[SolarCross]

Well even the SU didn't call themselves Communist as it was a Social Republic FYI. Whether there is a few delusionists on PoFo who consider the SU a Communist state and that proves is they obviously don't understand what Communism is. So no, I don't buy your BS.

It was ruled by a communist party staffed exclusively by communists. "communism" isn't anything at all, it is a barely described utopian state whose only function is as bait for the steel trap of socialism. It is a scam actually and it is the same scam then as now.

Although the Non Aggressive Principle is clearly nothing to do with deciding not to pay tax for the benefits of society - especially if you agree to the social contract as you live within it and haven't decided to become an outlaw instead. VS accepts payment in Dollars so obviously accepts the rules of his state in accordance to their economic system BTW. Although I do find the irony somewhat amusing when someone who is against paying tax for welfare is currently on welfare because he paid tax (the whole point of tax for welfare I suppose). Talk about standing up for your values.

It is applicable to tax because a non aggressive transaction is one in which both parties consent.

[B0ycey]

It was ruled by a communist party staffed exclusively by communists. "communism" isn't anything at all, it is a barely described utopian state whose only function is as bait for the steel trap of socialism. It is a scam actually and it is the same scam then as now.

What does it matter how the CPSU describe themselves? The SU wasn't considered a Communist state by the SU as it wasn't. Although if you are playing the personal description card then all parties who call themselves Libertarian must be libertarian under your logic. And then their crimes must be attached to their political ideology.

It is applicable to tax because a non aggressive transaction is one in which both parties consent.

You consent by accepting Dollars as payment. Not to mention you accept by being part of the social contract. If you don't like paying tax then accept payment in something else or don't work at all.

[SolarCross]

What does it matter how the CPSU describe themselves? The SU wasn't considered a Communist state by the SU as it wasn't. Although if you are playing the personal description card then all parties who call themselves Libertarian must be libertarian under your logic. And then their crimes must be attached to their political ideology.

It is more than a description, it is their agenda, the literature they reference, their rhetoric and justifications and goals, it was all communist, marxian.

You consent by accepting Dollars as payment. Not to mention you accept by being part of the social contract. If you don't like paying tax then accept payment in something else or don't work at all.

This is very debatable and sketchy but it is a debate for another thread. We have already gone way off topic.

[B0ycey]

It is more than a description, it is their agenda, the literature they reference, their rhetoric and justifications and goals, it was all communist, marxian.


This is very debatable and sketchy but it is a debate for another thread. We have already gone way off topic.

I agree we are off topic so this is my final word on the issue.

The agenda by the SU was a totalitarian Socialist State - which was what they got. If the goal was Communism they would have achieved it. Although it does need to be said that as by definition there has never been a communist state, you can not say a communist state has committed violence. Although you can say that about a Liberal state - unless you redefine what you consider NAP to mean to what you believe/wish it means of course. And as such Noemon was correct with his evaluation on VSs contradiction.

[noemon]

If one subscribes to the notion of the NAP then one is at least a partial libertarian but only someone who accepts some variant of the NAP can really criticise unhypocritically the hypothetical aggressions of the US because if you reject the NAP then you have no basis for criticising the US for not always living up to that ideal.

The NAP is the most utopian fairytale that a mind can conceive of that not even 5 year old children can fall for. Someone has to be either utterly naive or completely hypocritical to pretend that the NAP can exist anywhere other than fairy-tales where they all lived happily ever after in total harmony.

For those of us who are not deluded utopianists, communism and libertarianism are simply the 2 extremes, one supposes that private property should not exist and the other supposes that only private property should exist. Libertarianism in fact was imagined by a repressed Soviet lady in reaction to Soviet communism while being high on the American dream. At least the communists do not pretend that if they gain power they will render violence and aggression non-existent which is what the libertarians pretend and which makes them even more ridiculous than commies.

Obviously these 2 extremes are both utopian as neither can actually exist in reality since even the public management of communism will fall under private eyes and personal individuals trying to make a buck out of it and rendering private property as the ultimate good simply gives a green light to the strongest corporation to assume total command of a country's economy and even a country's police and military since libertarians argue that private companies should have the right to run their own security outside the scope of the state which effectively means exactly that. At that point it will not matter if there is a NAP because monopoly will mean that it will be irrelevant and that everyone will have to abide by the orders of that corporation whether one chooses to or not.

