Anonymous #1 4w

What does this mean

1

Anonymous OP 4w

Authoritarian ideology can be simplified as saying people who support less personal freedoms and more state control

-1

Anonymous #1 4w

So I’m confused by you saying authoritarian agrees with authoritarian. Genuinely, not trying to be a dick

3

Anonymous OP 4w

Trump supporters are generally authoritarian right wingers, and I'm assuming you're an authoritarian left winger. I'm saying it's not that shocking you would agree on it, because you are both authoritarian and in this context the authoritarian/anarchist divide is more meaningful than the left/right divide.

3

Anonymous #1 4w

Interesting. I’m not quite sure what exactly a left wing authoritarian is or if I fall into that category. Can you say more?

1

Anonymous OP 4w

Well it would be anyone who fits the description of an authoritarian (less personal freedoms, more state control) and is more left wing aligned (whether that be economically with socialist/communist theory or socially with intersectional feminism esque theory or a combination of the two) than right wing aligned.

1

Anonymous #1 4w

Universal healthcare is not an authoritarian policy lmfao

1

Anonymous #3 4w

It literally takes away from your personal freedoms to make your own medical decisions

0

Anonymous #1 4w

How?

1

Anonymous #3 4w

It forces you to pay into a healthcare system that you might not even use

0

Anonymous #1 4w

Do you think that having government-funded insurance somehow eliminates the existence of consent forms for treatment? Do you think it takes away your choice in what General Practitioner you see? Because they have universal state-funded insurance in France, and you still have those options.

1

Anonymous #1 4w

My house might never burn down, I mean fuck, it’s made of brick. It’ll never burn. I still pay into the Fire Department. Is the Fire Department an authoritarian apparatus taking away my rights?

1

Anonymous #3 4w

What if I don't trust the government to be making the insurance provider decisions on my medical care?

0

Anonymous #3 4w

Fire department necessity is different in that it can affect others directly and horrifically by burning down their houses, me making my own insurance provider decisions doesn't run that risk.

0

Anonymous #1 4w

What reason would you have to distrust them that is not also present in the private sector? I can tell you one present in the private sector but not in the government. The profit motive. In Medicare and Medicaid, 94% of all money put into those programs directly pays for care. With private insurance, it’s more like 80% and they’re taking the other 20% off the top to go live in a McMansion and deny your claim without having an inkling of medical expertise.

1

Anonymous #3 4w

I already distrust the private sector because of the amount of meddling the government has done in it

0

Anonymous #1 4w

Getting sick can affect others directly and horribly if I delay treatment of a contagious disease for the sake of cost and give it to someone else.

1

Anonymous #1 4w

Oh I get it you’re one of those “right wing libertarians” with no ideas for how to run anything in any society

1

Anonymous #3 4w

I get it too. You're one of the guys who wants to get the government to fix a problem the government made. Good luck moron

0

Anonymous #1 4w

I mean, we pay twice what every other first world nation pays for healthcare. I don’t think the people of the other developed countries are hurting from having tax-funded healthcare, hell, most of them take pride in their healthcare systems. They’ve all got their issues, but none quite as bad as ours. So yeah, do a cost-benefit analysis here buddy.

1

Anonymous #1 4w

Also, this blaming of every woe on the government is so childish. Especially when you’re completely unwilling to look at the crimes of the ownership class, or present any mechanism to deal with those things. Right-libertarianism is a fucking joke ideology. If it weren’t for the state, you’d have probably starved to death as a child, or been hit over the head with a rock by now.

1

Anonymous #3 4w

No I'll admit, the people in cahoots with the government need to go as well.

0

Anonymous #3 4w

Blaming everything on the "ownership class" because they have a racket going from what our government does is, in my opinion, equally childish to blaming the government for every bad aspect of it.

0

Anonymous #1 4w

You gotta learn that the capitalist class isn’t “in cahoots with” the government. The capitalist class OWNS the government.

1

Anonymous #1 4w

I mean when the ownership class is buying and paying for politicians on both sides of the aisle, ensuring that no policy ever gets passed by anyone which would threaten their bottom line, bribing both sides of the race, then yeah I’m gonna blame them for the fact that nothing ever gets done by our bribed representatives to help the little guy. A much more logical thru-line than anything any right-libertarian has ever put forth.

1

Anonymous #3 4w

Seems like your problem is a lot more with lobbying money and political donations influence in government than with capitalism itself

0

Anonymous #3 4w

I actually really agree there, lobbying and dirty money in politics is one of the biggest issues we face. I don't think handing more power over to the state is going to be a great solution either.

