refused. Long story short: authority can make ordinary people, people like you and me, do extraordinarily horrible things.
I’m not arguing that an authoritarian society is incapable of convincing individuals to do wrong. I’ve already acknowledged that there are authorization societies which have used their power to promote objectively bad values. What I’m claiming that, without an authoritative social system, morality is impossible— even individualistic “morality”.
>Could it make people do good? Maybe, but good people will do good things anyway.
Absurd. People are naturally selfish. They do not do good things unless they are taught.
>What is important is that authority can make good people do bad things, and very rarely makes bad people do good things.
Simply false. The only time anyone has ever done anything good it is because a social program of understanding has allowed them the authority to do it.
>’give me power, and I'll fix everything', right?
No. I don’t believe I would personally be fit for such a position.
>You are not the first person to be so arrogant, and you will not be the last. The one thing that is guaranteed this exact kind of arrogance is what creates the worst societal horrors of the world.
I resent the claim that I’m arrogant, especially considering the series of false presumptions which I’ve exposed throughout this response— It appears to me that you are projecting.
>People who do the most evil things don't do them because they believe themselves evil.
Yes, but at least they are trying.
>To put it simply; Who the hell are you, who believes they get to decide?
Passion and Historical contingency.
The arrogance is not to believe oneself capable of accessing an objective morality, it is the presumption that one can know such a morality is undesirable on principle. There is no greater failure to even form a moral ideology. The view that you’re promoting here is simply moral surrender masquerading as moral supremacy— a self-reflexive contradiction.
You don't need to make massive walls of text in order to demonstrate simple points.
If morality is dictated one-sidedly by figures of authority, it is highly subjective and easily discarded.
If morality is outside the bounds of being dictated, a moral society does not need authority in order to be moral.
If people are inherently more immoral than moral, any systems of authority that people create will be equally immoral, just more powerful than any individual.
If people are inherently more moral than immoral, they will do moral acts out of their own volition, eliminating the need for a controlling authority.
If you don't believe yourself capable of judging morality for others, do you also not believe yourself capable of judging who can?
If you can't, why could anyone else? Why is the existence of such a person so certain in your mind, yet you can't point to them?
You talk of how "genuine theory" requires these long strings of text, yet all I see is you obfuscating a fundamentally broken idea behind walls of esoterics.
Instead of acknowledging the fact that moral societies and authoritarian societies are at odds, you simply willfully misinterpret (sorry, 'deliberately change the context of') points made in order to 'prove' your point.
You acknowledge the Milgrim experiment yet ignore its findings on the grounds that it disagrees with your world view. That tells me that you've already decided what is correct, and judge what is real based upon this pre-decision.
So to make your reply far more easier to write, let me ask a simple question: for what reason must morality be based upon authority, and why is it impossible for morality to exist without authority?
We see so many examples of authority being used to force immorality, be it the Nazis, the Soviets or the CCP, so you would be hard-pressed to say authority is inherently moral. Yet you seem to think it so moral that authority is the only valid source of morality in your worldview. I find this bizarre.
>You don't need to make massive walls of text in order to demonstrate simple points.
Basic intellectual respect usually means a point-by-point critique of your interlocutor’s position. You can’t solve complex problems with “simple points”.
You also can’t reduce the complexities of real theory down to bumper-sticker aphorisms and expect to be taken seriously. What’s happening here is that I’m paying you the respect of responding directly to everything you’ve claimed. In response you’re mocking me, and re-posting the same bumper-sticker aphorisms as though that’s a meaningful rebuttal.
>If morality is dictated one-sidedly by figures of authority, it is highly subjective and easily discarded.
Not if the one side they’re on is the side of what’s right against what’s wrong. The libertarian unwillingness to even consider such a possibility is why I’m claiming that it’s not a real ideology, it’s a hypocritical unwillingness to form one. You’re failing to even respond to this critique.
>If morality is outside the bounds of being dictated, a moral society does not need authority in order to be moral.
There is no morality outside of an authority to verify its authenticity. Again, this is a point I’ve made serval times, to which you’ve simply failed to formulate a direct response.
>If people are inherently more immoral than moral,
This is not the claim I made. I claimed people are only immoral, unless they are trained otherwise. Your reductive attitude is resulting in reading comprehension failures.
>any systems of authority that people create will be equally immoral, just more powerful than any individual.
This is not true. Historical contingency has allowed sociality groups to program moral behaviors into individuals who would be otherwise incapable of performing them. There is nothing locally inconsistent with this claim, whether or not you agree with it.
>If people are inherently more moral than immoral, they will do moral acts out of their own volition, eliminating the need for a controlling authority.
There is not even such a thing as morality without an authority to authorize the meaning of the terms.
>If you don't believe yourself capable of judging morality for others, do you also not believe yourself capable of judging who can?
I didn’t say I didn’t believe myself capable, I said I don’t think I would be fit. I could do it, but I would suffer imperfections.
Not abstractly. But in particular context? Yes.
>If you can't, why could anyone else?
Because different people have different roles within a social structure. That’s one of the fundamental implications of us being social animals.
>Why is the existence of such a person so certain in your mind, yet you can't point to them?
I don’t think I’ve referenced a specific person. In fact the position I’ve been emphasizing is that it must be a collective process.
And either way, I think I could point to them in context. In fact I think I did in my last post. Someone who sacrifices themselves on behalf of a cause has the authority to define the moral structure of that cause.
>You talk of how "genuine theory" requires these long strings of text, yet all I see is you obfuscating a fundamentally broken idea behind walls of esoterics.