The US is the country with the highest level of libertarianism in the world and the SU was the country with the highest level of communism in the world. Obviously neither of the 2 was 100% of whatever those things pretend to be but they both aspire to be and are only held back by minute opposition and hard reality.

As expected VS and SolarCross you are resembling the same apologetics that the communists makes in relation to the SU. If you actually bother to read their arguments in here you will notice that the substance of them are identical to yours. And at the end of the day, it is undeniable that libertarianism is in fact the guiding ideology of the USA.

[SolarCross]

The NAP is the most utopian fairytale that a mind can conceive of that not even 5 year old children can fall for. Someone has to be either utterly naive or completely hypocritical to pretend that the NAP can exist anywhere other than fairy-tales where they all lived happily ever after in total harmony.

The alternative is might makes right.

For those of us who are not deluded utopionists, communism and libertarianism are simply the 2 extremes, one supposes that private property should not exist and they other supposes that only private property should exist. At least the communists do not pretend that if they gain power they will render violence and aggression non-existant which is what the libertarians pretend and which makes them even more ridiculous than commies.

Obviously these 2 extremes are both utopian as neither can actually exist in reality since even the public management of communism will fall under private eyes and personal individuals trying to make a buck out of it and rendering private property as the ultimate good simply gives a green light to the strongest corporation to assume total command of a country's economy and even a country's police and military since libertarians argue that private companies should have the right to run their own security outside the scope of the state which effectively means exactly that. At that point it will not matter if there is a NAP because monopoly will mean that it will be irrelevant and that everyone will have to abide by the orders of that corporation whether one chooses to or not.

The US is the country with the highest level of libertarianism in the world and the SU was the country with the highest level of communism in the world. Obviously neither of the 2 was 100% of whatever those things pretend to be but they both aspire to be and are only held back by minute opposition and hard reality.

Isn't it funny that "SU" is the reverse of "US"? Well if the US is an imperfect crystalisation of the libertarian ideal and the SU is the imperfect crystalisation of the communist ideal then that speaks rather well for libertarianism as for all its faults the US is infinitely preferable over the SU for any reasonable person.

[noemon]

The alternative is might makes right.

It is not an alternative but reality, a reality which can be moderated by civil society.

Isn't it funny that "SU" is the reverse of "US"? Well if the US is an imperfect crystalisation of the libertarian ideal and the SU is the imperfect crystalisation of the communist ideal then that speaks rather well for libertarianism as for all its faults the US infinitely preferable over the SU for any reasonable person.

Sure. But there are also better than both like the Scandinavian countries who are the crystallisation of social democracy.

[SolarCross]

It is not an alternative but reality, a reality which can be moderated by civil society.

I agree but the moderation is, in one form or another, the NAP; holding that is it wrong to initiate force is the necessary fiction on which civil society is made elsewise there is nothing but might makes right. When two people are found fighting then civil society pretends that the one who started the fight was in the wrong whereas in reality, by might makes right, only the loser of the fight was in the wrong and it doesn't matter who started it. If the NAP is a utopian fiction it is one that is indispensable for civilised society.

Sure. But there are also better than both like the Scandinavian countries who are the crystallisation of social democracy.

That is debatable but ultimately it is just a matter of personal taste. I think I would find the US less suffocating than the Nordic model. I am over forty years old, too old to be coddled by a fussy nanny. At some point people have to grow up.

[QatzelOk]

I disagree with that because the US is a vital bulwark keeping China, Russia and the Islamic world in check. A weaker US just means the others will be bigger and bolder.

This like saying that if YOU don't sell drugs to middle school kids, someone else will, and that person will be even nastier than you are.

It's a way of justifying horrible, anti-social behavior by evoking the specter of "people even worse than we are."

[SolarCross]

This like saying that if YOU don't sell drugs to middle school kids, someone else will, and that person will be even nastier than you are.

It's a way of justifying horrible, anti-social behavior by evoking the specter of "people even worse than we are."

No it isn't it because Russia, China and the Islamic world actually will take expansionary advantage over US weakness and they actually are worse (though Russia may have improved a bit in recent decades).

[QatzelOk]

No it isn't it because Russia, China and the Islamic world actually will take expansionary advantage over US weakness and they actually are worse (though Russia may have improved a bit in recent decades).

You mean that Arabs and Muslims might take back some of what we've stolen from them during our last few centuries of genocidal wars?

