[Dyon]

And who is going to reduce it to nightwatchman functions? Some kind of unbiased impartial unicorn politicians?

This rebuttal of yours can be divided into two, distinct, fallacies: a case of ignoratio elenchi and the nirvana fallacy.

Firstly, the evident ignoratio elenchi:

The subject of discussion was not how a nightwatchman state would be implemented. The topic of discussion was: when implemented, would businessmen be beneficiaries of the state? In your words: "[...]where businesspeople will simply make themselves into the only beneficiaries of the state and then call that, "a reduction in the scope and size of the state".

Thus you asking about the implementation is irrelevant and a red herring. I claimed that bailouts and the like are impossible when such a state is reached, and you rebutted by stating that when such a state is reached, such things as bailouts, subsidies (let's group this under: 'decadence' of businessmen) would still exist. In other words, we were arguing about what the entire paradigm would look like, not its implementation and such schematics.

Since you are determined to shift the goal-posts of the argument towards implementation rather than eventual reality, there's another immediate fallacy: the infamous nirvana fallacy.

The theory behind a nightwatchman state posits that such a state can be achieved through gradual reforms. What makes your contestation fallacious (specious) is that you are writing off such a state because it could not be implemented perfectly. In your words you claim only fictious politicians could make such a system possible: "[...]Some kind of unbiased impartial unicorn politicians?"

What makes this fallacious is that you're disregarding a concept because it could not be perfectly implemented. The whole point of a nightwatchman approach is gradual steps towards the desired goal. If the goal could only be partially completed (say, most industries privatized) then the argument is still valid in essence, and denying it due to it not reaching its telos is fallacious. Just as the goal of anti-drunk-driving ads is to reduce, and not necessarily eliminate drunk driving, the goal of nightwatch-man libertarianism is to make a process of privatization gradual, to a point where government would relinquish its functions due to the prevailing social and economic climate.

[Rei Murasame]

So in other words, this whole argument is intellectual masturbation for minarchists, because you people are not actually interested in the implementation of your plan.

So what you actually want to discuss in this thread is not a theory, but instead a dogma. What you are really telling me is "if minarchy appeared and looked like we said it would look, it would look like how we said it would look". That is not a theory.

And as I soon as I point out that your 'gradual reforms' would be presided over by the very same businesspeople who you are allegedly trying to shut out of the system, suddenly you want to claim that my argument is 'fallacious'. I'm a systems analyst, and in my world, when I argue that something is actually not going to achieve what its proponents are claiming it will achieve, that is not a 'fallacious argument' nor is it 'moving the goalposts'. Whether something actually does what its proponents claim it will do, is the most fundamental argument, and is in fact the only goalpost.

[Rainbow Crow]

I'm still wondering who is going to implement feminist-fascism and how they will implement it and what it would actually look like as a form of government.

Maybe...

[Rei Murasame]

This thread isn't about the Third Position, but I'm sure there are plenty of threads on PoFo where it is explained how some people would set about actually making a movement that is nationalist, and socialist, and inclusive of women's input.

But it seems to be some kind of pattern that all threads eventually degenerate to "Rei is wrong because she's a woman", or some variant thereof.

Reported.

[Rainbow Crow]

This thread isn't about the Third Position, but I'm sure there are plenty of threads on PoFo where it is explained how some people would set about actually making a movement that is nationalist, and socialist, and inclusive of women's input.

But it seems to be some kind of pattern that all threads eventually degenerate to "Rei is wrong because she's a woman", or some variant thereof.

Reported.

Not really, I've repeatedly asked you these questions in the past, and your answer has consistently been "I can't know how it will work until it actually happens." But here you are posing the same questions to someone of a more mainstream ideology and acting as if he should be mapping it all out for you.

Pointing out a double standard you have isn't sexism. That's ridiculous. Way out of left field, as we say in the US. You are trying to take the easy way out here, which is far from "empowering."

[Rei Murasame]

I have always answered these same questions when they are posed at me. I always do the necessary work to explain which class of people has an incentive to do what. That's why this is not about me, because I don't have a double standard on these things.

