• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do libertarians inadvertently enable fascism?

Do libertarians inadvertently enable fascism?

  • Yes

    Votes: 6 14.0%
  • Probably

    Votes: 2 4.7%
  • Maybe

    Votes: 7 16.3%
  • Probably not

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No

    Votes: 28 65.1%
  • Don't know

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    43
from El Galt on slavery at the time of the writing of the US Constitution

Many nations had already abolished slavery or the slave trade. That list included
Sweeden, Japan, Poland, Lithuania, Chile, Japan, Russia, Portugal and Scotland among others. I would hardly call that the custom of the day.

I offered this on the idea of lovers of liberty allowing slavery to be placed in the new Constitution

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.

the response for Galt


No. I am not kidding. The want to advance liberty is not on the backs of a race of people being held in a condition of slavery. To write lofty statements about the equality of man and the equality of all mankind while personally owning slaves and enshrining a system of slavery into the national Constitution is a serious contradiction that goes far beyond mere political hypocrisy. It seriously calls into question the merit of such a label as 'lover of freedom' or 'lover of liberty' and demonstrates why it is hollow at best.

It is not BS that most modern libertarians have found themselves on the opposite side of a long list of issues advocated by African Americans and the American civil rights community. And I refer to much much more than a single law about a business practice. If you take almost every issue regarding African Americans and the effort to attain full equality, libertarians have been in lockstock with the most right wing of conservatives on them. They certainly come up with loftier reasons then the Bull Conners and George Wallaces of the world - but in the end they come down on the same side as that crowd.

Affirmative action is but a single item on a much larger list which would include almost every Civil Rights Law from the Sixties through today, laws passed to aid African Americans, and programs aimed at helping them. You mention Ron Paul and I cannot help but think of this hypocrisy in refusing to allocate any monies for medals for Rosa Parks and others claiming there is not any Constitutional language for that expenditure while co-sponsoring and voting for striking of coins to raise money for a private organization - the Boy Scouts at the same time. And there is not language in the US Constitution to allow the printing of coins to raise extra money for a private organization. But he found a way to do it.

I will grant you the point that one can oppose some affirmative actions programs without being a racist or even a conservative on civil rights. Yes, that is true and liberals also find reasons to oppose it. However, there is a very extensive list of civil rights laws and programs that are opposed by libertarians that go far beyond affirmative action and I believe we both know that.



The US Supreme Court has heard those arguments and has held that the use of Article I, Section 8, paragraph 18 does indeed come into play and permit these things. Rather than me simply parrot the Court - and do a far less extensive and thorough job in the task - I would recommend that if you want to know those answers you refer to the specific controversy and the SC ruling that approved the programs that you are opposed to. Your objections have been dealt with in the Court for a long time now.

But we are going astray from the main point here.

The people who wrote the US Constitution were complex men who harbored a variety of ideologies and opinions about government and other issues. I have no doubt that some of them did harbor ideas that would be in sync with some ideas of some modern libertarians. They also possessed ideas which greatly put them out of sync with the beliefs of modern libertarians - if we take those beliefs at face value. Even so, that does not make them libertarians. That does not make the Constitution a libertarian document. And it certainly does not give license to modern libertarians to claim it as a libertarian work product or any sort of a validation of their current belief system.

I've already responded to everything you've just said. Why should I waste my time giving you a lengthy response when you only reply to a couple of sentences (and you merely repeat everything you've already said)? Plus, you're notorious for being vague about what civil liberties libertarians oppose. Affirmative Action is not a civil liberty!

If you're going to respond to this post, please respond to the other points I've made. Especially in regards to FDR, Coolidge, Wilson, and Douglass.

Also, Sweden didn't fully outlaw slavery until the mid 1800s (be careful where you get your evidence). Japan enslaved millions of people during WW2. Denmark and Norway still had slavery until the 1800s. Portugal still maintained slavery in Africa. Many of the glorious freedom nations you have just mentioned actually continued slavery in their colonies.
 
Last edited:
How?

......

