I hate this 2-party system, and I loathe the DNC and the neo-liberal elite. That said, the Republicans haven’t fielded a palatable candidate in my entire lifetime.
Thus, like many Americans I’m forced to politically pinch my nose and vote for the geriatric, corporate-and-billionaire funded elite of the American “left” because the alternative after the dust settles after the primaries is unthinkable.
The American citizenry is fucked, and I fear the only way out from under the boot-heel of the billionaire class is armed bloody revolution, of which I’m terrified of due to what typically comes next, historically.
Orwell and Huxley were supposed to be warnings, not manuals for sociopathic murderous political cults. Then again, maybe things will turn out like Zardoz.
But of course you know this, so why exactly are you asking?
No. I don’t. That’s why I’m asking.
I thought incel was an abbreviation for an involuntary celibate person, male or female, who genuinely can’t have sex for a plethora of potential reasons. Since the word “involuntary” is part of the abbreviation, to me, that means the person who’s celibate can’t help it.
For what it’s worth, I’m on the spectrum, and one aspect of my neuropathy is that I over-emphasize strict definitions of words etymologically and need to have strict meaning in communication. I perceive people using fluid or inaccurate definitions for words as a vehicle for hostile manipulation and malicious intent.
I am in therapy for this, but I’m skeptical CBT or drugs can rectify how I interpret linguistic nuance.
This implies that any capitalist society is compatible with democracy, as in, “the will of the masses controls society”
Correct.
Capitalism is an economic system, while democracy is a political system.
To repeat myself a bit, my argument is that capitalism can’t exist without collective agreements on legislation, enforcement, and adjudication, along with strong protections for an individual’s rights.
In the United States, we technically have a democratically-elected representative federal republic (on paper). This is one of many political systems where capitalism can exist, if we’re defining it strictly, as I’d mentioned above.
And to be absolutely clear:
If you believe that supposed self-described “socialists”, “communists”, “leftists”, and other “cHaMpIoNs Of tHe PeOpLe” have never been or are incapable of being genocidal maniacs, please promptly fuck your own face with your tankie butt-plug and jump off the nearest cliff.
I will never entertain any authoritarian of whatever economic stripe or their apologists for even a nanosecond.
Rebranded libertarianism or not, my point is that what I’ve experienced when talking to self-described anarcho-capitalists is that they’re all wannabe dictators.
Libertarianism as an idea can’t exist without gasp collective societal debates and agreements about government, individual freedom, and limitations of enforcement and adjudication… You know, like in a democratically-elected representative federal republic. Kind of like the United States.
Capitalism (strictly defined as the private ownership of the means of production) can’t exist without the premise of private property being protected by laws that are collectively agreed upon, enforced, and adjudicated by peers within your community.
If one defines anarchism strictly as a type of government without a hierarchy, then anarcho-capitalism can exist with laws and government by one’s peers, who are societally and politically equal, save for temporary powers granted to them to legislate, enforce, and adjudicate the laws that are collectively agreed upon regarding private property and its ownership, protection, and distribution.
What a lot of these anarcho-capitalist chucklefucks actually advocate for is the corporate-might-makes-right-piracy under the guise of “rUgGeD iNdIvIdUaLiSm”.
They’re authoritarians who want the freedom to fuck anyone over with impunity “without the commies in government getting in the way”.