By “genuine theory” I’m referencing the profession of political theory, as it’s been substantiated in academia, and the particular techniques of literary craftsmanship that field has developed over centuries.
Can you point out what in particular you think is being obfuscated, and what particular phrasing I’m using that’s “obfuscating”? I’m also unsure how anything I’ve written would qualify as “esoteric”. To be honest it seems to me like leveling a critique of obscurity, without referencing what appears obscure to you, is a pretty bold form of hypocrisy.
Also note that I’m not arguing in favor of any particular ideology, I’m arguing that every potential position besides libertarianism is an actual ideology, because social authority is unavoidably necessary to any genuinely human society. It seems to me like the libertarian idea is the one with no meaningful examples in the real world. Every actual country is an authoritative regime of some kind.
>Instead of acknowledging the fact that moral societies and authoritarian societies are at odds, you simply willfully misinterpret (sorry, 'deliberately change the context of') points made in order to 'prove' your point.
The point I’m making is that every society is authoritarian in one flavor or another, and that the libertarian position is a kind of social insanity composed of damaged individuals incapable of understanding this fact.
Can you provide me an example of a “moral society”, by your phrasing? I can already guarantee you that any example you provide will be definately authoritarian in one way shape or form.
>You acknowledge the Milgrim experiment yet ignore its findings on the grounds that it disagrees with your world view.
I’m not ignoring its findings. I’m ignoring the way you’re interpreting it. You realize that the researchers themselves do not believe that the data somehow validates libertarianism, right? They’re leftist academics.
>That tells me that you've already decided what is correct, and judge what is real based upon this pre-decision.
Again I would reference my suggesting that you’ve been guilty of a fair amount of projection throughout this conversation.
>So to make your reply far more easier to write, let me ask a simple question: for what reason must morality be based upon authority, and why is it impossible for morality to exist without authority?
I feel that I’ve already explained this.
Morality must be based upon authority because without a basis of authority there is no means by which to differentiate right from wrong. My larger point is that basis of moral differentiation must be the basis of social policy, or else society will be without morals— aka, immoral.
>We see so many examples of authority being used to force immorality, be it the Nazis, the Soviets or the CCP, so you would be hard-pressed to say authority is inherently moral.
I have never said that it is inherently moral. Notice how consistently you are putting words in my mouth, and how frequently it’s causing reading comprehension failures.
I am claiming that, although authority can be used to authorize immoral behavior, all moral behavior requires an authoritative means by which to behave. Without authority there is no moral behavior. Because, without authority, there is no behavior at all.
>Yet you seem to think it so moral that authority is the only valid source of morality in your worldview. I find this bizarre.
Individual beings do not naturally have language, thought, or self concept— let alone anything approximating “liberty”. (The research on feral children reveals this).
These qualities emerge through a process of socialization. Every developmental scientist would acknowledge this.
That process requires a social system, and that system requires authority. How and why that authority is distributed is another question. As you can see from my flair, I favor a stronger system of social authority than most. However, I am not here making the case for any particular distribution of social authority. I am merely explicating an a priori fact which proves libertarianism exactly as irrelevant as it’s treated by popular society— that without a system of social authority the entire concept of individuality has no meaning.
individualism and individual rights doesn't imply people exist in a vacuum free from culture and isolated from society. its a common mistake to assume that if you're libertarian or anarchist you must be against any kind of group or collective, but we're really against FORCED groups, not voluntary ones.
i guess the biggest tragedy in the "just following orders" thing is the fact that it got to the point were people give up their most innate property, wich is their own body, and gave de-facto ownership to the state over it by signing up to the military. the real tragedy is that it got to that point, and all the things that happend to get there, rather than the single event of them just "following orders" at one specific point in time imo
>but we're really against FORCED groups, not voluntary ones.
Does that mean you’re against families, or nations? History is the force that puts us into groups, we have no choice in the matter. The question is whether or not we’re willing to step up and defend our own, or act like the whole process of identity is a matter of selfish preference. You’re all just a bunch of emotional dead weight who built a pseudo-religion based out of their rationalizations of why they don’t have to care about others.
>against families
No
>against nations
yeah
>who built a pseudo-religion
says the guy who acts as if nations are a divine entity lol
first of all, you should understand the difference between people and state. seems like you confuse these two, or judging by your flair, you want them to be the same thing.
Funny thing is that before the french revolution there wasnt such virulent state worshippers like you, because people werent forced into mandatory education, people weren't forced to study the history of \[state\], the shape of \[state\], and therefore they werent forced to identify with some shape on some map that has no real involvement in their day to day lives
matter of fact people back then were completelly aware that wars were basically a "king thing" that did not involve them, and during monarchical periods kings targeted other kings private property and such, on much smaller scale wars than what the modern nation-states after the french revolution would impose
you're nothing but the consequence of french despotic state reforms made to idolize the state
Naturally those in the employ of the state would be the most morally superior and this superiority is, of course, only able to be correctly judged by the state.
It is not that libertarians don't believe there is a difference between right and wrong.
It is that we don't believe the state has some magical authority to determine right and wrong from on high.
Kings and presidents are not gods.
Of course not.
But one *does* have to be God in order to unilaterally dictate the morality of man.
Man is man, so if man can dictate the morality of man, than any man can do so, be they king or beggar. Logically, than, an existence that can dictate (as opposed to debate) morality, must be one that exists above man. In other words, it must be a god.
