we are the only ones to be trusted

That doesnt support your point

Lol. So you're literally illiterate? Explains a lot.

>you dont understand your position but I do
Is this tumblr?

You were talking about communism as one central system or many smaller subsystems. Round made comments about warlords and such

> that thing I said didn't mean what the words said because waaaaaaaaah
It may be.

How do you get "centralization of any sort = authoritarianism" from "you can try to set up a totalitarian state in a smaller system but it's harder if you keep scaling down"

And...? If you can have local totalitarianism, then it proves that scope and centralization are severable...

No it doesnt, it just isn't a smooth curve from 0 to 100. All it boils down to is who has power and over what, no?

> How do you get "centralization of any sort = authoritarianism"
Because you said exactly that, multiple times, you lunatic.

> who has power and over what, no?
Lol. So fucking dishonest. Those are two entirely different questions.

What you have power over is necessarily a factor of the amount of power you have

I don't follow. What do you mean by that?

Most voters have (very limited) power over a very big thing but don't have much power.

Well, you can have total power over some things but not others, or you can have a lot of power over a small group, but less over a large one

That's my point pretty much.

Amount of power and subject of power aren't necessarily related.

But they are. Are you more powerful if you have total control over one person, than someone who has moderate control over 100 people? It depends on what you can get accomplished, no? So a moderately successful populist could have more power than a feared slave owner

Even though he has less control over each component part of his power base

put the commies in prison. simple

Doesn't that just demonstrate how they aren't though?

No, because again, power is the output. You can accomplish a lot with one very dedicated, loyal follower

More than someone with minor influence over millions, for instance

Exactly

or fire them. Shame is what we need. We used to have shame.

How does that separate them? It's the same equation

So the size of the thing you have power over doesn't necessarily correlate with the amount of power you have.

It necessarily correlates, it just may not be the be-all end-all

Social Norms are the solution, not beating them philosophically or intellectually

I think most of these examples don't show a correlation but this conversation is starting to feel stupid.

Rigorous, brutal social norm enforcement

You're so smart, what do you think you know what's best for me?

Doesnt social norm enforcement imply you know what's best?

Chemical castration of children should be shamed

we start with that

@Beemann
> What you have power over is necessarily a factor of the amount of power you have
No shit, you sperg. Both are aspects of authoritarianism, neither of centralization.

Public shame is the only thing that's allowing for the chemical castration of children.

Yeah we're not going to get anywhere with this lol

social norms are driven by the family, neighbors and churches.