Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Comment Re: Hammerheads in Vermont (Score 1) 569

>Note: That's the means of production out of private hands version of socialism

There is no such version of socialism. Such systems have existed but they sure as hell were not socialist - indeed they outright admitted to not being socialist, they were supposed to be a transitional state toward it.
Socialism's proper meaning is the means of production in the hands of WORKERS. That' STILL private, the state as a proxy for workers certainly didn't work - if anything it was even *worse* than private bosses because now the entity that is supposed to regulate industry and reign in the excesses off business owners WAS the business owner.
But worker-owned coops have been a resounding success everywhere they have been tried, they actually decentralize power MORE than capitalism does - and they are economically more successful than either.

Argentina's capitalist economy collapsed in 2007. Workers took over the abandoned factories and businesses where capitalists were not able to make a profit, and ran them as coops. Despite the same economic conditions that killed the capitalist industries, the worker owned socialist industries flourished. Today there are more than 20-thousand such worker-owned coops in Argentina, they make up over 85% of the country's GDP, they employ more than all other businesses and government combined.
Part of why it worked so well is that they all shared the profits, so all those workers suddenly earned rather more than they did when an "owner" was skimming most of it, which meant they had money to spend - which meant there was demand and markets for the OTHER coops, whose workers then made more profit, which they spent in turn, creating a massive race-to-the-top economy that saved argentina from the brink of a depression.

That's how you do "worker owner" socialism that works.

Comment Re:Hammerheads in Vermont (Score 1) 569

You think a libertarian could vote for a man who, as a state prosecutor, went before the state supreme court to fight to keep a man whose innocence had been indisputably proven from being released from prison ?!??!?!

A man who seriously tried to argue that a prison sentence given in an unjust trial to an innocent man, should not be overturned when the proof of his innocence emerges !
You want an agent of the state being COMPLETELY totalitarian - the candidate in the polls who has actually ACTED like a totalitarian dictator during his career is the far right's darling. Ted Cruz.

That guy is everything libertarians ARE and NONE of what they SAY they are, so they probably shouldn't vote for him.

Comment Re: Hammerheads in Vermont (Score 1) 569

I don't think you know anything at all about Sander's economic policy.

Unless you think Denmark is a totalitarian state that has made money illegal - just like Canada and Sweden and Norway and EVERY OTHER MAJOR COUNTRY ON EARTH.

Comment Re: Hammerheads in Vermont (Score 0) 569

>The best thing about Sanders's economic policy is that it's utterly fantastic, impossible thinking, entirely ungrounded in reality.

Reality, apparently, is a place where Denmark, Germany, Sweden, Norway, Canada, New Zeeland and a few dozen other countries simply don't exist.

After all - if as another poster declared, socialist economic views can ONLY lead to totalitarianism then those countries basically eradicating all poverty with "socialist" policies like strong labour unions, free education, high minimum wage, strong regulations, free healthcare and great social safety netts are all totalitarian now - some of the most free and happy societies on earth CANNOT have resulted from that.

Comment Re:Hammerheads in Vermont (Score 1) 569

Actually - Euro-style social democracy is significantly closer to classical libertarianism than American capitalist Libertarianism.

The original libertarian philosophy states that the excercise of power over another brutalizes both the wielder and the victim and that economic power is even more damaging than political power.

They have a point to. In the end your boss can generally inflict far more damaging results on you for saying unpopular things than your government can. The government may imprison you - but you'll have a roof over your head and food in your belly, your boss can take THOSE away. Even in those places where the government will kill you for saying something unpopular, the methods of execution are still generally far less painful, slow and horrifying than starving to death.

Comment Re:Hammerheads in Vermont (Score 0) 569

>. I happen to think fiscal conservatism is at the moment more important than social liberalism,

There is not now, nor has there in all of human history *ever* been such a moment and it's logically impossible for it to ever happen since your next statement is the exact opposite of the truth.

>because the fastest, most effective way to take away people's choices is to take away their fiscal discretion

False - and any truth it actually had would actually be an argument FOR socialism - since if this is true - then having money more evenly distributed would make all of society more free. If money is a requirement for liberty then it's logically impossible to support anything but egalitarianism and still say you support liberty.

No, you can always use your free speech to campaign for lower taxes, but if you argue for using the money from lower taxes to *buy* the right to campaign - you just created a complete oligarchy. And that's exactly why sane people aren't libertarians. Those who can follow a train of thought past the first station can see that logically, it must lead to complete plutocracy, which in turn MUST lead to complete economic collapse, the rule of authoritarian warlords and a population resorting to piracy and robbery in order to survive. True libertarian states can only end up like that, because fundamental to libertarianism is removing absolutely every defense society has ever invented to prevent that from happening.

Comment Re:Hammerheads in Vermont (Score 1) 569

I've always held that it's not "might" so much as "must". Anybody who would choose economic policy as primacy over civil liberties doesn't deserve the title "libertarian". Anybody who claims "economic liberties" are equal to, or even remotely comparable in importance to, civil liberties is no libertarian at all.

If libertarians care about freedom they MUST accept that their economic policies ought to be secondary to civil liberties and align with the most socially liberal party. They can then use their greater civil liberty to campaign for the economic policies they like if they think they can convince any sane people to support those.

Comment Re:Hammerheads in Vermont (Score 3, Interesting) 569

Except of course that the republican party was the original social democrats of America. The progressive movement was started by the republicans, probably the most progressive president America ever had (and in terms of domestic policy - the closest to Sanders) was Teddy "The Trustbuster" Rooseveldt - a republican.

The republican party only really went far-right in the goldwater years, and the democrats didn't go left -at at least no more than to pass the civil rights act (which I would call centrist at best). By the early 1990s America had two right wing parties - and the democrats was the more rightwing one in policy (if not in rhetoric), Clinton expanded the drug war and racist incarceration laws in ways that Nixon, Reagan and Bush could only have dreamt about. He gutted the welfare system in a way that they would never have dared to !

The progressive voters moved to the democrat party in the 2000s only - and they were a minority. Even in 2008 during the Obama campaign only 23% of Democrats identified as liberal, 47% identified as "moderate" and the remaining small bit as "conservative". That shifted sharply since then. Today 45% or more democrats identify as liberal - and they are finally pulling the supposedly leftwing party towards actual leftwing policies. Bernie is riding that wave - and it may just mean you get another example of one of your strong contenders for best president ever (T. Rooseveldt). The top two competitors for that title would be Lincoln and FDR.

Funny how, as a devoted and hardline liberal - I nevertheless consider two of the best presidents America ever had to have been republicans. But this was before the republican party became literally the exact opposite of everything it was created as.

Comment Re:how about other third-party tracking? (Score 0, Troll) 84

>hence does not help with the lack of freedom of speech in Europe.

Aaah, American Exceptionalism at work -the average European citizen has for more, and more practical capacity to make use of, freedom of speech than the US does. Talk to me again when you can watch golden-shower fetish porn on national TV at 1pm in the Afternoon in America ! A few places ban specific forms of hatespeech - but so does the US (just not quite as stringently) and I would never be convinced that hatespeech against a minority is legitimate free speech anyway. All hatespeech IS incitement to violence. No, there is not an exception to that, even if you don't say the words "kill the" they are ALWAYS in the sentence before the racial slur. Somebody WILL hear them there and nobody says it without already know that.

Slashdot Top Deals

Successful and fortunate crime is called virtue. - Seneca