View Poll Results: Do libertarians inadvertently enable fascism?

Voters
53. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    9 16.98%
  • Probably

    2 3.77%
  • Maybe

    8 15.09%
  • Probably not

    0 0%
  • No

    33 62.26%
  • Don't know

    1 1.89%
Page 23 of 35 FirstFirst ... 13212223242533 ... LastLast
Results 221 to 230 of 344

Thread: Do libertarians inadvertently enable fascism?

  1. #221
    Voluntary Resignation

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    11-30-10 @ 05:20 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    7,059

    Re: Do libertarians inadvertently enable fascism?

    Quote Originally Posted by ReverendHellh0und View Post
    Ni thuigim.

    Inciting?
    Encouraging, I think.

  2. #222
    ANTI**ANTIFA
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Temple of Solomon
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    75,554

    Re: Do libertarians inadvertently enable fascism?

    Quote Originally Posted by Coronado View Post
    Encouraging, I think.


    Ok its the word im thinking of.. It's both depending on context which i'm missing. Pm me what you were trying to say.
    Let evil swiftly befall those who have wrongly condemned us

  3. #223
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:32 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,308
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Do libertarians inadvertently enable fascism?

    Moderator's Warning:
    Do libertarians inadvertently enable fascism?knock the stupid crap off. Get on topic, stay on topic, don't troll, don't talk about other users. This is not hard.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  4. #224
    Mr. Professional
    Mensch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Last Seen
    08-24-17 @ 04:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,666
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Do libertarians inadvertently enable fascism?

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    Seriously. What better way to destroy the American way of life than to foist a system like libertarianism upon the nation?
    Our founding fathers were libertarians!

  5. #225
    Professor
    Saboteur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    2,234

    Re: Do libertarians inadvertently enable fascism?

    Quote Originally Posted by ElijahGalt View Post
    Our founding fathers were libertarians!
    They were also aristocrats with slaves and almost sparked another revolution when they introduced taxes of their own.
    “We must picture hell as a state where everyone is perpetually concerned about his own dignity and advancement, where everyone has a grievance, and where everyone lives with the deadly serious passions of envy, self-importance, and resentment.”
    ― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters

  6. #226
    Mr. Professional
    Mensch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Last Seen
    08-24-17 @ 04:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,666
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Do libertarians inadvertently enable fascism?

    Quote Originally Posted by Saboteur View Post
    They were also aristocrats with slaves and almost sparked another revolution when they introduced taxes of their own.
    .....Yea, so?

  7. #227
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:58 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,819

    Re: Do libertarians inadvertently enable fascism?

    from Galt

    Our founding fathers were libertarians!
    except that the Founding Fathers had never heard the term.

    Libertarianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    History

    The term libertarian in a metaphysical or philosophical sense was first used by late-Enlightenment free-thinkers to refer to those who believed in free will, as opposed to determinism.[13] The first recorded use was in 1789 by William Belsham in a discussion of free will and in opposition to "necessitarian" (or determinist) views.[14][15]
    The use of the word 'libertarian' to describe a set of political positions can be tracked to the French cognate, libertaire, which was coined in 1857 by French anarchist communist Joseph Déjacque who used the term to distinguish his libertarian communist approach from the mutualism advocated by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon.[16][17][18] Hence libertarian has been used as a synonym for left-wing anarchism or libertarian socialism since the 1890s.
    I do not blame you for attempting to claim that mantle. Its a clever political tactic to those who do not know better. I have no doubt that some of our FF may indeed have had some characteristics and beliefs that may be in sympathy with modern libertarians. I do not think anyone can say for sure how many.

    Actually the Founding Fathers gathered in 1787 after the utter failure of the closest thing we had to a modern libertarian system - the Articles of Confederation. And they were a failure. I would guess that many modern American libertarians would be happier under the Articles and many of the provisions contained within that document than with the move to a strong central government and a Constitution which resulted in Article I, Section 8, paragraph 18. In fact, one of the main criticisms of the Founding Fathers was that they produced the template for our government with no inclusion of the rights of the people. That does not sound in agreement with many modern libertarians.

    Saboteur brings up a good point that you dismiss out of hand. If these libertarians in 1787 were so in favor of the rights of people they sure had a funny way of showing it with adopting a Constitution which permitted slavery. In addition, many themselves were slave owners including some of which could and did write the most lofty platitudes about rights and equality. Hypocrisy seemed to exist even then among those who some today want to identify as the liberty crowd.
    Last edited by haymarket; 11-09-10 at 11:28 PM.
    __________________________________________________ _
    There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers

  8. #228
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,633

    Re: Do libertarians inadvertently enable fascism?

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    from Galt



    except that the Founding Fathers had never heard the term.

    Libertarianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



    I do not blame you for attempting to claim that mantle. Its a clever political tactic to those who do not know better. I have no doubt that some of our FF may indeed have had some characteristics and beliefs that may be in sympathy with modern libertarians. I do not think anyone can say for sure how many.

    Actually the Founding Fathers gathered in 1787 after the utter failure of the closest thing we had to a modern libertarian system - the Articles of Confederation. And they were a failure. I would guess that many modern American libertarians would be happier under the Articles and many of the provisions contained within that document than with the move to a strong central government and a Constitution which resulted in Article I, Section 8, paragraph 18. In fact, one of the main criticisms of the Founding Fathers was that they produced the template for our government with no inclusion of the rights of the people. That does not sound in agreement with many modern libertarians.

