@Leroy @timmy

It means taking a group of people who were formerly undistinguished, and giving them total control of every human life.

As soon is the dictators becomes a dictators, they is not longer part of the proletariat. by definition.

They are just the new privileged class.

@Leroy @timmy

And why are 3,000 tyrants one mile away better than 1 tyrant 3,000 miles away?

It is a group of people that wants to control my life. As I am not a conformist, I do not want what most people want. So a system where the majority has the power to abuse the minority any way they want ( e.g. Nazi Germany or the USSR ) is not a good system for me.

But you do you ... I think that Pinochet should have refrained from throwing people out of helicotors, and should have, instead, flown them to Cuba and returned with a planeload of refugees.

Let the communists live the the communist places, the fascists live in the fascist places, and the liberty lovers live in the free places.

There is enough earth for everybody.

Except that every inch of the earth is claimed by some government that will murder you if you try to ignore them.

So we gotta get rid of that, someplace.

@Leroy @timmy

I agree about anarchism ... much better than Democracy, because the minority can defend itself from the majority ...

But if there is fascism somewhere on earth, that is fine with me. I want to have someplace to put fascists who tried to impose fascism on my community, and prison is worse than murder.

So let some country be a theocracy, and deport the theocrats there.

Let some other country be fascist, and deport the fascists there.

Let another be communist, and deport the fascists there.

And let still another be anarchy, and deport the anarchists there.

@Nobody @timmy no, fascists don't have a place on earth. Giving them that space just allows them to organize and spread their hate and violence. Fascists need to be shot dead where they stand. No exceptions

And again, the ultimate goal of Communism is anarchism

@Leroy @timmy

In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.

In practice there generally is.

Fascism and Communism are pretty much indistinguishable in practice.

@Leroy @timmy

I think they are socialists because there are two options: free markets, and socialism ... socialism being defined as a system where command and control is the organizing principle of socieety.

In a free market, the government would not have the power to tell companies that they could not hire Jews. In a socialist "market" they would.

Ownership is defined as "the right to exclude others".

if the government can exclude you from your property, but you cannot exclude them from it, they own "your property", and you do not.

@Leroy @timmy

All totalitarians are socialists.

A totalitarian government controls everything.

A socialist government controls the economy.

You cannot control everything without controlling the economy.

Q.E.D.

@Leroy @timmy

I am giving you definitions.

You speak leftist, I speak Libertarian. Others speak rightest.

I am relatively fluent in leftist, having grown up a hippy and followed the Dead for many years.

But the modern authoritarian leftists are not the same. They are in love with war and killing.

@Leroy @timmy

There are many flavors of hippies. There are those who want the government to do everything, and there are those who just want the government to get out of the way so they can live their way.

I am the latter sort, if you did not guess.

@Leroy @timmy

I am not a liberal, I am an anarchist.

Not the same thing.

I am close to what a was once called a liberal, but more consistent.

@Leroy @timmy

You are probably an Anarcho-Communist, or a Anarcho-Syndacalist.

I could do Anarcho-Syndacalism ( under certain conditions, e.g., anybody can start their own syndicates and compete with the existing ones ) but not communist.

The thing about anarchy is, not everybody is going to anarchy the same way. That's the breuty of it.

I am a Motley Anarchist, or an Anarchist without Adjectives.

Which more or less means I am content to do me, and let you do you.

@Leroy @timmy

I used to be an ancap. Then I realized that it was an incomplete solution. Because it implies that everybody everywhere would do things our way.

But that cannot happen without massive violence.

So I am now a Motley Anarchist.

You can do it your way where you are, and I'll do it my way where I am, and I'll be way too busy to try to control you.

So I'll leave you and yours alone, so long as you leave me and mine alone.

@Leroy @timmy

My goals in life do not include being a "real anarchist" by your definition, any more than your goals are likely dominated by a desire to be a "real anarchist" by my definition.

@Leroy @timmy

That is wrong in at least two ways.

First, I don't want states at all.

Second, unless you call "anarchist" an ethnicity, the jurisdiction which I would choose would not be any sort of an ethnostate. I don't give a fuck about your skin color. I want to live around people who are willing to let me live my life in my own way.

I'm delighted to have those who want such things fuck off and find one, though. That way I don't have to deal with them, or even trouble myself to fight with them.

@Leroy @timmy

So submit to your judgement or be murdered.

If you want my life, come and take it, if you can.

But don't expect me to go softly into that black night.

And don't expect to find me unarmed or helpless.

@Leroy @timmy

The paradox of tolerance is predicated on the idea that when good ideas go up against bad ideas, bad ideas will always win.

This is bullshit.

So the paradox is bullshit.

@Leroy @timmy

As you pointed out, shit for brains, Nazis are not big on free speech.

I am.

Thereofre, not a Nazi.

But lie, that's what commies do best.

@Leroy @timmy

I love freee speech for eveybody.

Even those I disagree with.

Even monsters like you who are willing to murder the whole world to get their way.

@Leroy @timmy

The only use of violence that does not violate the rights of others is in answer to violence.

@Leroy @timmy

Having an opinion is not violence.

Stating your opinion is not violence.

Violence, on the other hand, is violence.

Poor people starve because the government starves them.

@Leroy @timmy

Opinions are not violence.

If advocating bad systems was violence, I would be throwing commie fucks out of helicopters.

But it's not, so I don't.