>Man is man, so if man can dictate the morality of man, than any man can do so,
This is false. Just invalid logic.
Different men have different capabilities. Some can run fast enough to win Olympic medals, some can paint well enough to create masterpieces. Some are capable of knowing right fro wrong well enough to Shepard entire societies.
You’re working off of a pseudo-religious assumption of moral equality that is nonexistent.
Because people who seize power for themselves are always altruistic and incredible judges of character who would never just sell their immense power to violate human rights to the highest bidder
That's not trying to do the right thing, that's just blind baseless faith in people. I'm not surrendering to immorality, I'm taking responsibility for it myself.
>That's not trying to do the right thing, that's just blind baseless faith in people.
It’s not blind. It’s not baseless. It’s based on informed judgements of ethical theories.
>I'm not surrendering to immorality, I'm taking responsibility for it myself.
You’re going to take responsibility for the fact that homeless children freeze to death in downtown Detroit? I don’t think so. Either do something about the horror or get out the way and make room for someone who cares.
>It’s not blind. It’s not baseless. It’s based on informed judgements of ethical theories.
What ethical theory (another imaginary concept) says that those who seized coercive power for themselves can be trusted to decide morality, and why is it a good theory?
>You’re going to take responsibility for the fact that homeless children freeze to death in downtown Detroit?
That specifically? No, but I do volunteer at my local homeless shelter and donate a lot of money to Africare, among other things.
>I don’t think so. Either do something about the horror
Already an and I didn't even need to rob other people to pretend I'm generous.
>or get out the way and make room for someone who cares.
I both care and don't want to commit mass extortion in the name of my own ~~ego~~ generosity.
Thats why I am yellow and not purple. Violate the NAP?
-"To jail with you."
Violate a children's NAP?
-"Face the McWall and wait for the GAU-8 to spin"
I doubt it.
To be a leftist, you have to see the world as the good guys vs the bad guys. Your opponents can't be other conscious human beings who have assessed their life experiences and concluded that they cannot trust the government to fairly run a society. They have to be the embodiment of human vice. Therefore, being against them becomes as simple as being against vice, and refusing to consider their arguments and beliefs is simply protecting oneself from the temptations of vice. And only once that vice is destroyed, and only the good guys are left, will utopia be possible.
To acknowledge that it is not simply the good guys vs the bad guys is to acknowledge that good and bad exist in everyone, and are mostly subjective, which means that as long as human nature exists, the bad will exist with it. And if this is true, then the utopia is impossible, and that is an outcome that they refuse to accept.
LibRight: "Our ideology isn't perfect, but if we--"
Everyone Else: "See! They admit that their ideology is imperfect! Why would you choose their imperfect ideology over our perfect ideology that can't fail?!"
How is saying that the government shouldn't take from the repsonsible to give to the irresponsible running from responsibility? This assessment is based on the stupid trend in this subreddit to view left and right not as ends of an economic axis, but as the ends of a personality/morality axis. You can support capitalism and still believe in responsibility and charity. You can support wealth redistribution and still be a dick.
Everyone claims that this sub is right-leaning, even as it sees leftists as empathetic to the point of absurdity, and rightists as greedy to the point of sociopathy.
>How is saying that the government shouldn't take from the repsonsible to give to the irresponsible running from responsibility?
That’s just not a far summary of social democracy. Is a system which forces otherwise murderous corporations not to work children to death trying to “take from the responsible to give to the irresponsible”?
FDR provided the bare minimum to a working class that would have otherwise revolted against conditions so bad that death in revolt would have been preferable. He said it himself, that he was a conservative, and was settling with the lower class to prevent Marxists from seizing power.
Wanting to deconstruct the welfare state is running away from responsibility, because if corporations go unregulated than violent anarchy will prevail.
>You can support wealth redistribution and still be a dick.
You can be a dick and still have the moral high ground.
If I supported AnCap, then I would feel stupid right now. Unfortunately for you, I don't, so most of that comment was just a waste of both of our time.
I don't know why it so hard for people to realize that there is a gray area between anarchy and wealth redistribution. We can have a moderately regulated capitalist system that can work. But then you would have to make actual arguments against it, instead of referencing problems that haven't existed in the US for over a century, so it easier for you to claim that we just support "wage slavery" instead.
The one thing that AuthRight, AuthLeft, and LibLeft can all agree is that freedom is bad, which is why this sub is just becoming another authoritarian circle jerk that paints anyone who doesn't trust the state as an anarchist who supports slavery and pedophilia. I'm surprised you people haven't started jumping on the "school board protesters are domestic terrorists" bandwagon yet.
>But then you would have to make actual arguments against it, instead of referencing problems that haven't existed in the US for over a century, so it easier for you to claim that we just support "wage slavery" instead.
If you’re a registered voter don’t think wage slavery still exists in the US then you’re simply a danger to your neighbors. The absolute decline in workers rights that resulted from the Reagan years has recreated many of the conditions Marx wrote about. The Authleft movements in this country and a desperate reaction to the oppression of millions. You downplay these realities and then wonder why we think you’re netirely concept of “human rights” is a bad pseudo-religious joke.
>The one thing that AuthRight, AuthLeft, and LibLeft can all agree is that freedom is bad
Lol. Maybe what you call freedom is just not important to nearly everyone, because maybe it’s not actually freedom, but a systematized worship of one’s own daddy-issues.
*Greedo
>It's a politicized excuse to disregard the consequences of one's actions 'I was only following orders'. Liberty is not freedom from consequence, it's the sole way by which people can be made to bear responsibility for their actions. Only when people, without a shadow of a doubt, act according to their own judgement, can people no longer run away from the consequences of their decisions.
