User talk:2405:4802:A1F0:6FF0:FC69:C91B:3074:BBA2

=Just wondering= First of all, I have fairly poor social skills so unlike most users I have very hard time advocating for myself, and this is a wiki that favors a orthodoxy I agree with but an orthodoxy non the less and I tend to make an arse of myself even in the best of times. So this not confrontational, it’s just to follow up my response to your comment on my talk page. For the most part, I doubt you are ill-intentioned, however on the Internet, left liberal spaces have been radicalized by illiberal socialists, possibly by a Russian psy-ops campaign. You are not that, simply put I am suspicious of socialists and was waiting for a rebuttal to my argument. There have been numerous so called “socialist” regimes such Baathism in Syria and Iraq, Burmese way to socialism in Myanmar, Third International Theory in Libya, that combined socialism with totalitarianism, and the totalitarianism in general is a part of ideocracy, in which an absolute monolithic ideology becomes the basis of governance and leads to the total suppression of dissent, whether it be in the totalitarian form such as with Gadaffi, Saddam, and al-Assad dynasty, in which the state forces an ideology onto an unwilling populace, but also populist regimes which themselves can be seen as an inverse of totalitarianism, in which the masses force an such an ideology on the state, and that is what leads to the suppression of all political dissent, cult of personality surrounding deified prophets (e.g. Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Nasser, Peron, Chavez.) There is also the issue that so called libertarian socialist states had massive human rights abuses such as Rojava, Anarchist Catalonia, the Seattle autonomous zone, or were curb stomped by more authoritarian socialist states, such as Mahknovia was by Lenin the instant the alliance with the anarchists weren’t needed anymore. Private property is a human right, and mainstream economists don’t recognize the difference between owning a condominium versus owning a farm, other than that the farm produces value. In other words, in economics there is no such thing as “personal property”, it’s just called private property. And by taking away all private property, and without establishing rule of law checks and balances, even a democratic socialist state becomes totalitarian as soon as the Nazi party is elected as head party in the supreme workers’ council. This is not taking into account the socialist calculation problem which would lead to ineffeciencies which would either lead to a) the overthrowal of socialism or b) authoritarianism that can very easily escalate into totalitarianism since “public” ownership of the means of production usually goes to the state or what Mass organization becomes the de facto state by organizing and attempting to maintain order such as the CNT-FAI in Catalonia, or the YPG in Rojava, or Communist parties in communist systems. The other problem is the tragedy of commons, which shows how without restraints like markets or money resources given to the common people would instantly dry up, like a group of sheep herders on public grazing land only to lose all the grass because no one regulated just how much grass the sheep could eat, and sheep eat grass in a way that makes it unable to regrow. As such either economics eats itself alive, not to mention the lack of incentive for capital investment, leading to the trade Union political party or militia acting as that incentive forcing Laborers to work without pay or money just to get basic necessities like roads. Once again, this is how socialism has totalitarian impulses, even so called “libertarian socialism” if was mean or rude in any way May you please say so for the love of Christ, I am not always aware how I come off and my worst fear with discussing this being rude or disrespectful. You most likely are a good person, as is human tendency, which instead of putting any group first oppressed or oppresser we should people first, and place rights, dignity, welfare of all human and non human persons first, that way we don’t socialism– politics humanism would work just fine. I highly recommend reading the declaration of human rights and fundamental political belief in humanism as an alternative to socialism because humanism only cares about the end goal, not how we get their. In theory this form of humanism can be reconciled with social liberalism and social liberalism combined with humanism is the basis of my political beliefs. Anyway please debunk my answers please otherwise I won’t know if they are wrong--Jakester499 (talk) 03:18, 7 August 2022 (UTC)