How can it be a non sequitur when part of the discussion was the utopian or dystopian nature of communism? And, did not attribute the position to anyone except myself, so it can't be a strawman. Your attempt to characterize this as a fallacy is just evasion.Brian Peacock wrote: ↑Mon Apr 15, 2019 12:43 pmAnd that becomes a strawman when it's used to rebut, refute, or otherwise counter a point that wasn't made or articulated. That also qualifies as a non-sequitur as well. Two fallacies for the price of one!Forty Two wrote: ↑Mon Apr 15, 2019 11:42 am...and that's not a strawman.Brian Peacock wrote: ↑Mon Apr 15, 2019 10:51 amI think the point rainbow is making is that you argued against a point of your own design and execution.Forty Two wrote: ↑Mon Apr 15, 2019 10:39 amIt's not a strawman. Libertarian communism is as I described.
If you think through any version of communism, it has similar failings. There is nothing romantic or ideal about it. By their own terms, not a single version of communism can result in anything but oppression and economic disaster.
Anytime someone argues a point, they are arguing a point of their own design and execution. A strawman is when someone is engaged in a debate and attributes a given position to the opposition, and proceeds to defeat the misattributed position. I didn't attribute the position to rainbow. I argued my own position.
I don't dispute that people who advocate for communism do so out of romantic notions that it is a "utopian" vision. What I dispute is that its vision is utopian at all, and I assert that it is - as advertised in its principles, not as interpreted or "in the real world" - a dystopian nightmare. I.e. - if the communists got what they romanticize about, they would get a dystopian nightmare.Brian Peacock wrote: ↑Mon Apr 15, 2019 12:43 pmI said that Communism was essentially a romantic perspective, and not dissimilar to Libertarianism in that respect. Subsequently, after you took exception to that, I offered you a link to the wiki article on romanticism - which I thought would be the end of the matter, but which you clearly cannot be bothered to read. In short, and by implication, the point is made that both Communism and Libertarianism are fundamentally utopian in their outlook; as ideas they both seek to reject the circumstances of their time and seek to return to society something they both feel it has lost; to return society to a more harmonious, more natural, more benign state. As such they are without, beyond, or distinctly set aside from political thinking that locates its roots in the Enlightenment, with it's emphasis on reason, science, and an unvarnished appraisal of the facts at hand. Now argue against that premise.
I explained that many different ways from time-to-time. On this thread, I most recently used the "libertarian communism" "romantic ideal" as a way to illustrate that it is neither romantic, nor ideal. There is no way to get the foundational elements in place without tyranny, oppression and slavery of the individual to the state. Libertarian Communism falls of its own weight - it is inherently self-contradictory.
For example, one of its basic premises is "no state - a stateless society" and then another premise is "eliminate money." However, people create money, not necessarily governments -- coins were created not top down, but bottom up. People will create a monetary system, because people will - even in the romantic ideal of libertarian communism - exchange goods and services. The only way to keep them from doing it with money is by forcing them not to use private money. Therefore, you cannot have an absence of money without an enforcement mechanism, and once you have an enforcement mechanism you have a state. There is no way around that, IMO. However, I am willing to be convinced otherwise. I've tried many times to get myself to see what others see, and I can't.
It's kind of like my approach to religion - I have tried as hard as I can to "get" the arguments of believers - they see their arguments as quite persuasive - most of them are not dishonest - they really, honestly believe that their god exists, and that it's rational to believe in it, etc. They think I'm the irrational one who can't see the truth in front of my face because I'm an atheist. I have tried so hard over decades to see what they see, and I can't. Same thing with people who say "oh, communism is a great ideal -- but alas it's just not practical because people are selfish" or some such - or that "communism is great in principle, but not in practice." I have tried so hard to get on board with that kind of romanticized notion of communism - to see what people see - to be able to at least see "well, I don't agree, but I get how people would really love to live in an idealized communist society that is in accord with the philosophical foundations of the ideology..." but I can't - I am as baffled by someone who thinks communism would be a good idea as I am of someone who thinks God exists.