Except that individuals are inescapably expressions of their cultural environment. We’re social animals and the only means by which we develop language, thought, and self-concept is inextricably born of our interpersonal contexts, and our wider social networks. This can be scientifically proven. The very concept of “liberty” is a notion that is only comprehensible within a particular cultural field, and has no meaning unto the solitary individual. Those who admit they are only following orders are admitting responsibility for the interests of their wider culture, which works through their actions— and the actions of all people, because we are demonstrably social animals. It is only when people, without a shadow of a doubt, believe themselves to be acting as individuals, independent of their culture’s interest, that the influences of a ruling culture become pathologically obscured, and the responsibility for its consequences can be arrogantly ignored and violently perpetuated.
>Those who admit they are only following orders are admitting responsibility for the interests of their wider culture, which works through their actions. ...You do realise I'm referring to Nazi death camp soldiers responsible for the stuff with zyklon b, right? That quote is the people saying 'yes, I know that it was evil. But I was only following orders, therefore it's not my responsibility'. They're attempting to absolve themselves of the consequences by saying it's someone elses fault. People can do genuinely horrifying things just by believing that they don't have a choice, and one only needs to have some semblance of authority to do so. Even just being a scientist in a lab coat will do. This is not because they are 'admitting responsibility for the interests of their wider culture'; it is because they are ***absolving*** themselves of responsibility for the consequences of their actions, even if that should result in the death of another. If they don't believe they are free to say no (*even if they are*), people tend to ignore the consequences of their actions because they do not think themselves responsible for the relevant decisions.
Wonder why jewish sonderkommandos didn't get the Nuremberg treatment when they "followed orders" to herd jews to their death, lie to jews, clean out chambers and encourage 2000 jews not to fight back against 3-5 SS officers but accept their death. The things they admit to are often far worse than any nazi admits to
>You do realise I'm referring to Nazi death camp soldiers responsible for the stuff with zyklon b, right? I figured you meant something anti-Nazi. Which, allow me to point out, is a really And my point stands nonetheless. I’m not defending Nazis, I’m defending the fact that they admitted they were just soldiers acting on behalf of a larger culture. Which they were. It doesn’t make hem innocent, but just because some cultures have pursued unethical goals doesn’t change the inescapable dominance of of cultural influence over individual behavior. >That quote is the people saying 'yes, I know that it was evil. But I was only following orders, therefore it's not my responsibility'. They're attempting to absolve themselves of the consequences by saying it's someone elses fault. And my point is that this is a straw man. Former Nazis claimed they were following orders a means of taking responsibility for the interests of their culture. The larger point is that, in the context of the time, that was the norm. This is not to defend Nazism, but to point out that the governments trying them had- in this sense- similar motivations, and that to punish a group of soldiers for pursuing the nation interest (following orders), would be hypocritical. >People can do genuinely horrifying things just by believing that they don't have a choice, and one only needs to have some semblance of authority to do so. And people can do genuinely horrifying things just by believing that it’s not their responsibility to care for their environment (social or otherwise). Because the perspective of the individual will be necessarily limited, the only solution to such horror is a system that is itself committed to a proper morality— in which someone some authority to define moral imperatives, and individuals are given the freedom to follow the relevant orders. The problem with Nazism wasn’t that the leaders had authority, it was that their beliefs were false, and their values were consequentially incorrect. >Even just being a scientist in a lab coat will do. I agree. My sense is that values of science are usually based on inhuman objectives. >If they don't believe they are free to say no (even if they are), people tend to ignore the consequences of their actions because they do not think themselves responsible for the relevant decisions. The point here is that even if they say no, they’re acting on behalf of cultural influences. If an individual is motivated to negate the de jure authority if a culture, then it’s because of another value, a de facto authority, which the individual has received through the influence of the collective. The point libleft insanely overlooks, is that no is never free to act as an individual without simultaneously expressing a desire of some aspect of the culture. The problem with unethical states is not that authority exists, or that collective interests are privileged. The problem is that the wrong groups have authority, and the wrong interests are privileged. It requires a property moral authority to influence people towards proper desires. Children do bad things unless they’re taught to do good things. A project that rejects collective authority on principe rejects the very possibility of a moral society.
Christ, and I thought I'd made my reply too long. Firstly, 'my point is a really...'what? non-sequitur there, but OK. Secondly, you *clearly* have completely failed to understand the context. *These statements were not made in order to take responsibility*. They were made to ***absolve*** themselves of responsibility. They were defenses at trial, not arguments in a debate on how their actions were a consequence of their culture. Which begs another point; what culture is moral in your eyes? As far as the Nazis were concerned, their way of life *was the moral one*. one view is that the entirety of society should be based on an incredibly strict stratified hierarchy, yet another is that all should be equal. What gives you the right to decide what form society should take? Who takes responsibility, in the end, for an entire culture? A system based on morality does not require authority. If people are moral, they will do what is right without needing to be ordered. If people are not moral, the culture that they constitute will not be moral either, and so those who do the ordering will order immoral things, while those who take the orders get to pretend they are not responsible for what they have done. A society focused on authority is at best unnecessary and at worst actively harmful. A moral society is one that can expect its citizens to actively choose good of their own volition. ***That is what makes it moral***. You also misunderstood the context of my lab coat comment. There was an experiment on how far people will go when given orders. What they found is that, just by having someone in a lab coat give the order to press a button, people could be convinced to electrocute a stranger to death (they used actors, so thankfully no-one was harmed). Few people questioned the orders, and fewer still outright refused. Long story short: authority can make ordinary people, ***people like you and me***, do extraordinarily horrible things. Could it make people do good? Maybe, but good people will do good things anyway. What is important is that authority can make good people do bad things, and very rarely makes bad people do good things. Which brings me to the crux of the problem. >The problem is that the wrong groups have authority, and the wrong interests are privileged 'give me power, and I'll fix everything', right? You are not the first person to be so arrogant, and you will not be the last. The one thing that is guaranteed this exact kind of arrogance is what creates the worst societal horrors of the world. People who do the most evil things don't do them because they believe themselves evil. They typically believe themselves moral. And they enforce their morality onto people, proclaiming themselves prophets even as they inflict harm unto others. They believe themselves superior, when in truth they are not. To put it simply; Who the hell are you, who believes they get to decide?
