Can you expound more upon your question? I don't quite understand, any examples?
Sure. I guess my broader question, beyond the immediate one, is whether libertarian politics (and Small Government ideology in general) has unintentional negative consequences that need to be more carefully examined by its proponents.
In terms of the poll, I'm asking whether Small Government is capable of surviving seditious conspiracies on the part of wealthy interests. For instance, let's imagine a state whose budget is a tiny fraction of its wealthiest citizen's property. Now suppose this citizen commits murder, and this fact is discovered: Would it be realistic for Small Government to be capable of enforcing the law on this person if the perpetrator chose instead to openly defy and/or seek to overthrow it?
No.
Facism is mainly characterized by 2 notable things: the support or use of revolt, violence and rebellion to keep things in control - or to alter what's present.
And the belief that individuality is *toxic* to your government, economy and overall function as a society.
Yes, but that doesn't necessarily address the question. An idea can, in practice, have consequences that promote its own opposite extreme.
So - they both shoulder with revolution (through physical means if necessary) - but facism almost *requires* physical control to keep the system at a measured constant (like in the movie Logan's Run)
I'm not quite sure I understand your point here. Fascism functions through a number of mechanisms, and violence is only one of its tools: It also appeals to bigotry, economic privilege, xenophobia, nationalism, religion, severe punishment of street criminals, and scapegoating of defenseless minorities. People may go along with it due to self-interest, ideological sympathy, apathy, or fear, so fascism does not actually require ubiquitous government presence - only the occasional "making an example" of dissidents, and the persistence of propaganda.
and this is how libertarianism functions. It FULLY encompases individual thought and free-will.
It rhetorically enshrines them, but libertarianism fails to understand the social mechanisms by which these things are fostered and protected. In other words, in the name of liberty, it may weaken or erase that which protects it.
Reduction of government inadvertently enables big government to take control? Excuse me, what?
The size of government is unrelated to its power. Arguably Europe has some of the most extensive bureaucracies, while Saudi Arabia is much more parsimonious - a handful of hereditary royalty whose word is law.
The greatest danger is not from the mugger hiding the alleyway, nor from the multibillionaire business magnate, but from the politician in the capital city.
Everything is ultimately connected, and we have to look at how things operate as an ongoing system - we cannot treat politics as a set of static objects. A politician in a democracy wields power through webs of relationships; a business magnate wields power directly, and has the potential to become less accountable to law the greater their wealth in proportion to the state. This can yield two outcomes, neither of which is desirable: Corruption, by which they use their resources to dictate the composition and policies of government, and (an admittedly extreme scenario) fascist sedition, whereby they seek to use private resources to impose themselves as head of a new government.
Accordingly, the state must be kept on a tight leash, so that the statist atrocities of the 20th century can never be repeated.
But private power must also be kept on a tight leash, so that the thousand-year horrors of the Middle Ages are never repeated. Libertarians generally fail to appreciate that their ideas lack a rigorous means to prevent wealth from overthrowing constitutional authority. It happens far more often in history than the sort of ideology-driven atrocities of the 20th century.
No because in order for fascism to take route the state needs full control.
I think you're making a chicken-and-egg error in believing that fascism
results from government control - more often than not, it seizes or otherwise acquires power from a much less potent form of government.
It could never happen in a Libertarian society.
People are people in every society. The question is which societies have the most rigorous
mechanisms for deflecting fascist impulses? How would a Libertarian society deal with, for the sake of argument, a billionaire who owned most of the media, employed a private standing army, corrupted elected leaders, and decided to install himself as dictator or his family as hereditary royalty?
Ahh I see, meaning with weak institutions strongarms are more likely to take over.
Yes, exactly. Contrary to the assumptions of many Small Government advocates, bureaucracies tend to
diffuse government power rather than enhancing it. Dictators usually prefer a much simpler, military-style chain of command so their orders can be obeyed quickly and efficiently. The bureaucratic inefficiency often condemned by conservatives is part of what makes it resistant to radicalism.
Fascism? No.
De facto oligarchy? Yes.
Italy and Mexico would be examples.
Both can be enabled by libertarianism - the only question is the disposition of the seditious elite. I.e., whether they consider it more convenient to organize around a single leader, or to rule as a cabal.
Obviously, libertarian philosophy is very far from facism. Maybe you could even say if more people were libertarians, that would make facism less likely.
Perhaps - although it might make feudalism more likely.
But I do see a problem, that's not resulting from philosophical tenets of libertarianism, but a side effect of the implementation of such ideals: When democracy and public policy (including democratic elections, individual and pluralist participation and according collective action) is pushed back in favor of markets and mere individualism, you feel more and more people falling off the train: Those who are disadvantaged by the markets, the poor and less wealthy. The side effects of free markets are extreme material inequalities.
The more you cut safety nets that save those people from the worst excesses of the market, the more prone they become for fascist or other kinds of populist and demagogic paroles. It's "voice or exit", and when you are too poor for either, you revolt. When you have nothing to lose except your chains, you are ready to revolt. And you are ready to follow demagogues.
Libertarian principles put to action that cause an increase of inequality, and which lowers the power of democracy, will cause the free, republican system to lose legitimacy and support. People who are kept down materially and denied to make a difference with their voice, because the markets dictate everything, are no longer ready to support this system. And when it goes too far, you will find too many people ready to use violence to replace it with another kind of system, even if the alternatives are just illusions.
Well said.
I think someone is a little vague on what fascism is.
"-isms" are always subjective, but we can agree on common characteristics that together comprise fascism: I.e., dictatorship, military aggression, demonization of powerless minorities, appeals to race-nationalism and other endemic bigotries, propaganda, veneration of Order, and alliance with economic elites to overthrow democratic constitutions.
I think that most libertarians are likely well aware of the side effects of our political ideology.
I have to strongly disagree on that, given the levels at which they've supported Republican politics. While there was some principled (and largely perfunctory) opposition to George W. Bush's policies among libertarians, it seemed they considered low taxation a higher priority than protecting basic constitutional liberties. A man who literally defended his policies by citing the medieval Divine Right of Kings doctrine had very strong support among Small Government advocates.