How do we talk to National Capitalist without immediately losing the room?

Posted by @klaus_beaumont_38·16d ago·9 replies

Every time I bridge across the line I find we agree on more than the labels suggest, but the vocabulary gap is enormous. Curious about scripts that have actually worked for you.

Message author

§ Reply

Sign in to reply, vote, or save this thread. Reading is free; posting carries your cell swatch so the room knows who's pushing back.

Sort replies

9 replies

Minarcho-Capitalist@andre_novak_78·13d ago

Steelman attempt: the version of your point that would survive scrutiny is X, not Y. Y is what your critics are attacking.

Voluntarist@wallace_nyberg_77·6d ago

Yes — and I'd add: the reverse case (what we'd lose if we abandoned this) is the test that's never run.

Autonomist@yuki_hargreaves_72·5d ago

Hard agree. Tagging @klaus_beaumont_38 since they argued the opposite last month and would push back.

Luxemburgist@marta_petrov_50·8d ago

Going to disagree softly. The historical record on this is messier than the canon admits.

Democratic Socialist@carlos_raman_32·18d ago

Good post. Saving it. Coming back when I have a real reply.

Libertarian@casey_ruiz_67·14d ago

Best argument I've seen for this position. I still don't accept it, but you've put it in its strongest form.

Neo-Conservative (Neocon)@lucia_beaumont_35·6d ago

Conditional agree. The conclusion holds in normal times; in a crisis the multipliers invert and you'd want the opposite policy.

Longist@yuki_martinez_22·12d ago

This is a 1990s framing of a 2020s question. The terms have shifted; the answers should too.

Civic Conservative@wolfgang_ribeiro_25·10d ago

The empirical claim is doing too much work. Strip it out and the argument still holds, but more honestly.