Topic: Don’t ally with libertarians: Ideologues co-opt an anti-NSA rally (Read 1186 times)

Just do not forget that  fascism started with national-socialist party, thanks to excellent propaganda, communist party in Russia killed millions people there, Cuba still has political prisoners, North Korea is still killing thousands.
You guys should open your eyes a bit.

It's not founded within the article, it's founded within the title; I am making the assumption that his democratic socialism is the same type of democratic socialist that's spreading today, which is a person who believes the state should use its powers the democratic socialist is sending its way to do acts of justifiable good, e.g., the end justifies the means at its fullest extent (such as "force the rich to give their business to government so we can help the poor" and whatnot.)

So, let's explain the differences between libertarian and the modern social democrat (a type of authoritarian position, I will presume, for the type of social democrat that operates in anarchy doesn't seem to be this fellow's flavor) by making ourselves a nice hierarchy of law, from the building blocks which create the foundation to the philosophical maturity of ethics on a grand scale:

Morality: How a person feels what is good or evil.
Ethics: A collection of the moral codes a person lives by.
Rights: Ethics which people agree should be upheld.
Law: Rights which we agree are important enough to protect with punishment.
Justice: The collection of laws that allow society to function.

With these terms out of the way, let's test the waters on a problem; I'm going to assume the counter of the authoritarian position is also in belief that socialism is the correct answer, so we can see clear similarities and differences and how one is mindful of morality, while the other accepts that morality should be ignored to reach the end goal.

Poverty

Libertarian Socialism: Through rejecting the methods corporations use to gain unfair advantages over smaller businesses (i.e. the various abuses of the state), coupled with rejecting hierarchies in business to ensure the working class, that is the majority, will have more than enough wealth to live happy and fruitful lives, we can end poverty at its source and allow every man the opportunity to better himself.  In this way, we solve several problems: the divide between power structures and individuals becomes flattened, thereby eliminating many of the opportunities a person or entity would have to avoid or supersede the law, ergo justice, the philosophical maturity of morality on a grand scale, is upheld.

Now, let's run it through the grinder:

Justice: When all laws are upheld.
Law: Do not steal, neither directly nor through power structures.
Rights: All men should have the right to health and security.
Ethics: I should have the right to health and security.
Moral: Stealing is detrimental to my health; therefore, I will not steal.

As we can see, the law is in total compliance with all preceding steps.

Democratic Socialism: Through increasing taxation of the wealthy and allowing the state to own any business it deems as necessary to prevent from failing to ensure the individual is not discomforted, as well as developing systems to ensure all man's living conditions and health are protected through social systems, e.g. welfare and social security etc., we can ensure people are given the basic necessities of what they need to live, thereby ending poverty.

The problem here is the state of injustice: consider the steps we laid out earlier.

Justice: When all laws are upheld.
Law: Taxation, i.e. the involuntary movement of wealth from the individual to the state, is granted to the correct institutions, i.e. the IRS, and should be used to keep us healthy.
Rights: All men should have the right to health and security.
Ethics: I should have the right to health and security.
Moral: Stealing is detrimental to my health; therefore, I will not steal.

The foundation of this chain is in direct violation of the law; because we know stealing causes poverty in working men, whether it's from big government or big business, we cannot believe that we will both uphold a state of justice while wishing to cause injustices, and this is only considering one moral being discarded.  If morals are the basis of ethics and ethics are the basis of law, what happens when the moral foundation of law is discarded?  To make it visual:


The corrosion of your rights, sped up 1000x

To be a social democrat is to believe immoral acts can develop into justice.  I don't believe this is the right direction to head.  It doesn't matter what the fellow says in the article if his actions align with my assertion: he is morally ignorant, and in no position to believe he can influence others if he cannot even follow the basics of law.  Thus, he becomes a hypocrite, and asserts that all others should be moral, except when it gets in his way, even if it's for a "good cause".  Every villain believes himself a hero; the difference is whether he can grant others the very rights he grants himself.

I did the same thing, trying to find the point of the article.  It's clearer - the total confusion in the mind of the writer - if you include his preceeding sentence.

As Lind notes, “While progressives betray their principles when they apologize for autocracy, libertarians do not.”   That’s because it is their philosophy. And in a progressive, civil libertarian coalition to advance the cause of privacy and limited government surveillance, this form of “I’ve got mine” nihilism has no place.

WTF?

Yes, do not side with libertarians because while you may want freedom for one thing you don't want freedom all the time.

Think of the children.

...if that did happen, I would find it extremely annoying and an abuse of a serious, real opportunity for people of widely varying beliefs to come together on a fundamental right of privacy.



The argument could be made that per the strict constitutionalist libertarian approach, there is no constitutional right to privacy.

