No. Not "free thinking" - just slippery.
Just a person presenting as having virtuous principles trying to justify the inconsistent.
(And no, "principles" doesn't mean 100% of the time.
It does mean justifying exceptions - but not with sophistry and ever changing word-definition.)
I'm not bothered about your opinion of me as a person, whether or not you think I have virtuous principles or whether or not you think that I present myself as having them. That is irrelevant. I reckon that if you met me you'd not think I'm a bad bloke. Our politics are quite different but there is some overlap and common ground.
I'm not sure about this ever changing word definition thing though. I think maybe there is some difference between your definitions and mine. If there is any confusion of definition from me it'll be more likely due to a failure to adequately articulate my thoughts and express my feelings, than because of some kind of skilful intellectual sophistry. Nevertheless, I will try harder as I am keen for you to understand me even when you don't agree with me.
Yeah. Right.
As long as those individuals / groups agree with you !
(
And if they don't, they're "scum" or "fascist".
)
No, that's not true or fair. I fully support freedom of speech, thought and expression. Even when what's being said, thought or expressed goes against everything I believe in. I don't believe in banning posters on here or of banning of pretty much most things. I definitely oppose any notion of thought-crime, and I'm not too keen on political correctness.
I do however retain the right to shout back loudly with foul and abusive language when someone or some people use their freedom to expresses ideas that I find to be repugnant or obnoxious or racist or whatever (not literally!). Whether or not my voice then in turn gets shouted down, depends upon who else is in on the conversation and how they themselves choose to (or choose not to) respond. Of course, this works both ways and whenever I express views that others find to be repugnant or obnoxious I respect their right to shout me down with foul and abusive language. I expect that sometimes I'd deserve it!
Lots of people would disagree with me. Most of them are neither fascist or scum. Those who are scum aint necessarily fascist, but those who are fascist are definitely scum. (I'm imagining a Venn diagram here - ooh, it could be a double!!)
Snappy soundbite - but what does it mean ?
Who are those promoting "selfish individualism of the Libertarian right" ?
More importantly, "what" is it that they promote that amounts to both:
"selfish individualism" (presumably meaning "selfishness that harms others"....)
.....and at the same time "libertarian" ?
If they fail to uphold the core tenet - "do no harm to others" then they ain't "libertarian"?
Ok, so this is what I meant when I said above that our politics overlap. We both place emphasis upon individual liberty and this is why we both entirely reject communism (because of its totalitarian nature). I'm not sure if you're anti-statist but I would guess that at the very least you would advocate minimal state intervention with regard to individual freedom.* Again, this would be similar to my views
I agree wholeheartedly with the core tenant, "do no harm to others". You can claim it as Libertarian if you want but I'd say it's also a core tenant of anarchism. It's also a core tenant of a whole host of religions and philosophies. Actually, I think you'd be hard pressed to find anybody who would openly disagree with the sentiment. So it's a great principle that we could and should all follow. Problem is that it becomes difficult to do so in a capitalist society where profit is more important than people or planet; where looking after number one becomes, necessarily, more important than looking after each other and our environment.
You see, where we differ is in our attitudes towards capitalism. You see you're not just a libertarian, you're actually a 'Libertarian Capitalist' or a 'right-wing Libertarian'. I'm libertarian too, but I'm also anti-capitalist. I think the freedom of capitalism is far more preferable than the slavery of totalitarianism but ultimately it just aint the real thing, it's only an illusion, not real freedom. There seems little point in arguing about it. I doubt we'd change each other's minds. But this is where we disagree, not on the importance of individual freedom.
* At this point I wonder what your position is with regard to the prohibition of drugs? But I don't want to distract you so don't bother telling me now!
That different outcomes must "mean that there will always be some "winners" and some "losers".....
.....is where we have a fundamentally different viewpoint - yours being "glass half empty".
1. The socialist / communist viewpoint is focused on "outcomes". i.e. "winners and losers".
i.e. a rejection of the idea that some people, by their own efforts and without harming others, acquire more stuff.
2. That those who have less must be "losers" #- rather than simply "acquiring less"....
....either because they don't posses the skill - or very often, are not as acquisitive.
(# Promoting the "victim mentality" that currently preoccupies the Identitarian Left.)
3. That the mere fact that some have less (the "losers") must be the result of a corrupt system.
(Of course the "system" has problems - one being the granting of special privileges such as monopolies or "intellectual property rights" and other restrictive practices.)
This is just a different analysis of capitalism. I'm happy to have a debate about capitalism with you on a different thread some time but not here, not now.
i.e. You care more about outcomes being different - rather than whether someone acquired fairly.
The reason why people oppose socialism is that, in order to achieve such equality of outcome, individual freedom and difference has to be suppressed,
No, I don't care about outcomes being different. Rather I care about equality of opportunity and I resent privilege (my own and that of others). I believe that if individuals have freedom without responsibility to their community and each other, before too long society becomes riddled with privilege and injustice.
The bit you've put in bold, if you changed "socialism" to "totalitarian communism", I'd agree with you entirely. Using the term "socialism" is ambiguous and once again leads us down a road of semantics, definitions and confusion. Broadly speaking though I do understand what you're getting at. Remember, I'm an anarchist not a socialist. So although I am sympathetic to many socialist ideas and values, where I am at odds with them is almost always in relation to ideas regarding liberty and authority.
LOL
You believe in "freedom" for a different "few", i.e. those who agree with you.
Nope, again that's not true. Already dealt with this accusation. Next.
So why do you watch football ?
This aint a serious question is it?! Tbh I don't watch much football. It doesn't excite me the way it did when I was a kid and very rarely will I watch a game on tv these days. It's only really the Gills that bothers me and in a way that's kind of an affliction and addiction that I've had for most of my life. I've tried to shake it and have periods of abstinence but I'm hooked for life (Gillingham til I die, lol) whether I like it or not.
With regards to my, or anybody's, opposition to capitalism, I really fail to see how that must preclude them from watching football. A couple of observations I have made over the years though, are that I find more right-wing views emanating from football fans than I do in any other aspect of my life, and amongst my anarchist/socialist/anti-capitalist mates, only a small minority are interested in watching football. Again, not scientific so make of it what you will.
We can agree !
And that is how proper free-market capitalism works - "co-operating".
The problem comes when some participants seek - and get - special treatment.
(
We would also have to agree that those who acquire less are not automatically "losers".)
Yes, I'm glad that we can agree about the need for us all to co-operate.
We can't agree that that is how free market capitalism works. I can accept that you think it does. You must accept that I think it doesn't.
We can definitely agree that those who acquire less are not automatically "losers". But can we also agree that those with privilege are far more likely than those without to become, "winners"?
As long as (and as Shotshy alluded to) each individual perceives benefit from "working together"..
i.e. not working for some idealistic, remote, amorphous "collective".
Yes, of course. So we agree on that too! Anarchists aren't interested in some idealistic, remote, amorphous "collective", rather we are interested in creating very real autonomous spaces where the community can participate in and experience the benefits from mutual aid and co-operation. I think maybe you're getting us confused with the Communists again!