Sounds like you're worried more about staying on top (or a pile of dead bones) than of actually co-existing with other people.

And that's because Western culture has been degraded by commerce, commercial media, and commercial wars. A thousand mosque massacres have been committed by the West and all we can say is: "Thank you for your service" to the damaged soldiers who return, who only enlisted so that they could finally go to college (which is impossible otherwise for most Americans).

Uncle Sam says: "You want an education? Go kill poors for industry, and then we'll talk."

[SolarCross]

You mean that Arabs and Muslims might take back some of what we've stolen from them during our last few centuries of genocidal wars?

Sounds like you're worried more about staying on top (or a pile of dead bones) than of actually co-existing with other people.

And that's because Western culture has been degraded by commerce, commercial media, and commercial wars. A thousand mosque massacres have been committed by the West and all we can say is: "Thank you for your service" to the damaged soldiers who return, who only enlisted so that they could finally go to college (which is impossible otherwise for most Americans).

Uncle Sam says: "You want an education? Go kill poors for industry, and then we'll talk."

You are completely unaware how it came to be that Islam occupies a 1/4 of the world and has captured a 1/4 of the world's people.

[Pants-of-dog]

Are you saying that the actions of some Muslims long ago somehow justifies killing peaceful Muslims now?

[Kaiserschmarrn]

Yeah, well trying to pretend there's some meaningful distinction between US bombings, drone strikes, JSOC death squads, counter-insurgency dirty wars and Islamic terror attacks is completely dishonest. The US is the biggest terror state in the history of the world.

Yeah, well, if western majorities were so genocidal and keen to attack civilians, or if there was really mainstream Islamophobia in the western world, we wouldn't have a problem with Islamic terrorists in the first place. Domestically, we would just deal with Muslims like China, and abroad we would have little need for precision warfare and special ops. The fact you think that this is evidence for majority support in western countries for genocide and attacks on civilian, when it's more likely evidence for the opposite, would be hilarious, if it weren't so utterly ignorant.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Nazi Germany. [...]

Hiroshima, and Nagasaki. [...]

How is any of this evidence that you can easily convince western majorities to support genocide and attacks on civilians? Seriously, it's not even clear that a majority supported genocide in Nazi Germany, a totalitarian state that didn't allow any dissent. The fact that you had to go back to WWII for most of your examples just shows how ludicrous your claim is, and is further proof that the less the western world is like Nazi Germany, the more is becoming like it dishonestly invoked as an immediate threat.

Neither are your more recent examples evidence for majority support for targeting civilians, much less genocide.

There was widespread acceptance of his Muslim ban

Since there wasn't a Muslim ban there could have been no acceptance.

It is exactly that.

No. The west is at war with some Muslim majority countries. The west is not at war with most Muslim majority countries. And the west certainly isn't waging war against Muslims as a group. If it actually were, if real Islamophobia was so widespread, if genocidal sentiment could be so easily invoked in western populations, rest assured that it would look quite different. You guys really need to get a grip.

The US was (is?) a member of the Saudi led coalition in the recent conflict in Yemen

The US, or any other western country, is not a member of the coalition and has never been.

She is not. Her silence when her parents were killing people speaks volumes itself, though.

She'll come out in support of genocide soon, no doubt.

[Pants-of-dog]

How is any of this evidence that you can easily convince western majorities to support genocide and attacks on civilians? Seriously, it's not even clear that a majority supported genocide in Nazi Germany, a totalitarian state that didn't allow any dissent. The fact that you had to go back to WWII for most of your examples just shows how ludicrous your claim is, and is further proof that the less the western world is like Nazi Germany, the more is becoming like it dishonestly invoked as an immediate threat.

Neither are your more recent examples evidence for majority support for targeting civilians, much less genocide.

WWII was within living memory. An 89 year old today would would have been 15 in 1945. This is not some far distant past. And both sides commonly attacked civilians.

Moreover, I used many more recent examples, including one that happened within the last few years.

Since there wasn't a Muslim ban there could have been no acceptance.

Again, there was widespread acceptance of Trump’s Islamophobic proposal.

This indicates widespread acceptance of Islamophobia.

No. The west is at war with some Muslim majority countries. The west is not at war with most Muslim majority countries. And the west certainly isn't waging war against Muslims as a group. If it actually were, if real Islamophobia was so widespread, if genocidal sentiment could be so easily invoked in western populations, rest assured that it would look quite different. You guys really need to get a grip.

