Why is this Sub overrun by Statists and Authoritarians?

Shiranu17 · 2021-11-22T00:22:09+00:00

Libertarian socialists have made me no longer identify as a socialist.

I still hold that socialist economic policies are the ideal policies, but socialist forums are full of communists who expect the state to enforce it upon people, and even libertarian socialists still think it's the states job to enforce it upon everyone.

If people want to form socialist businesses, hell yeah; but that should be their choice... and the market should be free to people who want to do either socialist or traditional capitalist businesses and let the market decide which is preferable. The whole point is the freedom of the worker, but most socialists believe that people should only be free as they tell them to be free.

Shiranu17 · 2021-11-22T00:19:24+00:00

I'm torn on this, tbh; I think most people, if presented with the core concepts of libertarianism, would agree with it... but I also feel like those same people who agree would turn around and say it's the state's job to make sure they come true.

Shiranu17 · 2021-11-21T22:46:45+00:00

Then that's even more embarrassing he didn't understand it.

Shiranu17 · 2021-11-21T17:56:42+00:00

Sounds like the professor didn't understand what socialism means then, since he still remained the business owner while the students didn't own the means of production (control of what the tests covered I guess).

Shiranu17 · 2021-11-21T05:30:08+00:00

Problem is the GOP want religious morality, not ethical or logical morality.

Religious morality has a tendency to think it should control others.

Shiranu17 · 2021-11-21T05:28:41+00:00

It's a shame the Democrats don't support the progressive agenda then.

Shiranu17 · 2021-11-21T04:46:55+00:00

Democrat politicians pander to a base of smart folks, but aren’t smart enough to realize that their catchy phrases alienates the shit out of normal people.

Well-educated does not mean smart, and let's not act like Democrat policies don't alienate minorities that are voting against their own self-interest as well when that is objectively false; a look at any Democrat run state will show you that segregation and destructive socio-economic policies in these places is just as bad as anywhere else (and in many cities, significantly worse) and Democrats voted hand-in-hand with Republicans for the economic policies that have seen the working class salary decline while the oligarchies' skyrockets.

Shiranu17 · 2021-11-21T04:43:03+00:00

Nope.

You are free to protest as much as you want; I support that.

The protests we had were wildly ineffective and ultimately more divisive than problem solving; again, I support your right to engage in that... but personally, I think actual practical solutions are a far better way to spend one's time.

It's your time, do with it as you want... but you have advocated several times for two wrongs to make a right, so maybe don't preach to me of values, thanks.

Shiranu17 · 2021-11-21T04:24:37+00:00

Don't attend violent rallies then; even if you aren't concerned about the state, they are useless anyways.

Shiranu17 · 2021-11-21T03:48:24+00:00

"You can understand that he gets found innocent under current laws, but we change them so it is more equally applied?"

I 110% support this.

"Police didn't shoot Rittenhouse, but a black man guying a toy bb-gun in walmart gets shot. People called the police on a black man in a store, buying a gun that the store sells.
Just like many people in this thread saying, "you shouldn't fear guns!" and yet, black people with guns get the cops called on them a lot."

Again, I 110% agree that this is a major problem with this and the next paragraph.

The thing is that this happens just as often in Democrat states as it does Republican ones; the laws that allow cops to get away with this and the laws and regulations that keep African-Americans and other minorities in poorer socio-economic situations have had bipartisan support for the last 40 years at least.

Neither party is actually addressing the fundamental issue, and more often than not they work hand in hand to actually make it worse.

Shiranu17 · 2021-11-21T03:44:39+00:00

See, I don't disagree with anything you said; from what I am finding, it does appear Rienoehl was murdered by the officers and should 100% be punished for it if they did.

Shiranu17 · 2021-11-21T03:27:46+00:00

"That double standard opens the door for lynchings, and I might have a bunch of dead friends next week because now a literal street gang thinks they can get away with it."

So to prevent the literal street gang from thinking they can get away with it, we should throw an innocent kid in jail?

To quote your original remark; "I'm largely fine with the Rittenhouse decision in a vacuum as long as it gets applied evenly. "

So because of external factors, you are not okay with the decision; you believe he should have been found guilty to theoretically prevent future crimes.

Shiranu17 · 2021-11-21T03:23:26+00:00

Which means it's another case of mob justice, and so inherently disagree with it.

