Leftist Analogies

[The Teacher]

Capitalists and wingers like to trot out a bunch of stupid analogies that they claim support their version of "fairness" Shouldn't we be able to come up with something that actually makes sense?

One example is the people splitting up a dinner tab, where the poor rich guy has to pay more.

Our the farmer who tries to get everyone to help him plant crops and bake bread, they don't help but try to take the bread.

Wait, if they had all cooperated in the farming and split the result....

[Ostrinski]

No. Analogies are ineffective ways of communicating a point, there are almost always loopholes, and in my experience they're used when the one using them is in a desperate spot and attempts to moralize things in an opportunistic way.

[Revolution starts with U]

Using analogies is a lot like puking when ur drunk. You try nd try, but you can never get it all out, nd then u feel like shit.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I like analogies and use them often. They are a good way to illustrate a point in an interesting and memorable way. It important to explain things directly at first, but the analogy can add to it and make it seem less abstract. Yay analogies.

[Sasha]

No. Analogies are ineffective ways of communicating a point, there are almost always loopholes, and in my experience they're used when the one using them is in a desperate spot and attempts to moralize things in an opportunistic way.

Yeah, I'm always quite fond of thinking right-wing analogies through and turning them around to our advantage.
It's always pretty easy because right-wingers always trot out the same easy to pick apart ones.
My favorite is when discussing squatting they are always bound to pull out the "if I don't use my car you can't steal it either" which is a excellent opportunity too mention the big shortage of parkingspaces here in amsterdam and that in fact if you just let your car rot away the state will come and tow it away. And that you then have X time to claim it or it defaults to the state. And that if the state wouldn't do this surely the community would get pissed off at all the old cars rotting away bringing down the neighborhood and taking up valuable parkingspaces and would start to take matters in their own hands.
Pretty sweet analogy for the housingmarket, the refusal of the state to act and why that's wrong and so why we squat. Thank you mister right-winger....

[Night Ripper]

the community would get pissed off at all the old cars rotting away bringing down the neighborhood and taking up valuable parkingspaces and would start to take matters in their own hands

Without the state, all parking spaces would be privately owned. It would be up to the owner to set the terms and conditions for using that parking space. If I set my terms and conditions as being "park here forever, even if it rots" then you have no right to touch the car. It doesn't matter who gets their panties in a twist, it's my parking space.

[RGacky3]

Without the state, all parking spaces would be privately owned.

Actually none of them would be privately owned, you'd have no private ownership, the most you could hopefor is

A: standing in the parking spot with a gun
B: convincing everyone else that they should allow you exclusive access to the spot.

[Sasha]

Without the state, all parking spaces would be privately owned

says who? we are not talking about some suburbia driveway or a rural yard. we are talking parking on public streets, public being the giveaway word


It would be up to the owner to set the terms and conditions for using that parking space.
indeed, us the people, the comunal owners of public space in the case of public space, but even with real private property there should come responsibilities.
if people for example are hungry they have, imho, every right to claim vacant lots of farmland and cultivate them.


If I set my terms and conditions as being "park here forever, even if it rots" then you have no right to touch the car. It doesn't matter who gets their panties in a twist, it's my parking space.

and we argue that in a society where there is such a shortage on parking spaces or affordable housing or farmland the people (pre-revolutionary that means its representative the state) can decide that other peoples right to park or live or eat trumps your right to do what ever you want with your private property.
whether that will be a temporarly infringement until you actually start using your property again or a definitive seisure is up for discussion.

but like brospierre said, analogies are almost always faulty, its just that if the opposition insist on using them its always fun to mess with them as they almost never really think them through.

[Night Ripper]

says who?

Says me.


if people for example are hungry they have, imho, every right to claim vacant lots of farmland and cultivate them.

In my opinion, if someone owns land, they control how it's used, even if they just want to look at an empty lot.


and we argue that in a society where there is such a shortage on parking spaces or affordable housing or farmland the people (pre-revolutionary that means its representative the state) can decide that other peoples right to park or live or eat trumps your right to do what ever you want with your private property.