I'm not asking him to 'map it out', I'm asking him to explain why he thinks that the haute-bourgeoisie will have an incentive to enact cuts on itself. It has no incentive to do so, it's a plain as fucking day contradiction, and you are now in this thread running interference because you don't like the fact that I am calling people out on the illogical bullshit that they say.

Regarding the 'sexism' thing, I really don't care how you feel about my reaction to it. I always take the 'easy way out', because it's less effort for me to just point out what you are doing, rather than play some stupid game where we pretend that there is some kind of mutual respect happening here.

[Rainbow Crow]

No, you really haven't. You've done the exact same thing that he is doing, except that his ideology is more mainstream, so there should be no onus on him to explain it. It's kind of self-explanatory. Whereas the book on feminist-fascism has yet to be written. You are lucky that the text search function is down or I would find posts where you make excuses for not explaining yourself. And you must realize that calling my criticism sexist is really weak. Is that going to be your new thing, to call all criticisms of feminist-oriented arguments sexist?

[Rei Murasame]

You've done the exact same thing that he is doing

No I haven't.

And you must realize that calling my criticism sexist is really weak.

I don't realise that at all. You wouldn't be making this silly argument if it were a man saying the things that I am presently saying in this thread.

there should be no onus on him to explain it.

You are saying that there should be no onus on him to explain why he imagines that Exxon-Mobil will enact cuts against subsidies that are directed toward Exxon-Mobil? Is that what you are actually telling me? He gains the ability to not have to pay attention to incentives and class antagonisms, simply because his ideology is 'mainstream'?

Breathtaking. Now I can see why the English-speaking world is the way it is today, that has to be one of the most surreal attempts at defending minarchy I've ever seen. "The media talks about it a lot, therefore there is no need for them to address questions about why the incentives don't line up". Just, wow.

[Dyon]

Wtf, Rei?

Your argument makes no sense. Obviously with the Republicans or Democrats or any other business sponsored party the reforms I want are not going to be implemented. I can spin your silly argument, saying why would the current government morph into what you want it to look like while its funded by business sponsored parties. The point here is that a party needs to be elected who does not pander to multinational interests, and I think we can both agree on that.

[Rei Murasame]

Aha! Okay, yes, we actually agree on that then.

It would have been much faster if you had said that at the beginning, we didn't have to fight like this at all. However, if you are not building a party on big business sponsorship, I assume you'd also agree that this means you need to get small business owners and organised labour to sponsor such a party instead?

[Dyon]

Yes precisely.

Just an aside: I`m not sure if I can speak for every classical liberal, but the Occupy protests in 2011 and after were a good sign. Except someone must tell them occupying Wall St. is not tackling the problem. Occupy Pennsylvania Ave is what the movement actually needs. Government and big business go hand in hand. Bribery/corruption and the like are possible when government is bloated and incompetent.

[Varax]

Neoliberalism is a term that needs to be understood in historical context. It is primarily a rejection of reform-liberalism and the concessions made to organized labor and the welfare state. It represents a quest by the business class to profit from the weakening of labor movements whose power was eroded thanks to global labor arbitrage, increased automation downsizing workforces, and the growth of FIRE which was all embraced by neoliberalism. From that standpoint it was a great success, albeit short-sighted and ignored many of the systemic issues that brought the concessions granted by reform-liberalism in the first place.

The result has been falling real wages and growing economic inequality - which was coupled with a greater extension of credit and growing debt (private and public) in an effort to keep up standard of living as the labor market shifted towards low wage service sector jobs. Labor arbitrage and downsizing completely gutted some communities whose residents were essentially told "tough shit" and get a job elsewhere or make due working at McDonalds or something. Many of these issues where masked especially in the 1990s by strong technological growth which opened up new economic sectors along with major gains in productivity - but it still didn't change the underlying systemic issues. With the financial crisis the issues of neoliberalism where brought to the fore, which has resulted in some rebound for the notions of reform-liberalism, but neoliberalism and its systemic problems still holds sway.

