[flagged]
You're framing this as libertarians versus Stalinism or something like that, I was thinking more unionisation, social-democratic movements, that sort of thing. Fascists pop up in the face of some pretty milquetoast leftist agitation - see the parent commenter who decided to become a fascist because leftists were mean to them.
I do believe that voluntary contracts can be exploitative (because they can by definition), but that didn't come up in this thread at all so I'm not sure where you're bringing that in from.
It is also the most destructive ideology in history, that has created the most totalitarian states that man has been subjected to.
Those who believe in your ideology will always side with anti-libertarians, and advocate centralization of power to stifle the individual, because Communism deems man, in his natural state, as evil, and glorifies efforts to stifle him as good.
>>I do believe that voluntary contracts can be exploitative (because they can by definition),
By definition, they cannot. If both parties choose to engage in the trade, no one was exploited. Marxism claims otherwise, in order to villify a free society and those who champion it, and legitimize anti-libertarian ideologies like Communism.
>>I was thinking more unionisation, social-democratic movements
You framed it as death camp supporting fascists versus your political camp, implying libertarians are in the former, and now you take issue with me calling your camp Communists.
I framed fascists as the death camp ones and a variety of left wing causes from outright revolutionary communism to social democratic positions as the opposition, and said that libertarians often pick the former over the latter. I'm not sure what about my argument you are struggling to follow - it's a widely acknowledged historical tendency. Yknow, IBM's holocaust computers and all that.
We've also had to ask you this multiple times before. Also not cool.
Since it doesn't look like you've been using HN primarily for this, I haven't banned your account, but if you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the intended spirit—regardless of how wrong other commenters are or you feel they are—we'd appreciate it.
I'm not expecting a reply because I know moderating this place must keep you busy, but it's a legitimate bind and the guidelines aren't very instructive. From an intent perspective, I'm not trying to sling mud, I think legitimate discussion of political perspectives is interesting and important.
We've had to ask you this multiple times before. Not cool.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Edit: since your account has clearly been using HN primarily (maybe even exclusively) for ideological battle, and that's the line at which we ban accounts, I've banned this one.
For past explanations about why we draw the line this way, see https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme.... We do this regardless of which ideology an account is battling for or against—it's tedious and destructive of what HN is for, irrespective of which side people are on.
If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future.