Have you read the posts in this thread? Your complete misunderstanding of the opening post and apparent lack of knowledge about the contents of many other posts causes me to wonder. Several other posters have discussed this. The idea (that I have no doubt at all that you will dismiss out of hand with ridicule and scorn) is that government will be so reduced and stripped of authority that corporate interests will effectively rule the nation with little to stop them. The big losers will be average working people. Read the thread. It in here.
 
I've already responded to everything you've just said. Why should I waste my time giving you a lengthy response when you only reply to a couple of sentences (and you merely repeat everything you've already said)? Plus, you're notorious for being vague about what civil liberties libertarians oppose. Affirmative Action is not a civil liberty!

If you're going to respond to this post, please respond to the other points I've made. Especially in regards to FDR and Coolidge and Wilson.

Its your time - not mine.

I don't remember saying that affirmative action was a civil liberty. Why would you then state that it is not with the added emphasis of an exclamation point? Go back and look at the context it was used in please.

If you feel you have responded - then we are done. That is up to you. I do notice that when you exchange ideas with posters, you state things and then seem to feel that it is the final word on the subject. That is fine. But I do not.
 
Its your time - not mine.

I don't remember saying that affirmative action was a civil liberty. Why would you then state that it is not with the added emphasis of an exclamation point? Go back and look at the context it was used in please.

If you feel you have responded - then we are done. That is up to you. I do notice that when you exchange ideas with posters, you state things and then seem to feel that it is the final word on the subject. That is fine. But I do not.

Again, I don't have time to go on a merry-go-round. I actually edited the last post after you responded to it. So, there's a response to the 'slavery in other countries' point.

If you don't believe Affirmative Action is a civil liberty, then why do you bring it up in an argument regarding civil liberties? Just because it is something supported by some African-American organizations, it automatically deserves to be included in the civil rights debate? Affirmative Action has nothing to do with civil rights.

And I'm still waiting for a response regarding the most libertaran president of the 20th century being the staunchest supporter of civil rights for African-Americans when everyone else, including progressives, were content with the racial status quo. I'm still waiting to hear a response regarding FDR. I assume you like FDR or think he has a positive legacy of some sort. But I'm sure you don't prefer to debate his notorious executive order that saw the establishment of concentration camps in America (and if you actually read about the conditions of the camps, some of them were rightfully concentration camps). I won't criticize you for still liking FDR even after he committed gross violations of people's liberties, just like it wouldn't be horrible if I still admired the Founding fathers even if they were slaveowners. Human beings are far more dynamic than a simple good guy-bad guy classification.
 
And so it begins. The usual FDR as Satan or at least his son. And what does FDR have to do with the authors of the Constitution being libertarians? What does FDR have to do with the libertarian record on civil rights?

Again, for the third time, the affirmative action mention was in connection to making the point to refute your claim that libertarians want such wonderful things for all mankind. In point of fact, they are almost always in opposition to everything the African American civil rights community advocates... and AfAc is just one of those things. If you missed I told you that some reasonable people with solid civil rights records do indeed find fault with AfAct. fine. They have a strong civil rights record which shows they are not a racist or a right winger. But when a libertarian writes essays supporting the South in the Civil War, blasts the 14th Amendment, hates Reconstruction efforts, and opposes almost every 20th century proposal for civil rights laws and programs to help African Americans - it then has to be considered as part of an over all pattern of anti African American stands on important issues.

Sometimes, people get a pass when their overall record indicates a different picture than one isolated snapshot may indicate. FDR is part of that pass for his terrible actions with Japanese Americans. That is not the case with libertarians and aff-action.
 
Summarize "The Road to Serfdom" as actually spelled out by its author. Can you? You keep using that phrase as though you think it's a zinger.

Of course it's clear that you think it's a "zinger" along those lines. But this isn't about that. This is about finding out if you even know what it is you're referencing, regardless of how you choose to use it. You think it's a "zinger" because it references something in the modern libertarian lexicon, so let's see if you understand it instead of just sniggering something you have no clue about.
 
Last edited:
Have you read the posts in this thread? Your complete misunderstanding of the opening post and apparent lack of knowledge about the contents of many other posts causes me to wonder. Several other posters have discussed this. The idea (that I have no doubt at all that you will dismiss out of hand with ridicule and scorn) is that government will be so reduced and stripped of authority that corporate interests will effectively rule the nation with little to stop them. The big losers will be average working people. Read the thread. It in here.



