Not my problem. Social democrats are still capitalists, too. So if any social democrats, Stalinists, Maoists, etc. show up if the Capitalist DIR, that's your issue to deal with.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Definition Of "libertarian"
- Thread starter Revoltingest
- Start date
Not my problem. Social democrats are still capitalists, too. So if any social democrats, Stalinists, Maoists, etc. show up if the Capitalist DIR, that's your issue to deal with.
Alceste
Vagabond
But you are the only person here who has any issue with the existing categories. Why should one man's crusade to own the word "libertarian" in defiance of what the word actually means cause a total restructuring of RF's entire political subforum section?
No, it's not my issue. I'm just a guy who posts here....no authority whatsoever.
If someone shows up in a forum where they don't belong, I don't report them or
anything. But sometimes a newbie will be out of place, & I will (in a friendly way)
advise them that the mods might take issue. So far, they've appreciated this help.
(Newbies are often treated badly by old timers here. That burns my bacon!)
Alceste
Vagabond
I treat everyone badly. I'm an equal opportunity cow.
Some self-proclaimed socialists don't favor revolutionary change and so are able to accommodate certain forms of capitalism in their belief systems. I suppose they would be what we usually call progressives. So they're still capitalists. Socialism is not a clearly defined ideology. There's many forms of socialism. It's not like communism, which has one clear definition (and I am a "full-blown" communist).
I don't expect results. I just see something I find worth addressing.But you are the only person here who has any issue with the existing categories. Why should one man's crusade to own the word "libertarian" in defiance of what the word actually means cause a total restructuring of RF's entire political subforum section?
Crusade? That's giving me too much credit for ambition & purpose.
I know that nothing will change due to anything I say. (The mods
just find me to be an annoying pest.)
I'm just building my post count in order to dethrone you know who.
Rev, if you find a person who has openly identified as a socialist on the forum or someone advocating for socialism in the Capitalist DIR, feel free to report them. Just because a snippet in a Wikipedia article say that the term "state capitalism" has been applied to Soviet era economic programs does not mean that we are using it to describe socialism.
Likewise, if a capitalist or someone advocating for capitalism pops up in the Socialism DIR, the members of that section are free to report it.
It really is just that simple.
Likewise, if a capitalist or someone advocating for capitalism pops up in the Socialism DIR, the members of that section are free to report it.
It really is just that simple.
CynthiaCypher
Well-Known Member
You've been at it for like a year.
Alceste
Vagabond
Tolerating profit-motivated individuals and their selfish activities is not capitalism. I also tolerate Catholicism, but I'm not a Catholic.
Well, according to the new rules, I'm now a libertarian, a socialist, a capitalist, a feminist
& a conservative. But I'm no longer a liberal. Stuff happens. And then we cope with it.
Still, my preferred labels (per common Americastanian usage) are:
atheist, libertarian, capitalist
Last edited:
Alceste
Vagabond
They're definitions, not rules, and they're not new.
Tolerating profit-motivated individuals and their selfish activities is not capitalism. I also tolerate Catholicism, but I'm not a Catholic.
I don't know. I'm just thinking of people who are progressives that call for the reforming of capitalism along more socialistic lines but not the complete abolishing of it.
I suppose I'm the odd man out here since I'm a virulent anti-capitalist who favors revolutionary change.
11 months, 3 days, 17 hours, 8 minutes, 7 seconds....but who's counting?
And to think I was going to sponsor your membership in the Libertarian Party!
Alceste
Vagabond
Well, if you want to abolish anything through force or suppress any activity that doesn't impinge on the freedoms of others, you're definitely not a libertarian. But you can still be a socialist and a communist.
Well, if you want to abolish anything through force or suppress any activity that doesn't impinge on the freedoms of others, you're definitely not a libertarian. But you can still be a socialist and a communist.
No, revolution from the bottom up, not the top down.
Pretty much, and they're the guidelines that were already in use. They were just never officially articulated, and that led to a lot of ambiguity.
Utterly wrong.
The definitions, while not de jure rules, are de facto rules.
The new definitions (which were first posted on 7.24.14),
are used as the basis to enforce rule #10.
So if they function as rules, & they're only a month old, they're "new rules".
Edit:
I've posted in the Liberal Only forum before, & never had a problem.
But after 7.24.14, my one post was poofed, with the admonition
that I identify as a "libertarian", therefore I am not a "liberal".
(They didn't object to my inter-marriage with one though.)
I didn't know the rules changed, but now I avoid that forum.
Last edited:
When I asked before about guidelines before, staff told me that they had nothing written.
And after the new rules were posted, enforcement changed. Since you're privy to
what goes on with The Man, you'd naturally have a different perspective. But we
mere denizens only see what happens to us, & don't know what goes on behind the scenes.
Last edited:
If you see your use of force against others as self-defense, then you
could still be a libertarian. We might differ on what situations would
permit self-defense. But that would be something ripe for discussion.