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 24 of 35 FirstFirst ... 14222324252634 ... LastLast
Results 231 to 240 of 344

Thread: Do libertarians inadvertently enable fascism?

  1. #231
    ANTI**ANTIFA
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Temple of Solomon
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    75,396

    Re: Do libertarians inadvertently enable fascism?

    /facepalm



    ......
    Let evil swiftly befall those who have wrongly condemned us

  2. #232
    Sage
    German guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Last Seen
    08-24-17 @ 06:57 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    5,187

    Re: Do libertarians inadvertently enable fascism?

    Quote Originally Posted by ReverendHellh0und View Post
    /facepalm



    ......
    Can't you elaborate on this a little more? Why do you think he is wrong?
    "Not learning from mistakes is worse than committing mistakes. When you don't allow yourself to make mistakes, it is hard to be tolerant of others and it does not allow even God to be merciful."

  3. #233
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:52 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,706

    Re: Do libertarians inadvertently enable fascism?

    there is something of a fascination that some modern libertarians have with the failed Articles. Read this

    A 21st Century Patriot’s Dream by Ron Holland

    notice the conclusion and call to action

    Now with knowledge of real history and Austrian economics today
    My prayer is the sovereign citizens of the US will again have their say
    To restore the Articles of Confederation should be our demand
    That the patriot’s dream of our founding fathers will again cover our land
    So what exactly are modern libertarians attempting to claim as their own? Is it the failed Articles that some profess to love and want to restore? Or is it the Constitution which replaced it instituting a stronger central government and approved of slavery over a race of people?

    And now I must go off and do my civic duty and sit on a jury. I hope to return later today and join in the discussion.
    Last edited by haymarket; 11-10-10 at 08:14 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

  4. #234
    ANTI**ANTIFA
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Temple of Solomon
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    75,396

    Re: Do libertarians inadvertently enable fascism?

    Quote Originally Posted by German guy View Post
    Can't you elaborate on this a little more? Why do you think he is wrong?



    Neither worth the time nor the effort. All his delusional points have been addressed including all his random conflicting ones. Feel free to review his last two days of posts and tell me what slecifically hasnt already been addressed.
    Let evil swiftly befall those who have wrongly condemned us

  5. #235
    Professor
    Saboteur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    2,221

    Re: Do libertarians inadvertently enable fascism?

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    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.
    Federalist Party - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    "The Federalist party was an American political party in the period 1792 to 1816, the era of the First Party System, with remnants lasting into the 1820s. The Federalists controlled the federal government until 1801. The party was formed by Alexander Hamilton, who, during George Washington's first term, built a network of supporters, largely urban bankers and businessmen, to support his fiscal policies. These supporters grew into the Federalist Party committed to a fiscally sound and nationalistic government. The United States' only Federalist president was John Adams; although George Washington was broadly sympathetic to the Federalist program, he remained an independent his entire presidency. The Federalist policies called for a national bank, tariffs, and good relations with Britain as expressed in the Jay Treaty negotiated in 1794."

    "On taking office in 1789 President Washington nominated New York lawyer Alexander Hamilton to the office of Secretary of the Treasury. Hamilton wanted a strong national government with financial credibility. Hamilton proposed the ambitious Hamiltonian economic program that involved assumption of the state debts incurred during the Revolutionary War, creating a national debt and the means to pay it off, and setting up a national bank. James Madison, Hamilton's ally in the fight to ratify the United States Constitution, joined with Thomas Jefferson in opposing Hamilton's program."

    Moderator's Warning:
    Do libertarians inadvertently enable fascism?Edited to comply with Fair-Use


    Hmmm doesn't sound like there was much difference from those days to now. If you look at who had majority for the first few years, the real founders of this country (the voters) largly went with the Federalists which were probably more what you would call Socialists today. So really, big govenrment was popular from the beginning with the people.
    Last edited by Tashah; 11-10-10 at 01:32 PM. Reason: Fair-Use compliance
    “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. #236
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:52 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,706

    Re: Do libertarians inadvertently enable fascism?

    I brought up this point


    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.
    other disagreed, posting this
    They included a Bill of Rights, remember?
    That is simply not true. The Bill of Rights - Amendments #1 - 10, was not part of the original Constitution submitted to the states for ratification. The Bill of Rights came a couple of years later.
    __________________________________________________ _
    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

  7. #237
    Professor
    Saboteur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    2,221

    Re: Do libertarians inadvertently enable fascism?

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    I brought up this point




    other disagreed, posting this


    That is simply not true. The Bill of Rights - Amendments #1 - 10, was not part of the original Constitution submitted to the states for ratification. The Bill of Rights came a couple of years later.
    From the same article:


    Federalist Party - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    "Intellectually, Federalists, while devoted to liberty held profoundly conservative views atuned to the American character. As Samuel Eliot Morison explained, They believed that liberty is inseparable from union, that men are essentially unequal, that vox populi [voice of the people] is seldom if ever vox Dei [the voice of God], and that sinister outside influences are busy undermining American integrity."