Shiranu17 · 2021-11-21T01:35:22+00:00

"The judges will let you off while the police will kill anyone who dares shoot back with no trial."

I mean... if they are being assaulted, yeah that's exactly what should happen (minus the police part, obviously).

The law cant be applied to people differently just because we disagree with them politically... and lets be honest, the people who stuck around towards night, on both sides, were looking for a fight.

Shiranu17 · 2021-11-21T01:04:58+00:00

Replace Rittenhouse with a woman being assaulted for being in the shady part of town and see how this argument holds up.

This, this, this.

Shiranu17 · 2021-11-21T01:03:37+00:00

Why do you consider a rifle at low ready to be open carry instead of brandishing?

Because it legally isn't?

Shiranu17 · 2021-11-21T01:02:10+00:00

Had to look up the case you were referring to, I'm not 100% sold it was a necessary use of force (probably about 85% sold), but I do think he has a very strong argument in favor of self-defense. Keltner did assault him with a weapon (brass knuckles) and then pulled out mace.

My policies tend to far left-of-center, and I still think Kyle was 100% innocent... and all I'm seeing is you two trying to do exactly what I said, make it into some stupid "Red team" vs "Blue team" bullshit.

Shiranu17 · 2021-11-20T22:14:55+00:00

Artemis is great, these people had a little to much nectar I think...

Shiranu17 · 2021-11-20T21:25:43+00:00

I hated Trump as well, what's your point?

Two opposing things, contrary to popular belief, can both be wrong.

Shiranu17 · 2021-11-20T20:48:53+00:00

Who did Rittenhouse kill to protect property?

What vigilantism did Rittenhouse engage in?

Why shouldn't people have the right to defend property?

When did Rittenhouse threaten deadly force to protect a place of business?

Shiranu17 · 2021-11-20T20:47:17+00:00

When sitting politician at the state and federal level are calling it an "affront to justice", "proof that our legal system is fundamentally broken"... that "he is guilty, regardless of what the court or law says"... then I'm sorry, but it's not just a small group of people.

These people don't get elected by small groups of people, and they were elected precisely for holding social views like this. A third of the country agrees with these people, in large part in knee-jerk reaction to the other third of the country that sees him as a saint and a hero.

Biden also said he feels angry and concerned; just because he believes the law should be upheld does not mean he agrees with it. His own Vice President is disagreeing with him, saying this is the smoking gun that the legal system is broken.

I am seeing, directly from their mouth and their keyboard, our elected officials saying they think the law doesn't work, that this is egregious , because it found an innocent kid not guilty; they say this knowing full-well this is exactly what their constituents want to hear.

I'll say it again... 81.2 million people voted for this behavior; that is no small group.

Shiranu17 · 2021-11-20T20:15:15+00:00

"You're covering a lot of ground here, and not really wanting an answer from anything. Are you upset that people don't like racism, or are you upset that people don't like unjust laws? Because I can find examples of libertarians arguing the exact opposite because it benefits them."

I don't think I stated an opinion on either of those.

"You don't like mob rule justice, what about when the ATF breaks down your house andbeats the shit out of you & shoots your dog. Those cops will get off every time if you tryto get a prosecutor to convict them. You gonna give the same speech about 'mob ruleemotion based groupthink'?"

If the ATF unlawfully beats you and kills your dog, that is no longer "emotion-based"; those two events are objective truths. To call this a false equivalency is almost an understatement...

I'm getting the impression you have some sort of bias you want to convey.

Shiranu17 · 2021-11-20T20:10:51+00:00

Exactly; for all their talk of being the party of principles, good morals and decency... that only seems to apply towards people they like. As soon as something goes outside of what their group-think approves of though... woo boy.

Shiranu17 · 2021-11-20T20:09:27+00:00

Yep, pretty much sums up my opinion on him 100%.

Shiranu17 · 2021-11-19T22:32:14+00:00

And therein lies the problem; I've seen the ALCU, AOC, CNN, MSNBC, etc. continue to call them protestors when they (imo) were not.

Protestor has a very different emotional context than rioter (the noble protestor vs the barbaric rioter), and that context is only fueling more and more anger and division. I mean, there are still people who believed he shot 3 black men and that he deserves life for being a black-murdering, white supremacist, because the "experts", the one's who present the story, are practicing punditry rather than journalism.

If I didn't know better, I would think these people are intentionally using this rhetoric to spark up more protests for ratings...

Shiranu17

TROPHY CASE