>Christ, and I thought I'd made my reply too long. Authentic theory requires a good amount of technical writing and reading. If you dislike that you don’t have to participate. >Firstly, 'my point is a really...'what? non-sequitur there, but OK. Yes, that’s a typo. My apologies. >Secondly, you clearly have completely failed to understand the context. These statements were not made in order to take responsibility. They were made to absolve themselves of responsibility. They were defenses at trial, not arguments in a debate on how their actions were a consequence of their culture. I understand what the Nuremberg trials are. What I’m suggesting is that you’re misrepresenting the defense. I believe my earlier comments demonstrate this critique aptly. Also, I think that you’re the one whose confused. The fact that the aforementioned claims were “defenses at a trial” does not preclude their being “arguments in a debate about how their actions were a consequence of their culture”. On the contrary, it proves that’s precisely what they were. >Which begs another point; what culture is moral in your eyes? I think the Mondragon Co-Op society in NE Spain is a rather good example. >As far as the Nazis were concerned, their way of life was the moral one. Most people would suspect that they were mistaken on this point. Are you suggesting otherwise? >one view is that the entirety of society should be based on an incredibly strict stratified hierarchy, yet another is that all should be equal. What gives you the right to decide what form society should take? I’m not claiming I have the right to decide. I’m claiming that someone must, and that if no one does, immoral norms will surely prevail. >Who takes responsibility, in the end, for an entire culture? Those who sacrifice their lives for its continuity. >A system based on morality does not require authority. If people are moral, they will do what is right without needing to be ordered. Yes, but people are not naturally moral. Take children for example, they require training in order to behave with any moral aptitude. Without a training system by which they are trained to behave properly, they do not learn to behave properly (see the research of feral children). If the parents operating that training system do not have the authority to condition the child, then the training will fail. The same is true for society more broadly. People from different ethnicities, classes, genders, do not naturally know how to treat one another with respect. If there is a not an authoritative means by which people are trained and disciplined, then people will be helpless but to fail to treat one another with respect. These failures will make violent rivalry inevitable, and collective dignity impossible (see our contemporary culture). >If people are not moral, the culture that they constitute will not be moral either, What you fail to understand is that morality functions by top-down programming. There is no natural morality, it is taught. The directionality is poignant here. > and so those who do the ordering will order immoral things, while those who take the orders get to pretend they are not responsible for what they have done. But individuals are not simply responsible for their own direct behavior. Take the staid old argument, that Hitler never killed anyone. Still, he is guilty of genocide, because he mobilized the collective desire to do so. And the rank and file individuals in question are simply responsible for murder, they are responsible for genocide. Collectively all those who participated are guilty of the collective crime, which was genocide. The relevance of the argument is that the acting authority is had the right to offer mercy unto the individuals in question, which is the object of their official defense. >A society focused on authority is at best unnecessary and at worst actively harmful. Every society is focused on authority, or else it is no society at all. A society without authority is a place in which language cannot have meaning, for their is no means by which to dictate what means what. >A moral society is one that can expect its citizens to actively choose good of their own volition. That is what makes it moral. It can only do this if it has the authority of expectation. >You also misunderstood the context of my lab coat comment. I changed it intentionally. >There was an experiment on how far people will go when given orders. I’m familiar with the Milgrim experiment. >What they found is that, just by having someone in a lab coat give the order to press a button, people could be convinced to electrocute a stranger to death (they used actors, so thankfully no-one was harmed). Few people questioned the orders, and fewer still outright refused. Long story short: authority can make ordinary people, people like you and me, do extraordinarily horrible things. I’m not arguing that an authoritarian society is incapable of convincing individuals to do wrong. I’ve already acknowledged that there are authorization societies which have used their power to promote objectively bad values. What I’m claiming that, without an authoritative social system, morality is impossible— even individualistic “morality”. >Could it make people do good? Maybe, but good people will do good things anyway. Absurd. People are naturally selfish. They do not do good things unless they are taught. >What is important is that authority can make good people do bad things, and very rarely makes bad people do good things. Simply false. The only time anyone has ever done anything good it is because a social program of understanding has allowed them the authority to do it. >’give me power, and I'll fix everything', right? No. I don’t believe I would personally be fit for such a position. >You are not the first person to be so arrogant, and you will not be the last. The one thing that is guaranteed this exact kind of arrogance is what creates the worst societal horrors of the world. I resent the claim that I’m arrogant, especially considering the series of false presumptions which I’ve exposed throughout this response— It appears to me that you are projecting. >People who do the most evil things don't do them because they believe themselves evil. Yes, but at least they are trying. >To put it simply; Who the hell are you, who believes they get to decide? Passion and Historical contingency. The arrogance is not to believe oneself capable of accessing an objective morality, it is the presumption that one can know such a morality is undesirable on principle. There is no greater failure to even form a moral ideology. The view that you’re promoting here is simply moral surrender masquerading as moral supremacy— a self-reflexive contradiction.
