/liberty/ - Liberty

Horseshoe theory a shit. The Nazis and the North Koreans are so damn similar because they are and always were the same thing. "Extremism" isn't the problem, as the believers of relativism love to proclaim, totalitarianism and collectivism are. Someone who's fanatical and extremist about being individualistic, kind and peaceful is not going to become a dictator.

It's not even true that relativism cannot go hand in hand with fanaticism. If there is no absolute (moral) truth, then what principle forbids you to suppress people who are just as right or wrong as you are? They cannot even take credit for being right about some things, or for making an attempt at finding the truth.

>>69206

We established it was shit along with the square political spectrum.

>>69222

What would be a good way to judge political ideologies then?

>>69224

Some guy proposed a triangle, though even that is probably not fully accurate.

>>69224

On a case-by-case basis. Stop being lazy.

>>69224

I can't seem to find the image right now, but on the web-game NationStates a 3-dimensional measurement was used to determine each fictional nation-states' political position – it went something like this:

Along the x-axis it measured 'Economic Freedom'; the extreme negative value labelled 'Authoritarian', the extreme positive value labelled 'Libertarian'.

Along the y-axis it measured 'Personal Freedom'; the extreme negative value labelled 'Authoritarian', the extreme positive value labelled 'Libertarian'.

Along the z-axis it measured 'Political Freedom'; the extreme negative value labelled 'Authoritarian', the extreme positive value labelled 'Libertarian'.

In total there were 27 different classifications of nation-state.

'Anarchy' was applied to the nation-state which had maximised 'Libertarian' along all axes.

'Psychotic Dictatorship' was applied to the nation-state which had maximised 'Authoritarian' along all axes.

The game had other more humourous descriptors for varying states (excuse the pun) of affairs (e.g.: 'Corporate Bordello': for nation-states with maximised Economic Freedom and minimised the other axes), but you get the point… I once tried broaching this image to 4/pol/ (in the days before gamergate) as a new paradigm for political identification, though in not such fanciful language, and promptly got blown off,"people can barely wrap their heads around a 2-d graph, 3-d would be too much" one poster stated (excuse the pun, again)….

Perhaps this would work here???

apologies if this post seems nonsensical – I rarely post but thought I could add something interesting to the discussion

>>69242

How do I horseshoe people on this new 3D measurement?

>>69242

Definitely better than the compass, but also has some problems. You cannot cleanly distinguish economic from personal freedom, for one. Leftists won't admit it, but your choice of job is a highly personal decision. Whether you want to spend time with your family or work overtime so your kids can have a better education is a personal decision. Starting a kebab shop instead of working as a dentist, too, is a personal decision. The distinction between personal and economic freedom still has some practical value, though, as long as you're aware of its shortcomings.

Political freedom is just whacky. Participation in the political process has nothing to do with exercising freedoms. A society in which everyone can oppress everyone doesn't have more freedom than one in which one man oppresses everyone else, or in which no one oppresses everyone. Still, it can be salvaged. You can call a society politically free if people in it can organize and restructure it, at least legally. A static society where change is abolished, or one in which it is monopolized in the hands of the state, is less politically free than one in which everyone has the right to initiate changes. Anarchy, which stresses spontaneous cooperation, can be called politically free, then. It will be a misnomer, though, if you follow Oppenheimers and Rothbards definitions of political means.

>wealth disparity

more like wealth diversity

>>69256

Whoa there, you might want to calm down your psychopathic plutocracy.

>>69256

Stop this wealthsplaining

>>69273

>You're a fucking retard.

Your well-reasoned response is very convincing.

>>69274

I'll give you a real response when you explain why something whose whole point is that everyone gets it would only be available to a select few people.

>>69305

This bullshit allows for such a narrow definition of "freedom" as to render it unusable.

>>69320

>David Graeber

>Bob Black

What collegiate fart-sniffer came up with this list?

>>69323

What's wrong with Graeber?

>>69329

As one would expect from a professor at the London school of economics, large swathes of his anthropological theory of economic history are tantamount to neokeyenesianism painted black and red, "everyday communism" and all. He's like what Chomsky is to political philosophy. Also, a lot of his evidence for his theory is anecdotal or even outright innacurate, and on many instances contradicts Marxian historicism in service of his super-special historicist notion of communism: https://www.jacobinmag.com/2012/08/debt-the-first-500-pages/

>>69306

> but being owned as a slave is human nature, it's not oppression

Did you believe your ironic "argumentation" to be somehow unbeatable or persuasive? I'm sorry, but anyone can use reductio ad absurdum.

>>69319

> This bullshit allows for such a narrow definition of "freedom" as to render it unusable.

It does not "allow" narrow definition (how many layers of doublethink are you on?).

It demands specific, practically applicable definition of freedom. And - yes. Once freedom is defined and understood, once it is firmly based in reality - and not wishful thinking - just like Math or Physics it will be rendered unusable - for you for cheap rhetorics.

Face it: your understanding of freedom is either inapplicable IRL, or is no different from "freedom" for the slave-owners.

>>69329

The review here >>69333 says it pretty well. Graeber strings anecdote after anecdote together, but he doesn't really engage economic theories. As an Austrian economist in particular, you can safely ignore much of his book because historical evidence can only lose out to a priori evidence (and his historical evidence is weak at points, too - as you would expect it to be when it goes against a priori evidence). As an ethicist, same thing. He doesn't show that debt is morally reprehensible or that we shouldn't think of morality in terms of debt. In fact, philosophically, his book is even more of a mess than when it comes to economics. Calling all non-reciprocal human interaction communism? That's kiddy-tier.

Horseshoe Theory is ultimately only applicable as far as authoritarianism goes. And even then, it's a stretch.

>>69335

"Access to the means of production" lacks explanatory power even among theories of positive rights, as it cannot describe all or even most freedoms to act/project power–and that's if we don't outright reject positive rights as mutually contradictory. Appealing to the memes of production is just Marx's ad-hoc way of justifying dialectical materialism.

>>69335

>I'm sorry, but anyone can use reductio ad absurdum.

It's still a valid argument. If your view can successfully be reduced to absurdity, then your view is wrong. Simple as that. If you don't like it, show us that the reductio ad absurdum doesn't apply to your view.

>Face it: your understanding of freedom is either inapplicable IRL

"Don't punch that guy" is as applicable as it gets. No idea why you guys always get so hung up on concepts that are fucking trivial. Negative freedom is a clear and precise concept. Positive freedom, that one poses questions of how to calculate freedom and how to achieve a pareto optimum of it, and how to distinguish it from powery, and - consequently - how not to die of frustration because society does not grant you the "freedom" to fly to the Mars and back.

>or is no different from "freedom" for the slave-owners.

>Marxist Stereotypes, Episode 21: Wage Slavery is Literal Slavery

>>69381

>If your view can successfully be reduced to absurdity, then your view is wrong.

How can you say this when the innate feeling of absurdness is a emotion that can be manipulated?

the fact neoliberals exists and TradComs exist is proof enough that it's bullshit. Poe's law is real though, especially when it comes to fake western Marxists