Will Sanders' Supporters Ultimately Back Trump?

[_EAllusion]

Lots of libertarians believe in social safety nets. Ya'll need to stop thinking of libertarianism as anarcho-capitalism and nothing else.

Isn't a social safety net by definition something that falls under socialism?

- Doc

No, no it is not. If you are defining socialism to include anything involving a social safety net, you should realize your definition is highly idiosyncratic and doesn't match up with common or academic understandings of the term. Among other things, you've defined liberals out of existence. Also, the anarcho-capitalists are even a fringe group inside of libertarian circles.

If you are describing something the CATO Institute is favorable towards as "hard left" maybe you need to reconsider what you think of as "hard left." If CATO is hard left to you, your sense of labels on a political continuum is useless.

[_honorentheos]

Lots of libertarians believe in social safety nets. Ya'll need to stop thinking of libertarianism as anarcho-capitalism and nothing else.

Ya'll?

As I noted in the other thread I don't doubt your general alignment with some form of libertarianism. But since all views have flaws, and exposing oneself to criticism isn't your thing, you largely engage here as a contrarian attacking others views. It leaves your expressed views here internally inconsistent but they shouldn't be thought of as an attempt to express your views. Those only surface at moments, usually only in outline, and occasionally unintentionally. Seeing your outline for a preferred healthcare reform, I can see why you choose that approach. I admit, it would be entertaining to see you defending it here given the general views here would, on understanding what you described, lead to it drawing fire from many sides.

[Guest]

No, no it is not. If you are defining socialism to include anything involving a social safety net, you should realize your definition is highly idiosyncratic and doesn't match up with common or academic understandings of the term.

So, what is socialism if it's not policy-wise a system that creates safety nets through confiscating resources from A to spend it on B?

Among other things, you've defined liberals out of existence.

What is your definition of a Liberal when it comes to socialist policies?

Also, the anarcho-capitalists are even a fringe group inside of libertarian circles.

So, what's the mainstream libertarian circle, so to speak, and what would be a good wiki type of resource I can read so I understand where you're coming from?

If you are describing something the CATO Institute is favorable towards as "hard left" maybe you need to reconsider what you think of as "hard left." If CATO is hard left to you, your sense of labels on a political continuum is useless.

Why in the world would I consider a Koch organization hard Left? What gave you the impression that I think that? That's a weird veer off into never-said-that-land.

Is the CATO institute anarcho-libertarianism, mainstream libertarianism, or what? What would you define their brand of libertarianism as?

- Doc

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

For example, are these not socialist programs?

Public transportation

Fire departments

Police departments

Public libraries

Every branch of the US military

Roads & highways

Social Security

Medicare/medicaid

Public, not private prisons & jails

Public hospitals

The Veterans Affairs Administration

Public universities

Public parks

Public toilets

Public drinking fountains

Public parking

- Doc

[_honorentheos]

https://reason.com/2016/05/16/hey-kids- ... socialism/

This would be a good place to start if you follow some of the links, too. Also worth reading:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... ed/591547/

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

https://reason.com/2016/05/16/hey-kids-dont-be-suckers-for-socialism/

This would be a good place to start if you follow some of the links, too.

I think the article, cheeky as it is, hits on a good point I'm trying to get at:

It (socialism) simply reflects [the] lack of a common language.

It'd be useful if, like the possibility of getting a religionist here to define, in exact terms, what God is, we could get some hard terms so we're all speaking a common language where we can then understand what's being said when discussing a particular political policy.

- Doc

[_EAllusion]

No, Doc, favoring the existence of basically any government service doesn't make you a socialist. You're defining nearly everyone as socialists, which would come as a big surprise to a lot of people. Gilded age America was not a socialist society. Socialism technically is defined by public ownership of all means of production, but in practical terms socialism is more used as a term to refer to the extent sectors of an economy are socialized with "socialists" favoring a lot of government control in relative terms. Socialism isn't simply something like a social safety net. It connotes more centralized, state-control of economic matters than that.

If you want to use the terms as you are, no one is gonna stop you, but you also need to recognize that your use is idiosyncratic and does not match up with what other people are saying, People aren't contradicting themselves or being incoherent because they choose not to use terms in in the way you personally prefer rather than as they are used in common parlance or political science.

That you over and over refer to positions I express as "leftist" even though they are within the range of opinion in sources like CATO and or held by your hated Koch brothers is just meant to point out how off-base your use of terms is compared to ordinary understanding. If you think CATO is leftist, then your understanding of the political spectrum doesn't map onto the people you are interacting with and seems rather useless at that. I know you don't think CATO is leftist, though, hence why I choose that example.

Instead of trying to find some inconsistency in what I'm saying between your understanding of labels and positions I hold, maybe just take the positions I hold on their own terms.

[_EAllusion]

Is the CATO institute anarcho-libertarianism, mainstream libertarianism, or what? What would you define their brand of libertarianism as?

- Doc

CATO contains a range of libertarian thought, but it's fairly mainline libertarian. I think not that long ago I pointed out Julian Sanchez and Radley Balko as two people who hold highly similar views to me (ones that honor apparently can't wrap his head around as coherent.) Both have CATO involvement.

Anarcho-capitalism is a subtype of libertarian thought. It's radical even within libertarian circles. Aside from David Friedman, I can't think of one off the top of my head that isn't a nutjob.

[_honorentheos]

https://reason.com/2016/05/16/hey-kids-dont-be-suckers-for-socialism/

This would be a good place to start if you follow some of the links, too.

I think the article, cheeky as it is, hits on a good point I'm trying to get at:

It (socialism) simply reflects [the] lack of a common language.

It'd be useful if, like the possibility of getting a religionist here to define, in exact terms, what God is, we could get some hard terms so we're all speaking a common language where we can then understand what's being said when discussing a particular political policy.

- Doc

I tend to look for what role a person assigns to competition as a gauge. The less competition, the more socialization a person is advocating for - unless they argue for Monopoly rights.. That's why it's accurate to accuse Trump of favoring some socialist policies even when they can include brutal, non-liberal positions.

Also, EA isn't a good gauge because he is giving false readings, not because he doesn't hold libertarian views. Check how often he explicitly, and in some detail, is advocating FOR a given position? It almost never happens. At best you get outlines but usually he's just taking an attack line against a position that he may or may not actually support. It follows the truism it is easier to criticize than to stand for something oneself. It's hard to be a know it all if you have to defend real positions because every position has weaknesses.

[_subgenius]