    Sheesh
    “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

  8. #238
    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
    from Galt



    except that the Founding Fathers had never heard the term.
    No, back then it was known as "classical liberalism." I don't think classical liberals were calling themselves classical liberals, but they were probably calling themselves, "liberals." So, libertarians are really liberals (go figure!). It makes sense, since the etymological basis of liberalism is liberty.

    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.
    I agree. Perhaps I should have prefaced it by saying many of our founding fathers were libertarians. Individuals like Hamilton and Adams were arguably not libertarians.

    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.
    Libertarianism is not one giant monolithic movement. It has many different interpretations. So one could argue that the constitution itself, and especially the Bill of Rights, were/are a modern libertarian system.

    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.
    That's not true. There are some libertarians who believe in total decentralization down to the local level, but they're more anarchial in nature. A minarchist libertarian would support the constitution, albeit with an emphasis on the value of equal liberty. The elasticity clause is irrelevant to this debate. The clause does not give the federal government the authority to expand its power, it merely gives the feds the authority to enact laws that help to execute those specific powers laid out in the constitution. Enacting laws to regulate INTER-STATE commerce is fine. Enacting laws to regulate individual bodily decisions is not ok.

    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.
    Who proposed the Bill of Rights? Barack Obama?

    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.
    I did not condone slavery by dismissing Saboteur's observation. The issue of slavery and the founding fathers is a huge debate. But ultimately what do you want me to say? I've already acknowledged that the founders were not perfect, and that slavery is absolutely anti-freedom. There is no argument that today, Libertarians support individual liberty for ALL citizens and all of people of the world, not just whites, not just men, not just the wealthy, not just Americans. EVERYONE is entitled to own their own bodies and their own minds. I would like to say more on this topic, but I don't have the time. If you'd like to me address anything further, please don't hesitate to ask.

  9. #239
    User Luck19's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Florida, United States
    Last Seen
    01-10-11 @ 07:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    21

    Re: Do libertarians inadvertently enable fascism?

    In a way, it depends how Libertarian they are. If it is the more radical forms of libertarianism such as; anarcho-capitalism, free-market anarchism, minarchism, etc. then I would say it does enable some form of a totalitarian form of government. If there is no form of government and that just leaves private companies that control the police, military, health care, etc. with no laws to restrict them or public intervention then they can do whatever they want, then one of the companies will create a monopoly making that private company the sole authority of everything. they can fire you from your job on any grounds, control the police in any way, make the military fight in any war they want, they can enforce any laws they want. We pretty much would be living in complete dictatorship, the way the government in military dictatorships and single-party states work resembles the way a private company would work if it were the governing body.

  10. #240
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:52 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,706

    Re: Do libertarians inadvertently enable fascism?

    Galt
    I am glad to see you are no longer insisting that the Founding Fathers were all libertarians. I would say that some of them had certain libertarian tendencies. However, that does not make them libertarians as we know them today.

    The issue of slavery and the founding fathers is a huge debate. But ultimately what do you want me to say? I've already acknowledged that the founders were not perfect, and that slavery is absolutely anti-freedom. There is no argument that today, Libertarians support individual liberty for ALL citizens and all of people of the world, not just whites, not just men, not just the wealthy, not just Americans.
    I do not see how people who prize liberty and freedom can participate in the ownership of slaves. It is such a contradiction that - in my opinion - it completely invalidates and negates any claim a person can make to being a lover of liberty or freedom. It goes beyond common political hypocrisy. And then to take the issue beyond mere ownership of another person and institutionalize it in the new constitution you are writing is a bridge too far. The very idea that someone can claim to cherish liberty and freedom while owning another human being is simply all the evidence needed to deny anyone the mantle of a freedom lover.

    Perhaps you can offer your views on a related subject to your claim about libertarians today. It is no secret that modern libertarians in the USA find themselves on the opposite side of almost every issue that the Civil Rights community favors and advocates for. This includes the various Civil Rights laws of the Sixties, affirmative action and lots of other laws and programs that African Americans have supported and labored for as a group for all of my lifetime. But almost as a universal bloc, modern libertarians find reasons to oppose these.

    Do you understand why many people who have no axe to grind against libertarianism see your comments as hollow regarding the libertarian love of freedom for all people?

    As for the elastic clause - it is relevant. There is no shortage of libertarian opinion about it painting it to be the cause of many of the ills of 20th century government. The Supreme Court has issued many rulings using it as authority for Congress to pass many laws and create many programs that libertarians object to.

    This clause was not a 20th century amendment but part of the document as written in 1787. I am sure you are going to tell me that the men in 1787 would not interpret it in the way that we have done for the last century and thus they would not have objected to it. You are entitled to that defense. Truthfully, it simply does not pass the smell test.

    I do not have the references in front of me right now, but if I remember correctly even Patrick Henry himself foresaw a much different interpretation of the clause when he spoke before the Virginia legislature and campaigned against ratification. The idea that the clause could be used as it has been was very much a reality in the late 18th century.

    But better minds than ours have discussed this with no resolution.

    I enjoy discussing this with you. thank you.
    Last edited by haymarket; 11-10-10 at 07:33 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

Page 24 of 35 FirstFirst ... 14222324252634 ... 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
  •