*Official WR Liberal Concession Thread*

[Greoric]

I don't think the idea of liberty can co-exist with the socialist state. Atleast that's what I've found out from living in one for the past couple of decades.

Yeah, naturally. Liberty and redistributive efforts from the left or Security by the State from the conservatives are mutual exclusive goals.

 

[kpt018]

Negative. Authoritarians want more authority. Authority is about control, and leftists like you want more control over society and individuals. Therefore you're an authoritarian and a leftist.

Authoritarianism is a form of government characterized by strong central power and limited political freedoms. Juan Linz's influential 1964 description of authoritarianism[1] characterized authoritarian political systems by four qualities:

1. limited political pluralism; that is, such regimes place constraints on political institutions and groups like legislatures, political parties and interest groups;
2. a basis for legitimacy based on emotion, especially the identification of the regime as a necessary evil to combat "easily recognizable societal problems" such as underdevelopment or insurgency;
3. minimal social mobilization most often caused by constraints on the public such as suppression of political opponents and anti-regime activity;
4. informally defined executive power with often vague and shifting powers.

Seriously, I fall under none of those, so really, stop calling me something I'm not. In many ways I want less government control over people.

 

[kpt018]

Well, the point was, basically, I don't think Greoric is talking about "liberals" specifically. He's talking about leftists, who can also be hard-line socialists, which ought to be separated from the liberals. And many socialists tend to turn towards the authoritarian rule, as a result of wanting to increase the power and control of the state over the population in order to impose equality.

We have to be a bit careful not to cross the line from presenting people with equal opportunity, to enforcing equal outcomes. Sometimes, the leftists tend to cross this line in their eagerness for egalitarianism.

Ok, but I fall under none of these (I'm not a socialist). And look at his post, he continues to call me an authoritarian and it's not even close, so forgive me if I'm a bit sensitive here. Your posting has been perfectly reasonable whereas he is badly misrepresenting my views.

 

[TheGreatA]

Yeah, naturally. Liberty and redistributive efforts from the left or Security by the State from the conservatives are mutual exclusive goals.

Atleast your conservatives still hold on to the beliefs that a free man ought to have the right to arm himself and to protect himself. Such rights have been lost for a long time in these places.

This, despite the fact that this country was built by men who armed themselves, trained themselves and fought off their oppressors.

 

[theBLADE1]

L O L At the weakling spineless Democrats in this thread! No wonder Hillary lost the way she did, look how bitchmade her supporters were.

Should have supported Sanders when it mattered Idiots. Now you get what you deserve...

 

[TheGreatA]

Ok, but I fall under none of these (I'm not a socialist). And look at his post, he continues to call me an authoritarian and it's not even close, so forgive me if I'm a bit sensitive here. Your posting has been perfectly reasonable whereas he is badly misrepresenting my views.

Well, I cannot speak for anybody else. Greoric, from what I understand, holds very strict views when it comes to issues such as taxation and else.

None of us like to think of ourselves as "authoritarian". But sometimes we must recognize what it takes to impose our views. We don't expect people to pay their taxes out of their free will. We expect that if the people are unwilling to pay their taxes, they are punished, and this ultimately leads us to utilizing authoritarian methods in order to enforce our policies. The more policies that are imposed, the more authoritarian the government is forced to become in its pursuit to see those policies upheld and obeyed by the population.

One of the great pitfalls of liberal-minded people today, is to come up with an idea of a State which is moral, which allows equal opportunities, which offers the necessary services to sustain human life at a standard which is acceptable, while not allowing the State a near limitless amount of power and influence, to the point where it infringes upon the liberty of the citizens. To raise the taxes, to introduce more government regulation, to allow the State to take control of certain industries, these seem an easy answer to many humanitarian problems, but at the same time the State is allowed to slowly creep upwards in the level of power that it possesses.

The citizens eventually become more dependent upon the State to provide their welfare and the ideas of individuality and liberty eventually perish under collectivism and security provided by the State. This scenario is what a liberal must attempt to avoid, as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Greoric]

Seriously, I fall under none of those, so really, stop calling me something I'm not. In many ways I want less government control over people.

Is that right?

 

[Greoric]

Well, I cannot speak for anybody else. Greoric, from what I understand, holds very strict views when it comes to issues such as taxation and else.

None of us like to think of ourselves as "authoritarian". But sometimes we must recognize what it takes to impose our views. We don't expect people to pay their taxes out of their free will. We expect that if the people are unwilling to pay their taxes, they are punished, and this ultimately leads us to utilizing authoritarian methods in order to enforce our policies. The more policies that are imposed, the more authoritarian the government is forced to become in its pursuit to see those policies upheld and obeyed by the population.