1

Anonymous #1 4w

They are directly related to one another, as long as one exists the other will too. Capitalists will always have the ability to buy the state, as long as there are capitalists. Which is why the bourgeois class must be liquidated.

1

Anonymous #3 4w

Or... and this is just a thought, we could hold our politicians to a standard where they are not corrupt?

2

Anonymous #1 4w

And who would hold them to that standard? The politicians write the laws, and they would never write one to hamper themselves or their mutually beneficial relationship with the capitalist class. As long as there is a capitalist class, they will control the state. The capitalist class will always need the strong arm of the state to protect them when workers get out of line, when people stop paying their price-gouged bills they need the state to pursue those people.

1

Anonymous #1 4w

The capitalist class will always need the strong arm of the state for when they start price-gouging us on food, they need the strong arm of the state to crack down on the people who start stealing that food for survival. The “free” market has no answer to issues of inelastic demand, only a state can provide in those areas without the urge to price-gouge.

1

Anonymous #3 4w

Food is a really bad example because of how easy it is to grow or obtain. I would see your point with gas, but the problems with that tend to come from government interference (like we're seeing right now).

1

Anonymous #3 4w

I'm just not seeing a world where we go from having an obesity epidemic to mass starvation without government sponsored genocide or immense crop failure.

1

Anonymous #1 4w

Ah, another right-libertarian classic, thinking subsistence farming is remotely “easy” lmao

1

Anonymous #1 4w

Actually, if you did some digging on the obesity epidemic, it doesn’t exist because the people are too well-fed. It exists because healthy food is artificially kept expensive, while fattening slop is kept cheap. Because to those at the very top, the rest of us are just swine. But those at the upper-middle are the ribbon-winning show pigs, and those at the bottom are the ones they’re gonna slaughter first.

1

Anonymous #3 4w

So your point here is that communists don't genocide and don't experience crop failures?

1

Anonymous #1 4w

I do think that the examples of famine in socialist states are often overstated by the propagandists of capitalist ones. China had a history of famine dating back thousands of years. They had famine under the ROC, the Qing Dynasty, all the way back to the Han Dynasty. But we only ever hear about one Chinese famine, the FINAL Chinese famine. The one that happened soon after the Communists took power, forced them to reflect on their own misguided policies, which they then changed.

1

Anonymous #1 4w

I don’t claim there’s never been a famine in a newly socialist country, but every time there is, it does tend to be the last one in a place with a LONG line of them. You ever noticed that?

1

Anonymous #3 4w

It also tends to be the highest total of death from such a famine, in some cases mainly concentrated for a certain ethnic minority. Funny how that works out.

1

Anonymous #1 4w

Also tends to be the famine with the highest starting population. More mouths to feed at the beginning of a famine, more mouths that go hungry by the end. That’s just mathematics.

1

Anonymous #3 4w

How's that math work out for the Holomodor?

1

Anonymous #1 4w

Not well, I don’t excuse Stalin’s sense of Russian chauvinism over the peoples of the other Soviet Republics. Such a nationalistic belief is antithetical to a legitimate socialist construction, and even more embarrassing because he wasn’t even a Russian!

1

Anonymous #1 4w

Even with universal healthcare like overseas, they have the option for private insurance. Universal healthcare would just be the default rather than no insurance at all

1

Anonymous #3 4w

Hey, thanks for having the argument with #1 for me. I didn’t have the energy

1

Anonymous OP 4w

If someone doesn't want health insurance, I think that should be their choice as well

1

Anonymous #1 4w

Pretty sure you would still be able to opt out, though idk why anyone would want that

3

Anonymous OP 4w

Yeah sure you'd be able to opt out of coverage, but not out of paying. Usually people are more concerned about having to pay for something they don't need than having something they don't need.

0

Anonymous #1 4w

God forbid someone uses their tax money for the benefit of others

2

Anonymous OP 4w

If you feel so strongly about giving your money to help others you can do so already, I don't want to be forced to pay into a system that I won't ever benefit from.

0

Anonymous #1 4w

I certainly hope you don’t pay taxes then

1

Anonymous #1 4w

Brother you already pay into a system you don’t benefit from, my point is that if we’re gonna have to pay the government anyways, they might as well do some shit for us lmao

3

Anonymous #3 4w

Thank you dude

1

Anonymous OP 4w

Do my best not to, rather pay the tax accountant

0

Anonymous #3 4w

Hardly, I never realize my gains

0

Anonymous #1 4w

You’re still paying taxes, you’re only paying the accountant to file them for you 💀

1

Anonymous OP 4w

He does his magic

0