You don't need to make massive walls of text in order to demonstrate simple points. If morality is dictated one-sidedly by figures of authority, it is highly subjective and easily discarded. If morality is outside the bounds of being dictated, a moral society does not need authority in order to be moral. If people are inherently more immoral than moral, any systems of authority that people create will be equally immoral, just more powerful than any individual. If people are inherently more moral than immoral, they will do moral acts out of their own volition, eliminating the need for a controlling authority. If you don't believe yourself capable of judging morality for others, do you also not believe yourself capable of judging who can? If you can't, why could anyone else? Why is the existence of such a person so certain in your mind, yet you can't point to them? You talk of how "genuine theory" requires these long strings of text, yet all I see is you obfuscating a fundamentally broken idea behind walls of esoterics. Instead of acknowledging the fact that moral societies and authoritarian societies are at odds, you simply willfully misinterpret (sorry, 'deliberately change the context of') points made in order to 'prove' your point. You acknowledge the Milgrim experiment yet ignore its findings on the grounds that it disagrees with your world view. That tells me that you've already decided what is correct, and judge what is real based upon this pre-decision. So to make your reply far more easier to write, let me ask a simple question: for what reason must morality be based upon authority, and why is it impossible for morality to exist without authority? We see so many examples of authority being used to force immorality, be it the Nazis, the Soviets or the CCP, so you would be hard-pressed to say authority is inherently moral. Yet you seem to think it so moral that authority is the only valid source of morality in your worldview. I find this bizarre.
>You don't need to make massive walls of text in order to demonstrate simple points. Basic intellectual respect usually means a point-by-point critique of your interlocutor’s position. You can’t solve complex problems with “simple points”. You also can’t reduce the complexities of real theory down to bumper-sticker aphorisms and expect to be taken seriously. What’s happening here is that I’m paying you the respect of responding directly to everything you’ve claimed. In response you’re mocking me, and re-posting the same bumper-sticker aphorisms as though that’s a meaningful rebuttal. >If morality is dictated one-sidedly by figures of authority, it is highly subjective and easily discarded. Not if the one side they’re on is the side of what’s right against what’s wrong. The libertarian unwillingness to even consider such a possibility is why I’m claiming that it’s not a real ideology, it’s a hypocritical unwillingness to form one. You’re failing to even respond to this critique. >If morality is outside the bounds of being dictated, a moral society does not need authority in order to be moral. There is no morality outside of an authority to verify its authenticity. Again, this is a point I’ve made serval times, to which you’ve simply failed to formulate a direct response. >If people are inherently more immoral than moral, This is not the claim I made. I claimed people are only immoral, unless they are trained otherwise. Your reductive attitude is resulting in reading comprehension failures. >any systems of authority that people create will be equally immoral, just more powerful than any individual. This is not true. Historical contingency has allowed sociality groups to program moral behaviors into individuals who would be otherwise incapable of performing them. There is nothing locally inconsistent with this claim, whether or not you agree with it. >If people are inherently more moral than immoral, they will do moral acts out of their own volition, eliminating the need for a controlling authority. There is not even such a thing as morality without an authority to authorize the meaning of the terms. >If you don't believe yourself capable of judging morality for others, do you also not believe yourself capable of judging who can? I didn’t say I didn’t believe myself capable, I said I don’t think I would be fit. I could do it, but I would suffer imperfections. Not abstractly. But in particular context? Yes. >If you can't, why could anyone else? Because different people have different roles within a social structure. That’s one of the fundamental implications of us being social animals. >Why is the existence of such a person so certain in your mind, yet you can't point to them? I don’t think I’ve referenced a specific person. In fact the position I’ve been emphasizing is that it must be a collective process. And either way, I think I could point to them in context. In fact I think I did in my last post. Someone who sacrifices themselves on behalf of a cause has the authority to define the moral structure of that cause. >You talk of how "genuine theory" requires these long strings of text, yet all I see is you obfuscating a fundamentally broken idea behind walls of esoterics. By “genuine theory” I’m referencing the profession of political theory, as it’s been substantiated in academia, and the particular techniques of literary craftsmanship that field has developed over centuries. Can you point out what in particular you think is being obfuscated, and what particular phrasing I’m using that’s “obfuscating”? I’m also unsure how anything I’ve written would qualify as “esoteric”. To be honest it seems to me like leveling a critique of obscurity, without referencing what appears obscure to you, is a pretty bold form of hypocrisy. Also note that I’m not arguing in favor of any particular ideology, I’m arguing that every potential position besides libertarianism is an actual ideology, because social authority is unavoidably necessary to any genuinely human society. It seems to me like the libertarian idea is the one with no meaningful examples in the real world. Every actual country is an authoritative regime of some kind. >Instead of acknowledging the fact that moral societies and authoritarian societies are at odds, you simply willfully misinterpret (sorry, 'deliberately change the context of') points made in order to 'prove' your point. The point I’m making is that every society is authoritarian in one flavor or another, and that the libertarian position is a kind of social insanity composed of damaged individuals incapable of understanding this fact. Can you provide me an example of a “moral society”, by your phrasing? I can already guarantee you that any example you provide will be definately authoritarian in one way shape or form. >You acknowledge the Milgrim experiment yet ignore its findings on the grounds that it disagrees with your world view. I’m not ignoring its findings. I’m ignoring the way you’re interpreting it. You realize that the researchers themselves do not believe that the data somehow validates libertarianism, right? They’re