In my opinion you and others have addressed no such thing and instead blockages vague attacks on your I'll formed view of libertarianism.

Please by all means specifically how? Coporate bogeymen is not an answer that holds any intellectual prowess.
 
Of course it's clear that you think it's a "zinger" along those lines. But this isn't about that. This is about finding out if you even know what it is you're referencing, regardless of how you choose to use it. You think it's a "zinger" because it references something in the modern libertarian lexicon, so let's see if you understand it instead of just sniggering something you have no clue about.

If you want to start a thread on that subject, I will be happy to read what you have to say and perhaps put forth my thoughts.
 
In my opinion you and others have addressed no such thing and instead blockages vague attacks on your I'll formed view of libertarianism.

Please by all means specifically how? Coporate bogeymen is not an answer that holds any intellectual prowess.

This has already been discussed here in other posts. The point has already been put forward that many believe that the one thing standing between a great expansion of corporate power which will hurt average people is a strong government on the side of the people. If libertarians get their way, and government becomes little more than a eunuch in a whore house, then we fear the gap between rich and everyone else will grow at a rapid rate and doom the rest of us to potential serfdom.

This has already been explained. It is something we fear could well happen in the future.

btw - are you the Official Von Mises Institute Spokesperson for all thing libertarian on this site? It has been my experience that almost every site has one - all self appointed of course.
 
Last edited:
If you want to start a thread on that subject, I will be happy to read what you have to say and perhaps put forth my thoughts.

That is your canned response every time you don't want to address a point, sure. :shrug:
 
Harshaw
Actually this is my response when I think somebody has an idea that may have merit and deserve further discussion. In addition, it is my response when I do not want to do a discourtesy to the person who began this thread by derailing it.
 
And so it begins. The usual FDR as Satan or at least his son. And what does FDR have to do with the authors of the Constitution being libertarians? What does FDR have to do with the libertarian record on civil rights?

It has nothing to do specifically with that, but it is evidence that you don’t need to be a flawless human being in order to be admired. You don’t need to support slavery in order to support the founding fathers and their ideas. You don’t need to support concentration camps in order to support FDR and his ideas.

Again, for the third time, the affirmative action mention was in connection to making the point to refute your claim that libertarians want such wonderful things for all mankind.

What the hell are you talking about? Doesn’t everyone want wonderful things for all mankind? Affirmative Action IS NOT a wonderful thing, no matter how you slice it. And what’s more wonderful than supporting the individual’s right to freedom?

In point of fact, they are almost always in opposition to everything the African American civil rights community advocates... and AfAc is just one of those things. If you missed I told you that some reasonable people with solid civil rights records do indeed find fault with AfAct. fine. They have a strong civil rights record which shows they are not a racist or a right winger. But when a libertarian writes essays supporting the South in the Civil War, blasts the 14th Amendment, hates Reconstruction efforts, and opposes almost every 20th century proposal for civil rights laws and programs to help African Americans - it then has to be considered as part of an overall pattern of anti African American stands on important issues.

NOW we’re getting somewhere! Thank you for being specific! Though I don’t deny that some libertarians have made questionable arguments regarding reconstruction and the 14th Amendment, you cannot stereotype ALL libertarians as a bunch of pro-slavery racists. Everyone from Noam Chomsky to Milton Friedman is self-identified as “libertarian.” If you want to ask me what I think, I’ll tell you.

14th Amendment: I’m completely in support of it. Why wouldn’t I be? It demands that all natural born citizens, regardless of skin color, must be protected under the same citizenship clause as everyone else. There’s no reason why I, or any classical liberal, should be against the 14th Amendment. I take no sympathy for the Southern slavery states before, during, or after the civil war. In terms of forcing the Southern states to ratify the 13th and 14th amendments, I would have stood alongside radical republicans who called for martial law.

I know some libertarians, in particular Ron Paul, would argue that the civil war wasn’t necessary, this is more idealistic in nature. When he makes the case, he doesn’t argue that slavery should have continued in the South, but that other countries (as you have pointed out) outlawed slavery without firing a single bullet.

