>>2878925Listen, you made a long winded post that that I do not have the energy to respond to in full.
Its obvious I touched a few nerves for such a long winded reply: And one of those nerves is that I am (almost) your opposite (and definitely an irreconcilable enemy). Its even down to the fact that I am not even pro-conservative as much as anti/non-liberal, in both economic & cultural spheres.
With that in mind I will make a handful of short retorts. I strongly suggest you cease replies after that, because we will end up wasting our time: I assure you that the root of our disagreement does not lay in the fact that either of us has made errors, is dumb, or not has considered something (such things are secondary). It's instead that in both in our fundamental moral assumptions & the categories & framework in which we see the world we differ from the outset.
—
>restrictions require someone or something to enforce them and that there is always a direct cost to preventing someone from doing something, while there is only sometimes a cost to allowing it.This is outright false: The cost of allowing someone to do something is the resources (time, energy, inputs including intermediates if relevant) it requires for them to do it when they do it.
This can also include any effects this may have on others that said others deem deleterious.
—
>reducing it to absurdity: "everything is forbidden" (it is forbidden to forbid?) is much more contradictory than "everything is allowed" (it is permissible to forbid?)Neither of us are making these points. This is a distracting non-sequitur.
It also happened to impose an excess cost in the resources you took in writing it, those it took for me to read it and finally more in my pointing it out.
If this kind of libertarian forum did not exist as it does and were banned, we would have been saved from this and other costly interactions. I will reiterate this point in a broader context later.
—
>economic and technological developments seem to me to resolve even the nudist situation, for the most part. if you do not want to see nudists, it is easier than ever to move to a place without nudists."This imposes a cost on the non-nudist to move in favor of the nudist.
But even reusing the nudist example is evading my deeper point of "The freedom to do x comes into conflict here with the freedom to live without x occurring."
If we shift the example to a homosexual & a homophobe (or any identitarian categories really), the fact of the matter is that the very existence of one imposes constraints & costs on the other, at the very least in the form of psychological distress.
There is no axiologically neutral agreement they can come to.
>here is where i would again tip into a more libertarian mould: let individuals sort this out themselves. let them play a cat and mouse game of moving across the countryThis precisely where your methodological & moral individualist & libertarian assumptions come into conflict with those of us who share neither.
Such a game is costly & unnecessary when upbringing & transportation are strictly state controlled. See the point I make further down using the USSR & DPRK as examples.
If one were to change the example to liquor stores or hard drug pushers, its easy to see that many people would easily oppose this (pushing addictive substances onto the vulnerable is generally not tolerated by most people on earth). It's only the terminally libertarian/liberal view that tolerates this (Hm… The term толераст/tolerast does have its merits after all)
My main point in all of this is that there is default or neutral state of "absence of restrictions".
Everything you might wish to be allowed is always an imposition on those who wish it were not allowed.
—
Your semi technological determinism completely eschews the issue of relations of production. You completely ignore the fact that all your cited examples occur in a capitalist economy, and a relatively market liberal one at that.
The Soviet Union suppressed ethnic nationalism, pornography, etc. & did so by legal-administrative means in the economy before perestroika.
Nationalist agitprop could not generally access tv studios, printing presses, etc. for production and handle few means of mass distribution. This is not because the technology did not exist, but because it wasn't in their hands to a significant degree. Production heavily relied on external support from diaspora & western state institutional funding, and internal distribution was limited to hand to hand pamphlets.
Consider a modern example: The DPRK. Mass diffusion of various cancers whether it be pornography, social media drama, sensationalist press, or even anime fandom identitarian agitation does not exist to any significant degree. This is not because the DPRK does not have telecommunications infrastructure (hell it even manufactures its own fiber cable), but because its intranet is designed partly in a way where such things aren't possible, and indeed none have means to produce such things independently of state direction anyways.
(Note: It doesn't mean there is zero penetration of restricted materials in either case, just that the velocity & scale of diffusion is orders of magnitude lower. No nirvana like fallacious reasoning please)
—
>a recognition that current conditions are not tenable and that to even build the conditions to fix them, a step in another direction is necessary.Yes, and its called further degradation & poverty, war, disease, etc. Ironically I have some sympathy for libertarian degeneration at least in the first world, because it weakens their imperial power (I mean every bourg. & petty bourg. that chokes to death on their own vomit from a drug overdose is a tiny victory).
The imperial core is the least likely to pull off a successful revolution for material reasons, both in the present & historically. Its weakening is therefore necessary to facilitate revolution elsewhere.
>my direction of travel is "vague socialist > communist > communist with a surprising dose of libertarianism"
>not to protect the electricity, water, gas, etc, companies from market competition,
>it's really something closer to dengismIf you are not liberal/libertarian trolling us, you may in fact be fooling/deceiving yourself in believing that you are communist.
I mean it doesn't even require marxism to realize that network infrastructure is more efficient when there isn't duplication of infrastructure and/or network fragmentation and/or in investment & logistical & discoordination due to competition.
Still, I am not surprised at all that you are from the UK & into Dengism & libertarian fancies.
If I am allowed a small bit of sentimentality: As your Greek ideological enemy it kind of fits perfectly for me. Revisionism, individualism, libertarianism and being from a country that was our recent contemporary oppressor.
It's like you managed to perfectly meld a number of distinct things I despise into one elegant disgusting whole, hahaha!
—
Please do not reply further. We are simply irreconcilable enemies.
I shouldn't have come back here out of boredom, but this perfectly illustrates my point about liquor stores I made early. I have an "argument addiction" & relapsed due to exposure.