Then we go to war.

[Sasha]

Says me.



In my opinion, if someone owns land, they control how it's used, even if they just want to look at an empty lot.



Then we go to war.


obviously i disagree, again we disagree, on this we agree... and thats why you are here in OI and you will be up against the wall come the revolution...

[Thirsty Crow]

obviously i disagree, again we disagree, on this we agree... and thats why you are here in OI and you will be up against the wall come the revolution...
I doubt our rip boy will have the guts to confront the red guard or even to say a word (okay, for you, the red-and-black guard):D

[RGacky3]

I like how night ripper just ignores all of my responses.

[Night Ripper]

I doubt our rip boy will have the guts to confront the red guard or even to say a word (okay, for you, the red-and-black guard):D

Keep fantasizing.

[DinodudeEpic]

Smelling internet tough guys....They're everywhere.

[manic expression]

Then we go to war.
Which requires what?

One of them state things.

Which means you want a state.

[Veovis]

Without the state, all parking spaces would be privately owned. It would be up to the owner to set the terms and conditions for using that parking space. If I set my terms and conditions as being "park here forever, even if it rots" then you have no right to touch the car. It doesn't matter who gets their panties in a twist, it's my parking space.

Without the state, what happens if someone with more guns than you comes up and says "This is my space now"?

[runequester]

Without the state, what happens if someone with more guns than you comes up and says "This is my space now"?

Pixie dust will take their guns away.

Most libertarian ideology works on the basis of faerie magic

[RedAtheist]

If all parking spaces were privately owned doesn't that mean I'd have to pay every time I parked and there would be police (or maybe a private security force of some sort) all over the place to make sure I paid the money? For that matter, if there was no state, wouldn't that mean that the roads would be privately owned and I would have to pay for using them. I wouldn't be able to leave my drive way without having to take a ticket! Don't see why anyone would want to live in such a society.

[Ostrinski]

If all parking spaces were privately owned doesn't that mean I'd have to pay every time I parked and there would be police (or maybe a private security force of some sort) all over the place to make sure I paid the money? For that matter, if there was no state, wouldn't that mean that the roads would be privately owned and I would have to pay for using them. I wouldn't be able to leave my drive way without having to take a ticket! Don't see why anyone would want to live in such a society.This is the key issue here. Libertarian ideology caters to the wildly abstract perception of liberty of pseudo-intellectuals who are nostalgic for the Enlightenment, while socialism is reflective of the real, existing, material interests of large masses of people. Do libertarians honestly think that people give a fuck about their goofball ideals when they're standing in the breadline?

[runequester]

This is the key issue here. Libertarian ideology caters to the wildly abstract perception of liberty of pseudo-intellectuals who are nostalgic for the Enlightenment, while socialism is reflective of the real, existing, material interests of large masses of people. Do libertarians honestly think that people give a fuck about their goofball ideals when they're standing in the breadline?

They almost universally assume they won't be the one waiting in line.

[Ostrinski]

That's the other key issue. They have no material framework from which to build their analysis on, so when reality turns out to not reflect their utopian willy wonka factory of a society, they have to blame state intervention as if it was some robotic default. Either way, the end remains the same: the historic necessity of socialism.

[Thirsty Crow]

Keep fantasizing.
Coming from an anarcho-capitalist, just precious :laugh:

[RGacky3]

the historic necessity of socialism.

I'd say capitalism will necessarily fail, but there is nothing that says socialism will necessarily succede, or come after.


so when reality turns out to not reflect their utopian willy wonka factory of a society, they have to blame state intervention as if it was some robotic default.

I have yet to see any strong connection, they can point to the EXISTANCE of some government agency, but they can never make a connection, causal or dialecticly or otherwise.

I remember arguing aobut Iceland, and they ended up pointing to the existance of a centralized currency, without making absolutely NO connection to the actual crisis there. Its like saying every country that collapses has trees, so we should cut down all the trees, if a country collapses its obviously the trees fault.