Peter Hume

I think you'll find I have been quite steadfast in ignoring any invite to include a discussion of Left/Right in the debate about Socialism, National Socialism, Liberalism and Conservatism.'

I agree with your view :

'It sheds more confusion than clarity and proves nothing at best than name-calling.'

Please note I no longer, Since Graham's recent intervention,descend into purposeless bickering or name-calling.

Dear imajulianutter,

Good for you. A discussion of left and right does not seem to serve a purpose. Left is apparently what people who call themselves right don't like, and right is apparently what people who call themselves left don't like.

I note you have evaded answering the questions which would show whether your argument is invalid and self-contradictory.

You are arguing by name-calling and personality - casting the issues in terms of my alleged failure to understand (which assumes that you are already right wihtout having to show defensible reason, and therefore assumes what is in issue. It is therefore circular argument and therefore irrational). Whereas you have not been able to make out the justification of coercion that is in issue.

Please define monopoly.

You have provided no justification of state action other than to displace a private monopoly. (But of course if it makes no difference to the consumers, that is no more an argument in favour of compulsory monopoly by government, than it is against, is it?)

Does that mean you concede the issue for all other state action?

The Marxists deny the very possibility of economic theory. Their entire intellectual method consists of ideological sloganeering. So they assume everyone else is doing the same thing. The fatal conceit is that society can be shaped like putty by the wisdom of the state.

I am trying to find out where your intellectual method, and your theory, differs from that. But all I am getting back is slogans and name-calling. To question your views is to be an "ideologue". When asked why you say that, you evade the question. Your public goods argument on critical examination immediately crumbles and you haven't ventured to defend. And now, all the time throwing personal insults at me, you shift to the slogan of "monopoly", as if merely saying this word establishes everything you could need to establish in justification of state action.

Okay, so please answer my numbered questions, and
7. define monopoly?
8. demonstrate why its alleged evils justify unprovoked aggression as the basis of social co-operation?

Dear Peter Hume,

You are right. I have chosen not to answer your questions. I don't think whether facilities are owned by government or not is an important issue. Therefore I chose not to discuss it further since I don't want to spend time on something I don't think is worth it. There are many people who differ with your opinion and also think it is an important issue. They may be happy to discuss it with you.

The problem is not confined to "facilities".

The question is why any given transaction or social relation should not be decided by the parties to that transaction on the basis of freedom, private property, and consent, rather than compulsory monopoly, bureaucratic decree backed up by unprovoked aggression.

I think freedom must be limited to prevent aggressing against the person or property rights of others, and as a matter of tort for example nuisance and trespass.

But
a) you're not providing *any* criterion by which people would have a right to freedom as against an arbitrary power in the state to override it for any reason it felt like giving, even where it involves large numbers of unnecessary deaths, and
b) you don't even agree with the first principle of freedom that it should be limited to prevent unprovoked aggression. On the contrary, like the Marxists, you share the view that unprovoked politically directed force is the necessary basis of a good society.

Thus non-Marxist socialism cannot be shown to be in any better position, as a way to a fair or productive society, than Marxist socialism.

Attention all communazis, fascism is another type of left wing politics, ALL different types of totalitarian dictatorship are loony left politics.

When the "proletariat" are being oppressed, do you think it matters to them, whether the dictator calls themselves "dear leader", emperor, commissar, king, premier, fuhrer or Queen Juliar Dillard?

A totalitarian dictatorship is a totalitarian dictatorship is a totalitarian dictatorship, whatever sticky label you slap on the front of it, or whatever the "leader's" name is either.

As a matter of fact 1930's Nazi Germany was the least evil of all these communazi governments, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, Marcuse, Whitlam, Hawke, Keating, Krudd, Dillard, Clinton, Obama & all the others murdered far more people than Hitler ever did.