I think an underappreciated objection to socialism and authoritarianism is the structural one rather than about any specific issue. It's not actually a big deal for society if a specific book gets banned. The big deal is that there is an entity with the power to ban them.
-
Show this thread
-
For any reshaping of society, you need someone who's in charge of that reshaping and powerful enough to force people to do what they want. That's the problem.
2 replies 2 retweets 11 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @drethelin
I'd approach it another way: "society" is just a word for "a whole bunch of individuals". If you "reshape" that in any way, you are manipulating people (apparently against their will, bc if they WANTED to do it, they already would have). Same argument, phrased differently.
1 reply 1 retweet 5 likes -
Replying to @MorlockP
Yeah it's probably worth distinguishing evangelistic/persuasive reshaping vs top-down reshaping but to be fair I did specify socialist and authoritarian reshaping in the OP.
3 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @drethelin
yeah, we're 99.9% agreed. Just phrasing the thing differently To steelman socialists, they MIGHT mean "no, everyone keeps all the same rights, it's just that the patterns have become ossified via [ left-wing "moloch" argument ] and so we're gonna free EVERYONE" (they don't tho)
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
so what I like about my phrasing is that it's an invite to them to either agree with me and explain "force is good tho", or to accept the libertarian-socialist off-ramp I outlined in the prev tweet (they always choose path A tho)
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.