One of the great pitfalls of liberal-minded people today, is to come up with an idea of a State which is moral, which allows equal opportunities, which offers the necessary services to sustain human life at a standard which is acceptable, while not allowing the State a near limitless amount of power and influence, to the point where it infringes upon the liberty of the citizens. To raise the taxes, to introduce more government regulation, to allow the State to take control of certain industries, these seem an easy answer to many humanitarian problems, but at the same time the State is allowed to slowly creep upwards in the level of power that it possesses.

The citizens eventually become more dependent upon the State to provide their welfare and the ideas of individuality and liberty eventually perish under collectivism and security provided by the State. This scenario is what a liberal must attempt to avoid, as far as I'm concerned.

I find it most interesting that when I bring up the ethical legitimacy of taxes, leftists like @kpt018 automatically revert themselves to minarchists by asking, "Why who will build the roads or pay the police?" Their first arguments never go to, "Well who will pay planned parenthood? Who will pay the alphabet soup of bureaucracies?"

 

[Greoric]

Atleast your conservatives still hold on to the beliefs that a free man ought to have the right to arm himself and to protect himself. Such rights have been lost for a long time in these places.

This, despite the fact that this country was built by men who armed themselves, trained themselves and fought off their oppressors.

I agree. That's the most foundational of all our rights. When authoritarians strip that, stand by.

 

[Greoric]

Well, I cannot speak for anybody else. Greoric, from what I understand, holds very strict views when it comes to issues such as taxation and else.

None of us like to think of ourselves as "authoritarian". But sometimes we must recognize what it takes to impose our views. We don't expect people to pay their taxes out of their free will. We expect that if the people are unwilling to pay their taxes, they are punished, and this ultimately leads us to utilizing authoritarian methods in order to enforce our policies. The more policies that are imposed, the more authoritarian the government is forced to become in its pursuit to see those policies upheld and obeyed by the population.

One of the great pitfalls of liberal-minded people today, is to come up with an idea of a State which is moral, which allows equal opportunities, which offers the necessary services to sustain human life at a standard which is acceptable, while not allowing the State a near limitless amount of power and influence, to the point where it infringes upon the liberty of the citizens. To raise the taxes, to introduce more government regulation, to allow the State to take control of certain industries, these seem an easy answer to many humanitarian problems, but at the same time the State is allowed to slowly creep upwards in the level of power that it possesses.

The citizens eventually become more dependent upon the State to provide their welfare and the ideas of individuality and liberty eventually perish under collectivism and security provided by the State. This scenario is what a liberal must attempt to avoid, as far as I'm concerned.

If you haven't seen a talk by Robert Higgs you might be interested with regard to some of these points you've made.

 

[Makani]

Congratulations on the win. You were taken in by an epic conman, but I'm willing to give him a chance to prove me wrong, for the good of my home country. Just remember the way you treated Obama these past 8 years, especially since you just elected the birther-in-chief.

 

[Greoric]

Ok, but I fall under none of these (I'm not a socialist). And look at his post, he continues to call me an authoritarian and it's not even close, so forgive me if I'm a bit sensitive here. Your posting has been perfectly reasonable whereas he is badly misrepresenting my views.

I'm not calling you a socialist. Unlike some people on here I don't need to misrepresent your views. I'm sure if you were socialist you'd have no problem saying that in this forum. In fact, it'd be decorus if you did.

The point is that not only is the level of governance you advocate for, given you support of Hillary, immoral and unethical it also destroys the potential growth and prosperity. That's what I'm trying to get you to acknowledge. The fact that you're not a socialist just makes it easier to unwind less bullshit.

 

[TheGreatA]

I agree. That's the most foundational of all our rights. When authoritarians strip that, stand by.

Expect the 50% tax rates to come soon after.

I only have a very rough understanding of the impact of taxation on the economy, but I've come to acknowledge, through the study of now-fallen empires, that the eventual decline is often associated with the high tax rates of latter days.

To borrow from Ibn-Khaldun (written in 1377):

"In the early stages of the state, taxes are light in their incidence, but fetch in a large revenue...As time passes and kings succeed each other, they lose their tribal habits in favor of more civilized ones. Their needs and exigencies grow...owing to the luxury in which they have been brought up. Hence they impose fresh taxes on their subjects...and sharply raise the rate of old taxes to increase their yield...But the effects on business of this rise in taxation make themselves felt. For business men are soon discouraged by the comparison of their profits with the burden of their taxes...Consequently production falls off, and with it the yield of taxation."

Also:

"Businesses owned by responsible and organized merchants shall eventually surpass those owned by wealthy rulers."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muqaddimah#Economics

These things have been understood for atleast a thousand years, if not more.

