Why “Progressive” Is Anything But

[kilgram]

Who turned communist.

He did not.

[Mister D]

He is individualist. Founder of it.

Отправлено с моего MT15i через Tapatalk

So was Marx.

[Chris]

He did not.

"Godwin is a lot like that elephant. One expert says he's an individualist. Another says he's a communist. And the problem is they're both right. Just as the elephant in the old story is both like a snake and like a tree, so Godwin is both an individualist anarchist — one of us — and a communist anarchist, a person of whom people like us are usually very suspicious, to say the least."

From the link I posted and you didn't bother reading.

It goes on...

Thus, when Murray Rothbard, for example, dismisses Godwin in one throwaway line in a short article on Edmund Burke in a 1958 issue of the Journal of the History of Ideas, calling him "the late eighteenth-century English founder of communist anarchism," it's not hard to figure out why Rothbard might have believed that.

...But after he saw that coercive government should be abolished, he began to espouse a view that modern libertarians should have no difficulty sharing: if you want my property, you have to get it from me by convincing me to give it to you or sell it to you; you may not take it from me by force. Godwin was still a communist of sorts, but the communism he advocated was purely voluntary.

He just didn't contradict his anarchism by advocating democratic statism like you do.

[kilgram]

"Godwin is a lot like that elephant. One expert says he's an individualist. Another says he's a communist. And the problem is they're both right. Just as the elephant in the old story is both like a snake and like a tree, so Godwin is both an individualist anarchist — one of us — and a communist anarchist, a person of whom people like us are usually very suspicious, to say the least."

From the link I posted and you didn't bother reading.

It goes on...



He just didn't contradict his anarchism by advocating democratic statism like you do.

I don't contradict myself. He defended similar organization system as I do.

When I used the term democracy I chose this one because it was the closer to my idea and to simplify my arguments and avoiding to write more. I talked about democracy in the idea of debate, discussion like Godwin.

Отправлено с моего MT15i через Tapatalk

[Chris]

I don't contradict myself. He defended similar organization system as I do.

When I used the term democracy I chose this one because it was the closer to my idea and to simplify my arguments and avoiding to write more. I talked about democracy in the idea of debate, discussion like Godwin.

Отправлено с моего MT15i через Tapatalk

Right, but democracy, even just discursive, results in majority rule, the state, over minority rights. That's the opposite of individualism.

[kilgram]

Right, but democracy, even just discursive, results in majority rule, the state, over minority rights. That's the opposite of individualism.

Most individualists that I've discussed about this topic have given me the reason in the end. I've not only been to reach to you.

Ethereal, Xl and others recognised my point.

I am going to ask you a favor. Think a way to involve everybody in the taking of a decission using your ideology of free mutual agreements or contracts. Let's say everybody pf the town'
Отправлено с моего MT15i через Tapatalk

[Chris]

Most individualists that I've discussed about this topic have given me the reason in the end. I've not only been to reach to you.

Ethereal, Xl and others recognised my point.

I am going to ask you a favor. Think a way to involve everybody in the taking of a decision using your ideology of free mutual agreements or contracts. Let's say everybody pf the town'
Отправлено с моего MT15i через Tapatalk

Under a free market system, democratic decisions and coercions are unnecessary. We've discussed this, I explained in great detail, with your bridge example.

Can a small group realize your utopian vision, sure, because if they should disagree, they can walk away. But that becomes less and less possible under your vision as the community scales up. At some point direct democratic decision making becomes impossible to accomplish, general plans are agreed on but committees of "experts" are formed to work out and dictate the details. You end up recreating what you want to revolt against.

[kilgram]

Under a free market system, democratic decisions and coercions are unnecessary. We've discussed this, I explained in great detail, with your bridge example.

Can a small group realize your utopian vision, sure, because if they should disagree, they can walk away. But that becomes less and less possible under your vision as the community scales up. At some point direct democratic decision making becomes impossible to accomplish, general plans are agreed on but committees of "experts" are formed to work out and dictate the details. You end up recreating what you want to revolt against.

You know that I disagree and under free market many people is left behind or without voice and vote. Is pure elitist.

For this I asked you how do you believe is possible to involve every body in the decision making

Отправлено с моего MT15i через Tapatalk

[Chris]

You know that I disagree and under free market many people is left behind or without voice and vote. Is pure elitist.

For this I asked you how do you believe is possible to involve every body in the decision making

Отправлено с моего MT15i через Tapatalk

You asked me to explain how it works under a free market system. You're agreement with such a system is irrelevant to the question.

many people is left behind or without voice and vote

No one would be coerced (as they would under your democratic communism).

There would be no voting, irrelevant.

For this I asked you how do you believe is possible to involve every body in the decision making

And I answered, under a free market system you do not need to.

Read Leonard Reed's I, Pencil. Pencils are produced. Millions of people, operations, capital, etc etc etc are involved. It's not designed, it's not planned, it's not voted on. Yet it happens, it works, and is arguably the most efficient allocation of limited resources.