Reconstruction: I support it. Any time a central government defeats a country in war, it is THEIR obligation to restore order and to reconstruct the battered state.

Civil Rights: I stand with Rand Paul on this issue. I would support virtually every part of the Civil Rights Act(s) except for the title that demands private businesses must serve everyone of the public. The freedom to do business also means the freedom to deny business. I don’t even understand where there are so many signs that state: “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone” when the title of the Civil Rights Act still remains law. I don’t fear the massive reprisal of old white men looking to deny service to minorities, because minorities are potential customers. There have been studies done that illustrate it was the private businesses agitating public discriminatory laws. Private schools were agitating public law when they enrolled African-American students. Transportation companies were agitating public law when they sold first-class tickets to African-Americans. Sports companies were agitating public law when they began recruiting African-American players.

The libertarians of my breed of thought generally are more obsessed with economics than anything else. In their opinion, public law should never discriminate against minorities, but that private individuals must be free to trade and to refuse to trade with other private individuals. Otherwise, we could use the same logic to argue that bars should be fined for allowing women in for free on Fridays or for providing ONLY women with free drinks. Airplane companies would be fined for requiring unusually large customers to buy two seats (or to be denied service, outright).


Sometimes, people get a pass when their overall record indicates a different picture than one isolated snapshot may indicate. FDR is part of that pass for his terrible actions with Japanese Americans. That is not the case with libertarians and aff-action.

You keep bringing up Affirmative Action when it is your WORST argument. And now you’re condoning the concentration camps set up by FDR’s Executive Order because it suits your ideological needs. You’re applying a double standard.
 
Galt - please get this straight once and for all. I brought up affirmative action ONCE including with other civil rights issues that libertarians oppose. When you objected I said that while I can understand people opposing the program who otherwise have a positive record of supporting civil rights, as libertarians THEY HAVE NO SUCH RECORD. Instead, opposition to AF/AC is just one small item on a very long list starting with support for the secession of the South, support for the Confederacy, opposition to the 14th Amendment, opposition to Reconstruction and opposing almost every single Civil Rights law and proposal in the 20th century backed by the African American community.

But go ahead and take af/action off the list for heavens sake. Its still one hell of a damning list for many libertarians.

Is there some reason why you just don't get this? Forget about Af/action for heavens sake.

Doesn’t everyone want wonderful things for all mankind? Mankind appears to be the least of many of their concerns.

Nope. When you have a ideology based on selfishness and self interest above all else, you don't want wonderful things for mankind.
 
and one more thing Galt... you said this

Civil Rights: I stand with Rand Paul on this issue. I would support virtually every part of the Civil Rights Act(s) except for the title that demands private businesses must serve everyone of the public. The freedom to do business also means the freedom to deny business.

The business is open to the public. All the public. That so called private business could not operate or function without the tremendous infrastructure paid for by the people trough the institution of government. Every business in America which wants customers is subsidized one way or another by the infrastructure provided by government. If you are open to the public that means all the public.
 
and one more thing Galt... you said this



The business is open to the public. All the public. That so called private business could not operate or function without the tremendous infrastructure paid for by the people trough the institution of government. Every business in America which wants customers is subsidized one way or another by the infrastructure provided by government. If you are open to the public that means all the public.


Excellent. So, you would obviously agree with me that for business to post against lawful concealed carry is a form of discrimination, against permit-holders, and thus not to be allowed. :)
 
Why would this be any different than rulings indicating that a business may restrict persons for "no shirt -no shoes"? Restrictions based on a persons race, ethnicity, color, gender are based on something the potential customer cannot change. A restriction in a bar which does not allow someone to carry a firearm does not bar the person from the establishment. All they have to do is not bring in their weapon and they can still gain service just like anyone else. A person cannot do that with an establishment that is using race, ethnicity, color or gender to bar them as customers.

It is two very different things.
 