If you haven't seen a talk by Robert Higgs you might be interested with regard to some of these points you've made.

I should look him up. I have not invested enough time to develop a deeper undestanding of this topic.

 

[Greoric]

I should look him up. I have not invested enough time to develop a deeper undestanding into such issues.

Then you're wise beyond your knowledge. He talks about the same points you mentioned, where the government's influence and long term trajectory is always up. They're always looking for more power, and the major accelerant to that growth are crises. He makes the caveat that you can see government's relinquish power, but the amount of power they let go of is hardly ever more than what they had prior to the last crisis.

Hence the infamous line, "Never let a crisis go to waste."

 

[kpt018]

I'm not calling you a socialist. Unlike some people on here I don't need to misrepresent your views. I'm sure if you were socialist you'd have no problem saying that in this forum. In fact, it'd be decorus if you did.

The point is that not only is the level of governance you advocate for, given you support of Hillary, immoral and unethical it also destroys the potential growth and prosperity. That's what I'm trying to get you to acknowledge. The fact that you're not a socialist just makes it easier to unwind less bullshit.

You called me an authoritarian, which is misrepresenting my views. So stop doing it or fuck off.

 

[kpt018]

I find it most interesting that when I bring up the ethical legitimacy of taxes, leftists like @kpt018 automatically revert themselves to minarchists by asking, "Why who will build the roads or pay the police?" Their first arguments never go to, "Well who will pay planned parenthood? Who will pay the alphabet soup of bureaucracies?"

That is because you don't support taxes to fund even the most basic things required to operate a society. So if we can't agree there what is the point of talking through funding things that an advanced society requires? There is no point. Obviously you will oppose funding planned parenthood and social security if you don't think we should fund the military or building of roads.

 

[Greoric]

That is because you don't support taxes to fund even the most basic things required to operate a society. So if we can't agree there what is the point of talking through funding things that an advanced society requires? There is no point. Obviously you will oppose funding planned parenthood and social security if you don't think we should fund the military or building of roads.

The point is that your argument goes straight to defending a libertarian level of government size, and doesn't go to defending the programs that have turned the government in a leviathan.

 

[TheGreatA]

Then you're wise beyond your knowledge. He talks about the same points you mentioned, where the government's influence and long term trajectory is always up. They're always looking for more power, and the major accelerant to that growth are crises. He makes the caveat that you can see government's relinquish power, but the amount of power they let go of is hardly ever more than what they had prior to the last crisis.

Hence the infamous line, "Never let a crisis go to waste."

I have been mostly interested in what led to the downfall of previous high-cultured civilizations, which different circumstances and events played a part, and how, if possible, can we avoid repeating this cycle again. That's what I mostly spend my days reading about.

I've made a similar argument here before, about the competitive relationship that is formed between the citizens and the State which governs them. The government officials, accordingly, wish to maximize their own personal power (like nearly all of us do, whether we admit it or not), while the citizens, accordingly, desire for the government to have their best interests in mind.

I believed then, and still do, that the election of a Donald Trump was a necessary act of rebellion against the State, which had been amassing power relatively undisturbed for the past decades, to the point where the government officials no longer felt answerable to the people, but rather those who could best satisfy their desires for personal wealth.

It is true that Trump himself can be said to be an authoritarian in many aspects, but I believe he, more so than anybody, was brought up by the people, and he can also very easily be taken down by the people, if they so wish. Such should be the fate of all government officials who are deemed incompetent at their job. The moment that his popularity among the citizens decreases, he is truly done, for he doesn't have the media and the corporations backing him up, atleast so far. A Hillary Clinton would've been kept upright even if she were suffering from latter stage dementia, and she would not have been forced to keep a single one of her promises.

I believe the incremental upwards trajectory has been halted for atleast a moment, but obviously it is a lifetime battle to keep the government in check and answerable to its citizens. Trump's election ends nothing, although it might allow for a temporary breather.

 

[kpt018]

The point is that your argument goes straight to defending a libertarian level of government size, and doesn't go to defending the programs that have turned the government in a leviathan.

The point is to address the obviously flaws in your thinking about having no taxation and no government.

It's a really simple and logical progression. You believe taxes are coercion, ok. So since we agree that we need to protect ourselves from invaders and we need basic things for our society to function, how do we pay for it? You refuse to answer. All good, but like I've said a million times if we can't get past this we can't address the more advanced needs of a complex society.

 

[Greoric]

You called me an authoritarian, which is misrepresenting my views. So stop doing it or fuck off.

Alright, well let's clear it up. How much of my income do you think the government should be able to confiscate every year? What's an acceptable figure to you?