🚀 go-pugleaf

"rex" <rexy@ij.net> wrote:
>"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
>news:ieefrv85qvqkbhn4994afpci1h5ik6e2ii@4ax.com...
>> >That is the classic reasoning of totalitarian socialism.
>>
>> Not really.  Totalitarians would not care whether the principals are
>> answerable to anyone except the totalitarian power.
>
>Yes, really.  You can point to no totalitarian who has not used the very
>cliche that Roger used in defense of government.

So what?  That is not in fact a totalitarian claim.

>Regardless of what you claim to think that they really "care" about.

I merely use the definition of totalitarian.

>> >If the issue is
>> >education, food, clothing, shelter, TV, widgets or any goods or services,
>> >then a freedom advocate will point out how people provide for needs in a
>> >free market economy, and the response of the classic totalitarian socialist
>> >is that everything that people have in a free society can be provided by a
>> >totalitarian government because "Don't government providers have to answer
>> >to citizens too? Or at least to the provider board, who the citizens elect?"
>>
>> Therefore the argument is valid to justify neither a totalitarian
>> socialist government nor a totally free market approach, since it does
>> not distinguish.
>
>Therefore the argument is used to justify totalitarian socialism and has
>been by everyone of them.
>as for a free market, it doesn't use government providers.  You are
>completely illogical.

You can't read.

>> >It is frightening how commonplace that response has become and how the
>> >people who provide that response to one subject (e.g. schools) NEVER
>OPENLY
>> >expand the response as was done in the Union of Soviet Socialist
>Republics,
>> >Communist China, the National Socialist German Workers Party, Cuba, etc.
>> >It is as if the people who use that simplistic response do not know all
>the
>> >horrible ideologies that have used that same response.   Very
>frightening.
>>
>> Even horrible ideologies do some things properly, or they would never
>> manage to stay in power long enough to be seen as horrible.
>>
>> Your argument is fallacious.
>
>Thanks for proving I was right about your defense of horrible ideologies.

I don't defend them.  I merely state the simple fact that horrible
ideologies do some things right or they would not survive.

>Otherwise, your argument is fallacious and illogical.

Proof by assertion.

>> On the other hand a "free market economy" hasn't existed since the
>> world was confined to primitive barter systems (if even then), so it
>> has even less stature in the modern world than a horrible ideology.
>> Libertarianism is thus a worse-than-horrible ideology, it is a
>> seemingly impossible one.
>
>Thanks again for proving I was right about your hatred of freedom and a
>free-market economy.

I hate libertarianism.  I don't believe a free-market economy has
existed in history, so there is nothing to hate.

>People engage in free market acts all the time,

So?  That is not a free market economy, but individual acts.

>only
>limited by the way that people like you intervene to prevent people from
>engaging in completely free trade.

If they are limited, then they are not free market.

>Totalitarian socialism has no
>respectable stature in the modern world because it is a horrible ideology.

So is libertarianism.

>Your philosophy (er lack thereof) is worse-than-horrible ideology,

Lack.  I reject theory in favor of what works.  It is not ideology at
all.

>because it is rubber stamp statism,

Nope.

>where you simply defend horrible ideologies, and you do so knowingly.

I stated facts about the real world.  I made no judgements, defended
no one.

>You proved everything I said. Period.  It is amazing that you responded with
>a complete defense of the same cliche reasoning that is used by totalitarian
>socialists, even after I directly confront you with the point.

You are the one who is spouting cliches.

>Period. You are a "rubber-stamp statist."  Period.

You are an idiot.  Exclamation point.

>You do not think philosophically about the range of your own comments,

Correct.  Philosophy is for philosophers, not for people living in the
real world.

>and you simplistically rubber-stamp
>government programs that others start (because you are not enough of a
>creative thinker to come up with your own socialist ideas).

I rubber stamp what I choose to rubber stamp.  I don't need to
creatively come up with socialist ideas - sounds like a waste of time.

>Point to any
>website or even other group posts where you attempt to explain any political
>philsophy or philosophy of government that you hold 

I reject political philosophy, so why should I do so.

>(you hold none, other than rubber-stamp statism)

I hold none.  Period.

>or point to any philosophical defense of liberty
>(calling for the reduction of government programs, laws, socialism) that you
>have ever made.  You can point to nothing.  You are a rubber-stamp statist
>who uses the cliches of totalitarian socialism.

You are a repetitious idiot.  Period.

lojbab
-- 
lojbab                                             lojbab@lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban:                 http://www.lojban.org