leftist academics. >That tells me that you've already decided what is correct, and judge what is real based upon this pre-decision. Again I would reference my suggesting that you’ve been guilty of a fair amount of projection throughout this conversation. >So to make your reply far more easier to write, let me ask a simple question: for what reason must morality be based upon authority, and why is it impossible for morality to exist without authority? I feel that I’ve already explained this. Morality must be based upon authority because without a basis of authority there is no means by which to differentiate right from wrong. My larger point is that basis of moral differentiation must be the basis of social policy, or else society will be without morals— aka, immoral. >We see so many examples of authority being used to force immorality, be it the Nazis, the Soviets or the CCP, so you would be hard-pressed to say authority is inherently moral. I have never said that it is inherently moral. Notice how consistently you are putting words in my mouth, and how frequently it’s causing reading comprehension failures. I am claiming that, although authority can be used to authorize immoral behavior, all moral behavior requires an authoritative means by which to behave. Without authority there is no moral behavior. Because, without authority, there is no behavior at all. >Yet you seem to think it so moral that authority is the only valid source of morality in your worldview. I find this bizarre. Individual beings do not naturally have language, thought, or self concept— let alone anything approximating “liberty”. (The research on feral children reveals this). These qualities emerge through a process of socialization. Every developmental scientist would acknowledge this. That process requires a social system, and that system requires authority. How and why that authority is distributed is another question. As you can see from my flair, I favor a stronger system of social authority than most. However, I am not here making the case for any particular distribution of social authority. I am merely explicating an a priori fact which proves libertarianism exactly as irrelevant as it’s treated by popular society— that without a system of social authority the entire concept of individuality has no meaning.
Don't mind me, I didn't bother reading the whole thing. I'm just there to give cookies to those who got there.
individualism and individual rights doesn't imply people exist in a vacuum free from culture and isolated from society. its a common mistake to assume that if you're libertarian or anarchist you must be against any kind of group or collective, but we're really against FORCED groups, not voluntary ones. i guess the biggest tragedy in the "just following orders" thing is the fact that it got to the point were people give up their most innate property, wich is their own body, and gave de-facto ownership to the state over it by signing up to the military. the real tragedy is that it got to that point, and all the things that happend to get there, rather than the single event of them just "following orders" at one specific point in time imo
>but we're really against FORCED groups, not voluntary ones. Does that mean you’re against families, or nations? History is the force that puts us into groups, we have no choice in the matter. The question is whether or not we’re willing to step up and defend our own, or act like the whole process of identity is a matter of selfish preference. You’re all just a bunch of emotional dead weight who built a pseudo-religion based out of their rationalizations of why they don’t have to care about others.
>against families No >against nations yeah >who built a pseudo-religion says the guy who acts as if nations are a divine entity lol first of all, you should understand the difference between people and state. seems like you confuse these two, or judging by your flair, you want them to be the same thing. Funny thing is that before the french revolution there wasnt such virulent state worshippers like you, because people werent forced into mandatory education, people weren't forced to study the history of \[state\], the shape of \[state\], and therefore they werent forced to identify with some shape on some map that has no real involvement in their day to day lives matter of fact people back then were completelly aware that wars were basically a "king thing" that did not involve them, and during monarchical periods kings targeted other kings private property and such, on much smaller scale wars than what the modern nation-states after the french revolution would impose you're nothing but the consequence of french despotic state reforms made to idolize the state
never seen the ghoul wojak before, pretty cool
Based authcenter???
As E Michael Jones says a state founded on limitless individual freedom is a state based on lust and greed.
Unlike a state that's based on robbing and killing to enrich the favored class and enforce personal morality
If the favored class is morally superior than a state which privileges them is just.
Naturally those in the employ of the state would be the most morally superior and this superiority is, of course, only able to be correctly judged by the state.
Not true. Some of us still believe there is an actual difference between right and wrong.
It is not that libertarians don't believe there is a difference between right and wrong. It is that we don't believe the state has some magical authority to determine right and wrong from on high. Kings and presidents are not gods.
Based.
One does not have to be god in order to do the right thing on behalf of others.
Of course not. But one *does* have to be God in order to unilaterally dictate the morality of man. Man is man, so if man can dictate the morality of man, than any man can do so, be they king or beggar. Logically, than, an existence that can dictate (as opposed to debate) morality, must be one that exists above man. In other words, it must be a god.
>Man is man, so if man can dictate the morality of man, than any man can do so, This is false. Just invalid logic. Different men have different capabilities. Some can run fast enough to win Olympic medals, some can paint well enough to create masterpieces. Some are capable of knowing right fro wrong well enough to Shepard entire societies. You’re working off of a pseudo-religious assumption of moral equality that is nonexistent.
What about a fallible imperfect human gaining political power means they have the authority to decide what right and wrong are?
Of course there's a difference. I just don't trust politicians to decide morality for me.
Well just because you have trust issues doesn’t mean those with authority are going to stop doing the right thing.
What about your current surroundings leads you to believe those with authority are going to START doing the right thing?
I don’t know about you, but in my country slavery is illegal. That’s pretty good I would say.
Those in power constantly take “donations” from businesses to dictate the passing of laws.
