- Capitalism and Alternatives -


Posted by: Samuel Day Fassbinder ( Citizens for Mustard Greens, USA ) on June 21, 1999 at 17:30:10:

In Reply to: The Fassbinder amorphousness: society is. posted by borg on June 21, 1999 at 15:02:44:

: : : In my opinion, the root of statism is born out of a contempt for people and the belief that they are inherently bad, whereas libertarianism is a political-economic belief on the assumption that people are essentially good.

: : SDF: Propertarianism is a taboo upon sharing based on a contempt for other people and what they might do with things, based on the assumption that people are essentially bad.

: I know a number of propietarians who donate generously.
: None of the ones I know would appreciate the idea that
: they are obliged to participate in a system of forced charity,
: a contradiction in terms.

SDF: Charity: compensation for those who haven't been granted a fair share under the current propertarian system, based on the notion that people are inherently contemptible and deserving of pity and a handout.

: [snipped ad hominem, Fassbinders favorite tool of oppression.]

SDF: Let's examine exactly what I said, we can see how "ad hominem" it really was:

SDF: You too have been fooled by the phony communists. Pol Pot called his regime the "Democratic Republic of Kampuchea". Did you believe him when he said it was democratic? So why should you believe him when he said it was communist? Are you a "discriminating" fool who believes liars only half the time?

Thesis: Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao etc. and other so-called "communists" were liars.
Supporting evidence: Pol Pot named his government "Democratic Republic of Kampuchea," when in fact his government was a dictatorship, to name just one example of many "communists" who have done the same thing.
2nd thesis: Pol Pot called his government "communist"
Conclusion: Neither Pol Pot nor other so-called "communists" are to be trusted when they invoke the name of "communism" or "democratic."
3rd thesis: Medlock trusts Pol Pot et al., and takes these dictators at their word when they describe their regimes as "communist".
Conclusion: You draw this one.

: : : or despotism, begins with the presupposition that people are unfit to rule themselves,

: [snipped non sequitur]

Nope, not non sequitur: the reference was to "communist totalitarianism":

SDF: Nope, communism is based upon rule by the people, all the people, not merely by the ruling
financial classes.


: : : On the obverse side of the coin, classical liberals, libertarians and supporters of a free-market begin with the assumption that people are inherently good and are fit to be the sole arbitrators of their own lives.

: : SDF: Based on the illusion of "every man a Robinson Crusoe," and ignoring the interdependencies that make up real-life society. People are not, never have been, and never will be the sole arbitrators of their own lives, they've always been and will always be hemmed in by social connections.

: Fassbinder's society: We are all victims of each other now.
: Don't do your thing. Always ask the all knowing and wise in power
: and your neighbor before you take a crap. He might want to take
: one with you. In any case, there's always someone around to
: dis it, whatever "it" might be.

SDF: Borg's false dilemma: either we live in a society of Robinson Crusoes, or "we are all victims of each other now." A society where people can be dependent, or interdependent, where choice is constrained by webs of necessity and dependency, is not necessarily visible from the purview of a libertarian ideology where either we are completely 100% "free," or somebody is "forcing us." In real life, no action is either completely free or completely forced, and almost all action exists in the gray area in between. At any rate, in real life, we might all be "doing our thing" -- but it's all an improvisation based on the cultural programming we've been raised upon, by our families, by our communities, by our ideological conditioning, and we are not and will never be the "sole arbitrators of our own lives" in this respect.

: : :They believe that the individualistic interests of people are naturally compatible. Libertarians generally like people and think the best of them.

: : SDF: A free-market system makes government into a commodity to be sold to the highest bidder. And if government is to produce a profit for those who put up the highest bid for its services, it must be coercive, preferably in the most totalitarian mode possible.

: Bald assertion and full of sound and fury...

SDF: Nope. Please explain why these people are paying so much money if they aren't buying government services...

Follow Ups:

The Debating Room Post a Followup