    Saboteur brings up a good point that you dismiss out of hand. If these libertarians in 1787 were so in favor of the rights of people they sure had a funny way of showing it with adopting a Constitution which permitted slavery. In addition, many themselves were slave owners including some of which could and did write the most lofty platitudes about rights and equality. Hypocrisy seemed to exist even then among those who some today want to identify as the liberty crowd.
    a definition means nothing

    the founders' beliefs were closely aligned with what is currently called libertarian or what I would call real liberals.

    I realize hating the founders is necessary for those who reject the Constitution and the premises upon which this nation, and her greatness were founded on.



  9. #229
    Professor
    other's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    VA
    Last Seen
    01-22-14 @ 11:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,473

    Re: Do libertarians inadvertently enable fascism?

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    except that the Founding Fathers had never heard the term.

    Libertarianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    I do not blame you for attempting to claim that mantle. Its a clever political tactic to those who do not know better.

    I have no doubt that some of our FF may indeed have had some characteristics and beliefs that may be in sympathy with modern libertarians. I do not think anyone can say for sure how many.

    Actually the Founding Fathers gathered in 1787 after the utter failure of the closest thing we had to a modern libertarian system - the Articles of Confederation.

    So, first you say that they weren't libertarians because they didn't self identify as such, despite the fact that you acknowledge that the term didn't exist at the time and then you admit that their first attempt at government was "the closest thing we had to a modern libertarian system."

    Your arguments are utterly inconsistent.

    And they were a failure. I would guess that many modern American libertarians would be happier under the Articles and many of the provisions contained within that document than with the move to a strong central government and a Constitution which resulted in Article I, Section 8, paragraph 18.
    The Articles of Confederation had to be scrapped because they were too difficult to amend where necessary, not because of any sense that the general welfare of the people was somehow neglected. If the Articles had been as easy to amend as the current constitution to allow the federal government to levy necessary taxes they likely would not have created the constitution we have today.

    In fact, one of the main criticisms of the Founding Fathers was that they produced the template for our government with no inclusion of the rights of the people. That does not sound in agreement with many modern libertarians.
    They included a Bill of Rights, remember?

    Saboteur brings up a good point that you dismiss out of hand. If these libertarians in 1787 were so in favor of the rights of people they sure had a funny way of showing it with adopting a Constitution which permitted slavery.
    You're overlooking the fact that they didn't have any other option. A Constitution that abolished slavery would not have been ratified by enough states... it would have been an entirely fruitless endeavor and would have left the new country without an effective government-- they were working on a time table, they needed a government, and they needed to make certain compromises on the issue of slavery.

    The fact is, they did what they could to marginalize the institution of slavery-- the 3/5 compromise for instance, was expressly designed to reduce the representation of slaveholding states in congress relative to free states.

    In addition, many themselves were slave owners including some of which could and did write the most lofty platitudes about rights and equality. Hypocrisy seemed to exist even then among the liberty crowd.
    see above. Slavery was not abolished because it could not have been abolished at the time. The slaveholding states would not have accepted a federal government that did so. And although some of them owned slaves, those "lofty platitudes about rights and equality" eventually did form the basis of the movements that did lead to the abolition of slavery in America.
    Last edited by other; 11-09-10 at 11:42 PM.

  10. #230
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:58 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,819

    Re: Do libertarians inadvertently enable fascism?

    The concept of "libertarianism" as a governmental ideology was not to exist for another three-quarters of a century. The attempt of modern libertarians to hijack the Founding Fathers is based on two things

    1) and attempt to score political points by attempting to "prove" that they are the real true "American ideology" and it is their ideology which we should return to today, and
    2) it is intended to cast a negative light on much that libertarians object to that was not in the original Constitution as written by the same Founding Fathers. This then "legitimizes" the right wing attack on such things as Civil Rights laws, Social Security, government regulations and the like.

    It is a clever attempt and a wise attempt if one if attempting to build a modern political movement and one has had dismal success in doing it to this date. Since much of libertarian writing is proselytizing in nature, this gives them , on the surface anyway, a powerful argument to use in the attempt to convert the masses.

    However, one cannot claim that the Fathers were libertarians without claiming that those same libertarians believed in slavery. It is part and parcel of both the lives of many of the Founders and part and parcel of the document they produced. One can attempt to excuse why some had to surrender to the slave holding states, but how does one rationalize the idea that so called libertarians owned slaves as a matter of daily life?

    However, one cannot claim that the Fathers were libertarians without claiming that those same libertarians believed in a strong central government over the weaker and far more localized system they already had.

    However, one cannot claim that the Fathers were libertarians without claiming that those same libertarians had a very different belief in rights since they did not even include a Bill of Rights in their document.

    Of course, there were very real and hard political and economic decisions made at the Constitutional Convention. That is part and parcel of the process. Of course, hard sacrifices had to be made and deals made and that resulted in compromise. And on the issue of slavery what was compromised was the freedom of a race of people. Is it a libertarian principle that one race can enslave another race and establish a strong central government to protect that right? Because that is exactly what happened. Or perhaps libertarian "principles" simply did not apply to people of color?

    Please do not attempt to misconstrue my comments about the Articles to claim that i believe they were a libertarian system. What I said was that they already had a system in place that was closer in libertarianism than they one which they adopted to replace it. That is not an endorsement that the Articles were a libertarian system - only that parts of it were closer in that regard to the one they replaced it with.

    But if one is indeed going to claim that the Articles of Confederation were part of a libertarian system, then one also has to admit they were a failure. Why you would want to claim a failure is a mystery to me. There is nothing inconsistent about what I wrote about the Articles unless you are intentionally and deliberately attempting to misrepresent my beliefs. But I hope I have cleared them up for you with further explanation.
    Last edited by haymarket; 11-10-10 at 07:54 AM.
    __________________________________________________ _
    There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers

Page 23 of 35 FirstFirst ... 13212223242533 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •