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 35 of 35 FirstFirst ... 25333435
Results 341 to 344 of 344

Thread: Do libertarians inadvertently enable fascism?

  1. #341
    Dispenser of Negativity
    Cold Highway's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Newburgh, New York and World 8: Dark Land
    Last Seen
    12-24-12 @ 11:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    9,596
    Blog Entries
    7

    Re: Do libertarians inadvertently enable fascism?

    Haymarket I would suggest this video

    Jackboots always come in matched pairs, a left boot and a right boot.

  2. #342
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:19 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    90,000

    Re: Do libertarians inadvertently enable fascism?

    Okay - I watched it - all 11:20 of it. Before I invest more limited time from my limited life, what am I suppose to get from this?

    Where is Boaz speaking and who is he speaking to?
    __________________________________________________ _
    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

  3. #343
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Last Seen
    07-25-11 @ 05:42 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    464

    Re: Do libertarians inadvertently enable fascism?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    You have addressed nothing.
    I'm sorry, but we don't seem to be reading the same thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    All you have are things you suppose and things you conjecture. You haven't provided one iota of proof.
    You need proof that it's easier to overthrow a weak government whose people have little contact with it or interest in its survival? Frankly, I started this thread as an opportunity for Libertarians to explain how their approach to governance would not create such a situation. Some Libertarians have responded constructively, albeit unconvincingly. You, however, have not: You insist that I prove straightforward logic and common sense to be correct, like insisting I demonstrate that 2 + 2 = 4. I've been debating long enough to know where this leads: Nothing I can possibly say will be sufficient. I am not interested in games. If you feel my analysis lacks perspective, you are welcome to provide it, and I've invited you to do so many times now. You have declined the invitation, and instead just deny, deny, deny. See no evil, speak no evil, hear no evil.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    But you have NEVER addressed libertarian philosophy.
    Indeed, I only address libertarian reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    There is nothing else in this world that has improved the livelihood of so many people than a more open market.
    This is too broad a statement to meaningfully address. "More open" than what? Furthermore, markets are just tools - used or configured improperly, they are harmful: Political corruption, monopolism, gangsterism, and pollution are all consequences of the market. Political liberty and human rights, however, are not - the concepts arose in areas of early civilization where wealth was hardly overflowing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    it is the actions of millions of people facilitating mutual aid, out of self interest.
    Again, you are speaking definitively about highly circumstantial processes. The circumstances under which self-interest compromises collective interest far outnumber those where it facilitates mutual aid - the laws of every society on Earth recognize this as an easily-demonstrable fact. Markets have to be configured for their outcomes to serve the general prosperity, and even then they are not a panacea: Just one particular process with its own advantages and disadvantages.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    But that isn't true, no self respecting libertarian would argue that, it's hyperbole.
    Then your standards of "self-respect" are very exclusive, because I run into that argument all the time among self-described libertarians. They make categorical statements to the effect that higher taxes mean less revenue and lower taxes mean more revenue - ipso facto, that zero taxation would yield maximum revenue. There is no specific analysis involved in their position, they simply hold it as an article of faith that whatever the current tax rate is, reducing it would yield a superior economic result. Supply-side economics is more religion than science.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    Libertarianism is a smaller, logically and rationally implemented government.
    But notice how you stipulate "smaller" separately from "logically and rationally implemented government." The part about reducing its size does not come from any specific analysis about systemic requirements, it is pure ideology - an end in itself. Whatever follows from that end, libertarians would deem it a good thing by definition. That is not "logical" or "rational" by any stretch of the imagination. That is substituting the Law of the Jungle for human morality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    Cato documents, practically, all the stances they take with fact based evidence.
    The last report of theirs I read was about two years ago, and the "fact-based evidence" it cited was essentially what I mention above - the categorical, absolute position that taxes should not be increased, and should be decreased. I will gladly examine any Cato report you're aware of that advocates raising a tax. Surely a legitimate think tank would have found some occasion in all the years of its existence to support increasing some tax somewhere?

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    Libertarians laugh at the idea that they consider the free market a "godhead"
    Right, it's just an "invisible hand" that must not be desecrated by impure forces (i.e., government), and if respected and sacrificed to will deliver bounty and prosperity to its deserving adherents and righteous punishment to the non-believers. But it's not a deity.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    but there are those who certainly consider it a near-supernatural devil.
    And those people would be a serious concern if this were 1950, but today's concerns all revolve around the unchecked concentration of private wealth and corporate power over American politics.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    The free market is the most voluntarily cooperative system ever devised by man.
    Here we encounter one of the central fallacies of libertarianism - that markets are voluntary. It starts from this premise, and then derives the idea that poor people choose to be poor, and those who accumulate wealth have ipso facto earned it. Most people are not voluntary participants in market transactions - they pay the profit-maximizing price set by the seller, and accept the profit-maximizing salary their employer chooses to give them. They have near zero individual leverage. Only collectively do they achieve any degree of leverage, but that usually requires some level of legal protection and facilitation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Elutherian View Post
    Perhaps you can name a Fascist regime under which the government was limited.
    No one is claiming Fascist government is limited, and nor am I saying that the problem with libertarianism is that it imposes limits per se: Simply that its bizarre Freudian obsession with size yields a weak government, a population with minimal knowledge of or contact with that government, minimal public loyalty or interest in defending it (since it does so little for them), and minimal resistance to elite usurpers who would already dominate people's lives as employers and controllers of resources.
    Last edited by Troubadour; 11-24-10 at 11:18 PM.

  4. #344
    Devourer of Poor Children
    DrunkenAsparagus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    DC
    Last Seen
    01-20-16 @ 04:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    4,496

    Re: Do libertarians inadvertently enable fascism?

    Troubadour, one thing I do not understand is how a society that does have things like police, lack of corporate favoritism, and a military is any more likely to devolve into Fascism than any other system? I can see the need for some social welfare stuff, but after reading through this thread, I cannot understand why we need big government to protect us from bigger government.
    "Doubleplusungood"

    George Orwell

Page 35 of 35 FirstFirst ... 25333435

Posting Permissions

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