1: "What puts you in a position to speak for socialists? "
Not sure if you realize you are moving the goal post here. If a self described socialist does not advocate for seizing the means of production and direct government intervention within the economy, then I wouldn't classify them as a socialist myself, nor would I oppose them. I was originally discussing with a socialist who DID advocate for these things, so this is not strawmanning his position, or the position of anyone who agrees with him. Those are the socialists I speak against.

Like I said, I know very little about tithe barns, and I very literally said that. All of the stuff you are bringing up is not stuff I advocated for or against; this was a blog written about a very specific premise which you are stretching out to have me list a far more lengthy economic philosophy. Ironically, you are are the one trying to reframe my positions and playing semantic games. Making vague appeals to authority by bringing up quotes of people I have never heard of does not help your case.

2: Yeah, to repeat this simple fact (in a comment on a blog I wrote explaining how property is not theft, mind you; it's very, VERY far off topic), I'm not a military history expert. I'm not even remotely well read on the subject, which is why I didn't write an entire blog suggesting we dissolve the military and instead have independent state militias. But I seem to recall the origins of the United States being due to the formation of militia to fight back against the tyranny of Britain, which then became a national military later on. BUT AGAIN... this is so far outside the realm of the original discussion, I'm starting to struggle to remember how we even got on this topic.

3: "I was talkng about the reasons the crash took so long to recover not the cause of the crash."
I thought the reason it took so long to recover was more government intervention that attempted to jumpstart the economy, while instead only hindering economic growth by reducing the ability of people to execute transactions? Again, this doesn't change the fact that you basically argued there is a special class of property that can't be liquidated back into currency(it very much can be, and that was my larger point), and that some people are simply not susceptible to market forces. That second part is only true if they have the government bail them out, which happens far too often in my opinion. I even consider that socialism BECAUSE... it involves taking TAX MONEY from the GENERAL POPULATION in order to pay for the IRRESPONSIBILITY of those who went bankrupt(see final set of comments for why I'm putting so much emphasis on my thought process here). But the market isn't the cause of those issues, it's the government trying to control the market causing issues.

4: "The fun part that you should take home with you though is that non-state fiat currencies that are fundamentally decentralised are a form of socialism."

...what? Are you being serious? Have you just been trolling me this whole time?

...well...

I suppose I'll at least PRESUME good intentions, and respond accordingly.

Earlier, you accused me of defining anything I don't like as socialism. I always tried to keep my use of socialism as when something redistributes value to people who may or may not have actually earned that value from the person it is being taken from involuntarily. And yet, you have defined, among many other things, the very concept of cryptocurrency as a form of socialism. Something that anarcho-capitalists are head over heals in support for, as they see it as a way to replace a government's control over money.

That's... truly astonishing, and finally shows me the problem here that I should have realized much sooner. You are operating with an entirely different definition of socialism than I am. Not just slightly different, ENTIRELY different.

You see, I am not formally educated on economics like you apparently are, nor do I work in any financial field. Meaning, I have a much more non-academic, popular definition for socialism as opposed to someone like you. I understand it as a layman understands it. This does not mean either of us are right or wrong; it means we are talking about two different things entirely, and merely using the same word to describe them.

I am talking about something closer to AOC's and Dave Ramsey's definitions of socialism. They both use socialism as the taking of money from those who have it and giving it to the people who do not have it. It is not "opt-in" for those who have the money, it is taken by force. Your definitions are based on academics who seem to have more focus on the "social" part of socialism: meaning, anything "social" in nature, like currency or charity, are considered socialism. EVEN IF, mind you, these programs are entirely voluntary; Dave Ramsey does not classify voluntary charity as socialism, and has gone so far as to state that one of the goals of becoming successful is so you can give abundantly to your fellow man. He is in support of charity, while being simultaneously adamantly against socialism, and well educated on finances himself. So, he might understand more what you are talking about in your use of socialism, but he still uses the layman's definition of socialism in general conversation because(I presume) he understands there is a consensus on it's meaning in general society different from a more academic definition.

I'm just flabbergasted. You took part in this whole conversation, wrote all these comments... without realizing that you are operating under a fundamentally different definition of socialism? That you aren't discussing with some highly credentialed academic, but simply some guy on the internet who doesn't like the deliberate exploitation of people under the name of equality(something that you also seem to agree with, in the end)? That you are talking with someone who is against specific socialists who call for the complete destruction of private ownership over businesses, and not someone who is opposed to people who want to pool their resources together to help out those who are struggling?

I'm just... dang it, I'm beyond frustrated. You are an ACADEMIC, someone who is defined as being well read and very articulate on their positions, so I suggest you reevaluate how you approached this whole thread. You should know these things far more thoroughly than I, and yet you failed to understand that my use of language was just premised on different assumptions than yours. That doesn't make it immediately wrong, it means you didn't adequately state your position, nor did you properly understand mine. You simply created more obfuscation rather than helping bring about more understanding on this subject.

I really should have started this with my definitions for various things, in retrospect. That part is on me. Otherwise, it seems everyone either deliberately or accidentally twists my words to mean something that I don't. What a spectacular waste of energy this has been.