Why would this be any different than rulings indicating that a business may restrict persons for "no shirt -no shoes"? Restrictions based on a persons race, ethnicity, color, gender are based on something the potential customer cannot change. A restriction in a bar which does not allow someone to carry a firearm does not bar the person from the establishment. All they have to do is not bring in their weapon and they can still gain service just like anyone else. A person cannot do that with an establishment that is using race, ethnicity, color or gender to bar them as customers.

It is two very different things.

"The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness..."

My right to life can be taken by someone who is armed and has ill intent, especially if I am not armed.

Being armed is a Constitutional right.

I don't give up my Constitutional rights when I enter a place of business. As long as I'm not disruptive and cause no trouble, I retain the right to free speech, freedom of religion, etc.

A business might as well tell me "if someone attacks you, you have to stand there and do nothing while they murder/rape/beat/rob you". You wouldn't consider that reasonable now would you?

The fact is I don't patronize businesses that post against concealed carry for that reason.
 
from Goshin

"The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness..."

Where are you getting that from? I have looked through the entire US Constitution and cannot find this in it.


My right to life can be taken by someone who is armed and has ill intent, especially if I am not armed.

It sure could. So what? Where you go and what danger you put yourself in is your choice. Perhaps you need to examine your choices if you are placing yourself in such jeapordy?

Being armed is a Constitutional right.
And it is well regulated as you know when your state issued you your CCW with certain restrictions and conditions that you accepted when you applied for it. The well regulated language is also part of the Constitution.

You are attempting to connect two things that are not at all the same as I explained to you. It would be illegal and against the laws of the land for a business to restrict your being a customer based on your ethnicity, your race, your color, your gender or your age because there is nothing you can do to change those things. They are conditions of humanity that we as a people have decided to take beyond the control of the owner of a business.

Your ability to carry a gun is not one of those things. You can change it anytime you want to change it. You have every right not to patronize a business when you object to their rules. That is fine and I have no problem with it. But the business makes those rules in accordance with the state laws and processes that also enables you to have that CCW. There is no conflict.
 
I disagree, but I've digressed from the thread's original purpose enough. We'll hash this out some other time.
 
Fine. Look forward to it. :)
 
Galt - please get this straight once and for all. I brought up affirmative action ONCE including with other civil rights issues that libertarians oppose. When you objected I said that while I can understand people opposing the program who otherwise have a positive record of supporting civil rights, as libertarians THEY HAVE NO SUCH RECORD. Instead, opposition to AF/AC is just one small item on a very long list starting with support for the secession of the South, support for the Confederacy, opposition to the 14th Amendment, opposition to Reconstruction and opposing almost every single Civil Rights law and proposal in the 20th century backed by the African American community.

But go ahead and take af/action off the list for heavens sake. Its still one hell of a damning list for many libertarians.

Is there some reason why you just don't get this? Forget about Af/action for heavens sake.



Nope. When you have a ideology based on selfishness and self interest above all else, you don't want wonderful things for mankind.

I wonder what would happen if our society decided to promote a sacrifice-yourself-for-others mentality.

And first you admit AA is not a civil rights, then you include it in the long list of civil rights issues. I'll forget it, for your sake.
 
and one more thing Galt... you said this



The business is open to the public. All the public. That so called private business could not operate or function without the tremendous infrastructure paid for by the people trough the institution of government. Every business in America which wants customers is subsidized one way or another by the infrastructure provided by government. If you are open to the public that means all the public.

You're right! Let's do away with private property rights and have the government nationalize all industries! Then I suppose a gentleman's lodge must be forced to accept female members and bars must be fined thousands of dollars for letting women free on Fridays. Maybe you could use the same logic to argue that all businesses must allow patrons in for free, since the business is operationable only because of government infrastructure (which is total bull****).
 
Turning a legitimate point into a horrible Frankenstein monster caricature of the actual argument seems to be routine here for some. I would guess that is far easier than actually dealing with the point that was made and all its subtleties.
 
Turning a legitimate point into a horrible Frankenstein monster caricature of the actual argument seems to be routine here for some. I would guess that is far easier than actually dealing with the point that was made and all its subtleties.

What point? Was it the falsehood that businesses couldn't exist without government's infrastructure, or that government has the authority to control businesses? The scariest argument here is the one that demands the federal government maintain control over private property.
 
Back
Top Bottom