Hey everyone,
I'm now pretty sure that (Marxist) Socialism cannot be Democratic and am left with a choice between Libertarianism and Totalitarianism as self-consistent view points. Emotionally, I favour the former as I still believe in universal human rights, but intellectually, the latter appears to be more honest and for its cynicism, is all the more monstrous for it.
Taking that view would mean- to a greater or lesser extent- becoming an apologist for Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot. Whilst I'm congratulating myself on my intellectual honesty to get to this point, understandably, I want to run away, find a small corner and cry as my good intentions turn to a vision of hell. Despite being a commie, I am human.
Bad Commies.
At the same time, I am not thrilled about free market libertarianism either- the main reason to support the latter would appear purely a defence of the status quo as the lesser evil. At the moment, the fact it's more like "the devil you know" is what it's got going for it and admittedly the fact that I can legally have this conversation without fear of persecution. (Hello NSA, hows Edward Snowden doing? )
Beyond Marxist Strawman arguments, I can't anticipate your responses so I'd like therefore to call on your knowledge and experience and pose you a few questions. I welcome longer, more well-thought out responses and will put the time in to read and reply to them. I don't mind controversial responses so your very welcome to surprise me and challenge the premises of the question itself. Anything goes at this point.
Please, Save me from Utopia.
1. Whose side would you have been on in the US Civil War? Lincoln and (ultimately) Emancipation, or the Confederates and States rights? Or is there another way of seeing this?
2. Do agree with Ayn Rand's quote that as "Native Americans were savages", "European colonists had a right to seize their land because native tribes did not recognize individual rights"? If not, do Native Americans have a right to re-claim the continental US in accordance with natural law?
3. Does the right to private property take precedence over the right to democratic government and thereby justify the US support for Pinochet coup against Allende and/or Senator McCarthy's response to the threat of Communist infiltration of the US government?
4. Was the practice of "Shock therapy" of sudden privatisation and de-regulation in the Former USSR justified to prevent a return to Communist systems even though it led to near economic collapse?
5. What is the difference between an individual denying climate change, and the USSR's policy of banning scientific opinions it disagreed with? surely both are a triumph of ideology over scientific evidence and therefore objective truth?
6. How would you have stopped the Nazis from getting power if you defend their right to have their views? Doesn't this tie your hands? Isn't being a complete a**hole and kicking the c**p out of them more satisfying?
I'm now pretty sure that (Marxist) Socialism cannot be Democratic and am left with a choice between Libertarianism and Totalitarianism as self-consistent view points. Emotionally, I favour the former as I still believe in universal human rights, but intellectually, the latter appears to be more honest and for its cynicism, is all the more monstrous for it.
Taking that view would mean- to a greater or lesser extent- becoming an apologist for Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot. Whilst I'm congratulating myself on my intellectual honesty to get to this point, understandably, I want to run away, find a small corner and cry as my good intentions turn to a vision of hell. Despite being a commie, I am human.
Bad Commies.
At the same time, I am not thrilled about free market libertarianism either- the main reason to support the latter would appear purely a defence of the status quo as the lesser evil. At the moment, the fact it's more like "the devil you know" is what it's got going for it and admittedly the fact that I can legally have this conversation without fear of persecution. (Hello NSA, hows Edward Snowden doing? )
Beyond Marxist Strawman arguments, I can't anticipate your responses so I'd like therefore to call on your knowledge and experience and pose you a few questions. I welcome longer, more well-thought out responses and will put the time in to read and reply to them. I don't mind controversial responses so your very welcome to surprise me and challenge the premises of the question itself. Anything goes at this point.
Please, Save me from Utopia.
1. Whose side would you have been on in the US Civil War? Lincoln and (ultimately) Emancipation, or the Confederates and States rights? Or is there another way of seeing this?
2. Do agree with Ayn Rand's quote that as "Native Americans were savages", "European colonists had a right to seize their land because native tribes did not recognize individual rights"? If not, do Native Americans have a right to re-claim the continental US in accordance with natural law?
3. Does the right to private property take precedence over the right to democratic government and thereby justify the US support for Pinochet coup against Allende and/or Senator McCarthy's response to the threat of Communist infiltration of the US government?
4. Was the practice of "Shock therapy" of sudden privatisation and de-regulation in the Former USSR justified to prevent a return to Communist systems even though it led to near economic collapse?
5. What is the difference between an individual denying climate change, and the USSR's policy of banning scientific opinions it disagreed with? surely both are a triumph of ideology over scientific evidence and therefore objective truth?
6. How would you have stopped the Nazis from getting power if you defend their right to have their views? Doesn't this tie your hands? Isn't being a complete a**hole and kicking the c**p out of them more satisfying?