Again, the fact that we are not bombing ALL Muslim countries does not change the fact that we are bombing some of them.

The US, or any other western country, is not a member of the coalition and has never been.

As far as I know, it is part of the coalition.

Even if it is not, it is stiil providing cluster bombs and intelligence and other resources. And it would be incredibly surprising to find out that they remain unaware of the coalition attacks against civilians.

She'll come out in support of genocide soon, no doubt.

I doubt it. She will probably continue to provide hypocritical sound bytes so that people can console themselves that they are not killing civilians and providing societal supoort for these sorts of terrorist attacks.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

WWII was within living memory. An 89 year old today would would have been 15 in 1945. This is not some far distant past. And both sides commonly attacked civilians. Moreover, I used many more recent examples, including one that happened within the last few years.

WWII is one of the more extreme historical events, culminating at one point in "total war". Hence, it's decidedly not a good way to prove that majority support for atrocities and genocides is something to come by "easily" as you claim. And as I explained already, none of your recent examples is evidence for majority support either. You even mentioned "battle rape" as if the fact that it happened proves that majorities cheered it on.

Again, there was widespread acceptance of Trump’s Islamophobic proposal. This indicates widespread acceptance of Islamophobia.

No. It indicates a desire to have control over and check who comes into the country, especially with respect to potential terrorists.

Again, the fact that we are not bombing ALL Muslim countries does not change the fact that we are bombing some of them.

Again, the fact that the west is at war with some Muslim majority countries doesn't mean it is waging a war against Muslims as a group.

As far as I know, it is part of the coalition. Even if it is not, it is stiil providing cluster bombs and intelligence and other resources. And it would be incredibly surprising to find out that they remain unaware of the coalition attacks against civilians.

It isn't. If your contention is that the US should do more to prevent its allies from committing atrocities, then say that rather than claiming the US itself has targeted civilians.

I doubt it. She will probably continue to provide hypocritical sound bytes so that people can console themselves that they are not killing civilians and providing societal supoort for these sorts of terrorist attacks.

She was berated for calling statements by a Muslim member of congress antisemitic, which is apparently the kind of "Islamophobia" that makes her responsible for the NZ terror attack.

[Victoribus Spolia]

the SU is not communist within your own stardards (or anyone else for that matter), it is not possible for a Communist regime to have committed terror or violence either.

I think the plethora of communists on this board (who also call themselves Stalinists) would beg to differ. How many times do the likes of @Potemkin and @Decky have to correct you until you'll get it right? Stalinism is a school of communism that believes itself consistent with Marx, the worst parts of the SU were LITERALLY during Stalin and that is the predominant school of marxist thought today among orthodox marxists. That is, they would say Stalin's programs were generally justifiable.

By contrast, name two libertarians on here that are currently active that believe the USA is consistent with libertarian philosophy. You won't find any.

This is of course why your analogy is an entirely false one, the comparison doesn't hold up. Actual libertarians are very critical of the U.S., whereas actual communists often support both the SU and even Stalin himself.

Talk about standing up for your values.

I don't see getting back some of what they stole from me as against my values. That sounds silly.

I do have a problem with those who are anti-state being pro-welfare and being welfare dependent, but that is something completely different.

But, @SolarCross is ultimately right about taxes, taxation is not voluntary if both parties involved in the exchange did not explicitly consent and I would LOVE to see you apply your very loose idea of "implicit consent" to sexual relations and see how far that gets you.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

I'd like to see you apply your very loose idea of "implicit consent" to sexual relations and see how far that gets you.

Now I can't get the mental image of "enthusiastic consent" by tax payers out of my head.

[Victoribus Spolia]

ow I can't get the mental image of "enthusiastic consent" by tax payers out of my head.

I am actually having a hard time getting it in my head as its so far fetched.

As I told someone before, if giving up one's right to vote were a condition of being taxed, you would see the end of all major western regimes within 48 hours.

[SolarCross]

On the subject of taxes I reckon I could come up with a half a dozen ways of justifying taxes even with a lofty moral paradigm like the NAP but of course no government ever tries to do that and the reason is because taxation evolved from raiding and all governors accept the validity of taxation on the morality of raiding, of might makes right, it never occurs to them they could do it in a more civilised way.