[Rei Murasame]

Occupy Pennsylvania Ave is what the movement actually needs. Government and big business go hand in hand. Bribery/corruption and the like are possible when government is bloated and incompetent.

Why not just occupy both? I could quite easily spin your statement the other way and point out that government is possible because big business established the government.

The government just the fora in which the ruling class debates its shared history and future policy preferences. It is simply the command tent from which the forces in the field are commanded, but the body of the opposition is in civil society. So if you are going to clash with the state, you are going to also have to clash with the people who set up the state as well.

[Rainbow Crow]

They would have to travel to do that, it's much easier to go to your local banking sector. And if you're going to travel, you might as well see New York!

Also possible is that they occupy Wall Street instead of the capital because they wish everything was the same only they were the ones on Wall Street.

[Donna]

There are also heretical and super-transcendental ways of looking at neoliberalism, as well.

As an individualistic and often lawless movement, it has also allowed secret societies to link fortunes, industries and corporations together in radical new ways that completely influence civil society. Even the Occupy Wall Street protests (the brainchild of Adbusters, which progressive billionaires love to throw money at) was a part of this millennial trinity between protester, corporation, and state. Some people interpret these cabals as being wholly sinister while others might view them as an intently benevolent mystical society that functions as a Platonic guide for the immature world spirit; the elder brothers of the human race and the incorruptible gatekeepers of absolute power, which can never be entrusted to self-interested individuals who have not achieved gnosis and planetary consciousness.

[Decky]

Its original meaning did not change. It became a 'political swearword' because its meaning runs contrary to the interests of whole classes of people. Obviously the classes of people who do not benefit from it, are going to say the word 'neoliberal' with a tone of apprehension.

This.

Neoliberalism is a term that needs to be understood in historical context. It is primarily a rejection of reform-liberalism and the concessions made to organized labor and the welfare state. It represents a quest by the business class to profit from the weakening of labor movements whose power was eroded thanks to global labor arbitrage, increased automation downsizing workforces, and the growth of FIRE which was all embraced by neoliberalism. From that standpoint it was a great success, albeit short-sighted and ignored many of the systemic issues that brought the concessions granted by reform-liberalism in the first place.

The result has been falling real wages and growing economic inequality - which was coupled with a greater extension of credit and growing debt (private and public) in an effort to keep up standard of living as the labor market shifted towards low wage service sector jobs. Labor arbitrage and downsizing completely gutted some communities whose residents were essentially told "tough shit" and get a job elsewhere or make due working at McDonalds or something. Many of these issues where masked especially in the 1990s by strong technological growth which opened up new economic sectors along with major gains in productivity - but it still didn't change the underlying systemic issues. With the financial crisis the issues of neoliberalism where brought to the fore, which has resulted in some rebound for the notions of reform-liberalism, but neoliberalism and its systemic problems still holds sway.

And this.

Neo-Liberalism is the idea that everthing the left has fought for on behalf of the working class since 1945 should be destroyed. It is prominent in the west today as the left are a shadow of our frmer selves and are too weak to defend our gains and the working class are too right wing to agitate for their own intrests.

Obviously it will be opposed by people who don't think society should exist for people sitting in mansions doing fuck all. Why wouldn't it be?

[Unthinking Majority]

I've studied neoliberalism. It is, generally, an economic theory that benefits wealth concentration into the hands of the wealthy, especially those who own business/capital. It has a tendency to increase income inequality within countries.

In most cases (not entirely all, but most), neoliberalism has been very harmful to developing countries (besides some of the wealthy in those countries, though many can certainly be impacted negatively too). The last 35 years have been proof of this, and the IMF, World Bank (who have admitted it), and virtually every development NGO knows it. The "Washington Consensus" (google it) of the 90's within the Bretton Woods institutions has been proven to be trash (hundreds of academic papers come to this conclusion) . It benefited Washington and US corporations, not developing countries. Oops!