Socialism and Communism were trapped by the Media? Hopefully next time they will have a much better propagan... I mean a much better way explaining their methodology, using social networks and crowd sourcing for the cause.

I should point out, that's mainly due to shitty media reporting and not to a particular ideology which is the mistake you and the author are making, I've seen other ideologies aside from libertarians get trapped by media reporting as well, look at Socialism and Communism.

I was trying to discover the point of this article and finally came across it here because the guy does rant on a bit and doesn't really offer any particular points aside from the snide sarcasm and patronising behaviour I've come to know and love from government loyalists.


I refuse to call these people called Social Democrats or any other label they give themselves because they would gladly sacrifice their core beliefs for the sake of keeping either their empire or their government running as we've seen with the recent U.S shutdown. They are either Imperialists or Loyalists, they do not hold to any particular ideology, if they did, Republicans and Democrats would be getting into fist fights in the middle of congress over the things they say to each other. Yes, I've got mine and if any other government loyalists are reading this I will continue to have mine until you give up your empire building and stop bombing the shit out of people for looking at you funny, oh yeah and now we have proof, stop trying to spy on my emails too while you're at it.

We are also not selfish because we ignore government, go fuck yourselves, people like this are the equivalent to charities in my country who try and guilt trip you and claim you're selfish for not giving money to them.

The problem with this is it perceives altruistic behavior as a social good when applied and promoted by a government.

If you are ok with the government having its hand in just about every aspect of your life, why would you care about the NSA being yet another helping hand?

http://www.computerworld.co.nz/article/530149/protesters_call_an_end_nsa_mass_surveillance/

    A crowd of about 5,000 people, chanting “stop spying, stop lying” and “hey, ho, mass surveillance has got to go,” marched through Washington, D.C., Saturday to protest the U.S. National Security Agency’s mass surveillance programs unveiled in press reports this year.

    Protesters, from a seemingly wide range of political beliefs, called on the U.S. Congress and President Barack Obama to end mass data collection and surveillance by the NSA. [...]

    Another popular sticker, from antiwar group Code Pink, featured lipstick marks and the message, “Make out, not war.”

    Rally attendees said it was important for them to be at the event, although some were unsure if it would make a difference.

    Showing up at the rally was a way of “doing something” instead of just complaining about the NSA, said Lauren Schreiber, community outreach and event coordinator at the Council on American Islamic Relations in Washington, D.C.

    The Muslim community in the U.S. has long been the target of surveillance, she noted. “I feel like if the government doesn’t respect the very basic right of privacy, then all of our other rights are going to be trampled,” she said.

These are just more confused protestors, in the same vein as Occupy, who are oblivious to the fact that their so-called "democracy" is built on a totalitarian fascist surveillance state:


http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/11/hillary-clinton-spying

Okay, you stick with the guys on the other side -the side of government watching and knowing everything we do.

They need some people to help row their boat.

Don't see your meaning; I base law on ethics and accept not amount of hypocrisy.  We can disagree that this is the best way for society to function, but you cannot agree that I am inconsistent with this view, which cannot be said for a person who claims to want good but cannot practice it.

I'm starting to believe democratic socialism is a code word for morally ignorant.  Which is funny, since morality is the foundation of the philosophy of ethics and ethics is the foundation of the philosophy of law and law is the foundation of the civil society which every democratic socialist touts.

So I watched this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGmiw_rrNxk

Then I thought "Those people are mostly on the Big government centralized power b.wagon, but I have zero problem about what they are for in this video."
Finally those with a more anarcho capitalist or libertarian blah blah views and Big-Hollywood-I-am-rich-but-you-should- not-be crowd agree on something from time to time.

But then of course I was wrong:

http://www.salon.com/2013/10/21/dont_ally_with_libertarians_ideologues_co_opt_an_anti_nsa_rally/

    Don’t ally with libertarians: Ideologues co-opt an anti-NSA rally

    “We demand the U.S. Congress reveal the full extent of the NSA’s spying programs,” is the basic demand of Stop Watching Us.

    This is a vital cause, and I agree with it.

    Yet I cannot support this coalition or the rally. It is fatally compromised by the prominent leadership and participation of the Libertarian Party and other libertarian student groups; their hardcore ideology stands in direct opposition to almost everything I believe in as a social democrat.

    The Libertarian Party itself — inaccurately described by Stop Watching Us as a “public advocacy organization” — is a right-wing political party that opposes all gun control laws and public healthcare, supported the government shutdown, dismisses public education, opposes organized labor, favors the end of Social Security as we know it, and argues in its formal political manifesto that “we should eliminate the entire social welfare system” while supporting “unrestricted competition among banks and depository institutions of all types.”