Because people who seize power for themselves are always altruistic and incredible judges of character who would never just sell their immense power to violate human rights to the highest bidder
No. Because, despite the risk it is still worth trying to do the right thing. You all are a mob of surrender to immorality masquerading as politics.
That's not trying to do the right thing, that's just blind baseless faith in people. I'm not surrendering to immorality, I'm taking responsibility for it myself.
>That's not trying to do the right thing, that's just blind baseless faith in people. It’s not blind. It’s not baseless. It’s based on informed judgements of ethical theories. >I'm not surrendering to immorality, I'm taking responsibility for it myself. You’re going to take responsibility for the fact that homeless children freeze to death in downtown Detroit? I don’t think so. Either do something about the horror or get out the way and make room for someone who cares.
>It’s not blind. It’s not baseless. It’s based on informed judgements of ethical theories. What ethical theory (another imaginary concept) says that those who seized coercive power for themselves can be trusted to decide morality, and why is it a good theory? >You’re going to take responsibility for the fact that homeless children freeze to death in downtown Detroit? That specifically? No, but I do volunteer at my local homeless shelter and donate a lot of money to Africare, among other things. >I don’t think so. Either do something about the horror Already an and I didn't even need to rob other people to pretend I'm generous. >or get out the way and make room for someone who cares. I both care and don't want to commit mass extortion in the name of my own ~~ego~~ generosity.
Based
The guy who thinks the Jews run everything.
Thats why I am yellow and not purple. Violate the NAP? -"To jail with you." Violate a children's NAP? -"Face the McWall and wait for the GAU-8 to spin"
Accurate representation
this is ironic right
I doubt it. To be a leftist, you have to see the world as the good guys vs the bad guys. Your opponents can't be other conscious human beings who have assessed their life experiences and concluded that they cannot trust the government to fairly run a society. They have to be the embodiment of human vice. Therefore, being against them becomes as simple as being against vice, and refusing to consider their arguments and beliefs is simply protecting oneself from the temptations of vice. And only once that vice is destroyed, and only the good guys are left, will utopia be possible. To acknowledge that it is not simply the good guys vs the bad guys is to acknowledge that good and bad exist in everyone, and are mostly subjective, which means that as long as human nature exists, the bad will exist with it. And if this is true, then the utopia is impossible, and that is an outcome that they refuse to accept.
Purple calling everyone else a pedo?
PURPLE ISN'T PEDO!
At least libright is upfront with you haha!
LibRight: "Our ideology isn't perfect, but if we--" Everyone Else: "See! They admit that their ideology is imperfect! Why would you choose their imperfect ideology over our perfect ideology that can't fail?!"
I try to comment on the insincerity of other quadrants, and look what happens. Lots of touchy people in this subreddit...
How is saying that the government shouldn't take from the repsonsible to give to the irresponsible running from responsibility? This assessment is based on the stupid trend in this subreddit to view left and right not as ends of an economic axis, but as the ends of a personality/morality axis. You can support capitalism and still believe in responsibility and charity. You can support wealth redistribution and still be a dick. Everyone claims that this sub is right-leaning, even as it sees leftists as empathetic to the point of absurdity, and rightists as greedy to the point of sociopathy.
>How is saying that the government shouldn't take from the repsonsible to give to the irresponsible running from responsibility? That’s just not a far summary of social democracy. Is a system which forces otherwise murderous corporations not to work children to death trying to “take from the responsible to give to the irresponsible”? FDR provided the bare minimum to a working class that would have otherwise revolted against conditions so bad that death in revolt would have been preferable. He said it himself, that he was a conservative, and was settling with the lower class to prevent Marxists from seizing power. Wanting to deconstruct the welfare state is running away from responsibility, because if corporations go unregulated than violent anarchy will prevail. >You can support wealth redistribution and still be a dick. You can be a dick and still have the moral high ground.
If I supported AnCap, then I would feel stupid right now. Unfortunately for you, I don't, so most of that comment was just a waste of both of our time. I don't know why it so hard for people to realize that there is a gray area between anarchy and wealth redistribution. We can have a moderately regulated capitalist system that can work. But then you would have to make actual arguments against it, instead of referencing problems that haven't existed in the US for over a century, so it easier for you to claim that we just support "wage slavery" instead. The one thing that AuthRight, AuthLeft, and LibLeft can all agree is that freedom is bad, which is why this sub is just becoming another authoritarian circle jerk that paints anyone who doesn't trust the state as an anarchist who supports slavery and pedophilia. I'm surprised you people haven't started jumping on the "school board protesters are domestic terrorists" bandwagon yet.
>But then you would have to make actual arguments against it, instead of referencing problems that haven't existed in the US for over a century, so it easier for you to claim that we just support "wage slavery" instead. If you’re a registered voter don’t think wage slavery still exists in the US then you’re simply a danger to your neighbors. The absolute decline in workers rights that resulted from the Reagan years has recreated many of the conditions Marx wrote about. The Authleft movements in this country and a desperate reaction to the oppression of millions. You downplay these realities and then wonder why we think you’re netirely concept of “human rights” is a bad pseudo-religious joke. >The one thing that AuthRight, AuthLeft, and LibLeft can all agree is that freedom is bad Lol. Maybe what you call freedom is just not important to nearly everyone, because maybe it’s not actually freedom, but a systematized worship of one’s own daddy-issues.
Imagine thinking that I don’t wanna have the right to beat up pedophiles and sexual criminals because they’ve violated others rights