• 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
haymarket said:
Its a meaningless and hollow word without meaning or context attached to it. You might as well invoke motherhood, bunny rabbits and christmas trees also.

Lets be blunt about this: you and I can agree that freedom is a good thing - sometimes and in some situations. But I expect where we draw those lines would not always be in agreement. So to me its utterly silly and foolish to claim that you have an ideology based on freedom or liberty or anything else that is just a starting place for a bumper sticker.
Click to expand...

Yes, it's quite certain that I would prefer you have more freedoms than you'd prefer I have.
 
Such a boast is meaningless beyond belief. It means nothing. It is simply you grabbing a big gold banner with FREEDOM emblazoned across it and leading the parade down the street. By itself - the word, and your banner, is meaningless.
 
haymarket said:
Such a boast is meaningless beyond belief. It means nothing. It is simply you grabbing a big gold banner with FREEDOM emblazoned across it and leading the parade down the street. By itself - the word, and your banner, is meaningless.
Click to expand...

I'm very, very sorry that someone who has grown up among the blessings of freedom finds it to be a "hollow" and "meaningless" word. I really, truly am.
 
Demon of Light said:
Do you really not get it? Separating corporate power from state power is like trying to pull oxygen out of water with your bare hands. Are you going to ban people in a corporation from talking to politicians? Will you ban wealthy people from holding public office? How about preventing people formerly in public office from becoming businessmen?
Click to expand...

OF COURSE NOT! I said let's propose a second Bill of Rights, NOT violate the first bill of rights. I have no intention of limiting a person's (whether that person is an average or a corporatist) ability to hold public office, or petition the government, or contribute money to a campaign. Those rights are protected by the first ten amendments of the constitution. However, setting up a second Bill of Rights that prohibits the things I mentioned above (which ultimately privileges one group of individuals over another) is plausible.
 
Harshaw said:
I'm very, very sorry that someone who has grown up among the blessings of freedom finds it to be a "hollow" and "meaningless" word. I really, truly am.
Click to expand...

You totally miss the point. FREEDOM or LIBERTY is an abstract term which means nothing by itself divorced from the real society we live in. It cannot be discussed in any sort of real way as a factor in the lives of real people unless it is given context.
 
haymarket said:
You totally miss the point. FREEDOM or LIBERTY is an abstract term which means nothing by itself divorced from the real society we live in. It cannot be discussed in any sort of real way as a factor in the lives of real people unless it is given context.
Click to expand...

No, I don't miss anything. Not even the way some have to twist and knot concepts into declared "meaninglessness" in order to justify trampling over them.

If you're happy in a gilded cage, that's fine. You're not alone.
 
haymarket said:
You totally miss the point. FREEDOM or LIBERTY is an abstract term which means nothing by itself divorced from the real society we live in. It cannot be discussed in any sort of real way as a factor in the lives of real people unless it is given context.
Click to expand...

How about, LIVE and LET LIVE? How about the concept of empowering individuals through the legalization of personal freedom? Freedom to prosper as well as the freedom to fail. Individuals must be free to live out their own lives, as they see fit...SO LONG AS their actions do not violate the rights of others. Is that enough context for you?
 
Harshaw said:
No, I don't miss anything. Not even the way some have to twist and knot concepts into declared "meaninglessness" in order to justify trampling over them.

If you're happy in a gilded cage, that's fine. You're not alone.
Click to expand...

Why do you find it necessary to take what I have written and pervert it into a Frankenstein monster version of what I actually said? Why can't you deal with what i wrote instead of what you have wished I had written so you can give some glibertarian response to it?
 
ElijahGalt said:
How about, LIVE and LET LIVE? How about the concept of empowering individuals through the legalization of personal freedom? Freedom to prosper as well as the freedom to fail. Individuals must be free to live out their own lives, as they see fit...SO LONG AS their actions do not violate the rights of others. Is that enough context for you?
Click to expand...

You should really find some place where you can go and do just that.
 
Demon of Light said:
Then you will never be able to separate them, though it is largely futile either way.
Click to expand...

Explain HOW.

Tell me why is it impossible to refuse preferential treatment to certain businesses while simultaneously ensuring that the right to free speech, and the right to petition are protected?

Why does refusing to bailout a business = repealing the First Amendment?
 
haymarket said:
Why do you find it necessary to take what I have written and pervert it into a Frankenstein monster version of what I actually said? Why can't you deal with what i wrote instead of what you have wished I had written so you can give some glibertarian response to it?
Click to expand...

I am dealing with what you wrote, dude. :shrug: I can't help it that you repeatedly dismissed "freedom" as a meaningless concept, and that you said comfort, conveniences, and government services are what makes the place great.
 
haymarket said:
You should really find some place where you can go and do just that.
Click to expand...

Nope, restricting freedom isn't what you're talking about. Not at all.
 
haymarket said:
You should really find some place where you can go and do just that.
Click to expand...

What's wrong with this country? What's wrong with letting people live their lives as they see fit, NOT as you see fit? If grassroots development means empowering those at the very bottom level (individualism) of society, then why not champion for the rights of the smallest minority instead of placating the whims of the majority?
 
The mature citizen knows there is a balance between themselves as an individual and themselves as a member of the larger society. The mature citizen knows that no man or woman alive is free to do as they please in any way they want to do it. We are all bound by the larger society in which we live in. There are no walls keeping you or anyone here against their will if you do not like that arrangement.
 
Harshaw said:
Nope, restricting freedom isn't what you're talking about. Not at all.
Click to expand...

Almost all freedoms are restricted or have limits around them. Accept it and get used to it are you are going to be very frustrated libertarian.
 
ElijahGalt said:
What's wrong with this country? What's wrong with letting people live their lives as they see fit, NOT as you see fit? If grassroots development means empowering those at the very bottom level (individualism) of society, then why not champion for the rights of the smallest minority instead of placating the whims of the majority?
Click to expand...
You, sir, have the patience of Job. I applaud you. Or pity you, I haven't decided which.
 
haymarket said:
The mature citizen knows there is a balance between themselves as an individual and themselves as a member of the larger society. The mature citizen knows that no man or woman alive is free to do as they please in any way they want to do it. We are all bound by the larger society in which we live in. There are no walls keeping you or anyone here against their will if you do not like that arrangement.
Click to expand...

I like everything you said except the last statement. The last statement sounds like McCarthy-style, love-it-or-leave-it patriotic zealotry.

But I don't disagree with everything else you said, which is why I specifically said that I don't support absolute freedom (anarchy). There are limits to freedom, but only limits must be that your free decisions do not obstruct the ability of others to make their own free decisions. Live and LET LIVE.
 
haymarket said:
Almost all freedoms are restricted or have limits around them. Accept it and get used to it are you are going to be very frustrated libertarian.
Click to expand...

Never said otherwise. :shrug: However, one who doesn't consider "freedom" a "meaningless concept" is far less likely to restrict it too much.
 
Harshaw - I really have no idea what it means to restrict freedom "too much". This hits me like another vague and meaningless term that without specific context attached is relatively meaningless.

Galt - nobody is telling you to love it or leave it. All I am saying is that if somebody does not like the situation here and objects loudly to it with very little chance of getting what they want, perhaps they should exercise their freedom of choice and try to do better elsewhere.
 
ElijahGalt said:
Explain HOW.

Tell me why is it impossible to refuse preferential treatment to certain businesses while simultaneously ensuring that the right to free speech, and the right to petition are protected?

Why does refusing to bailout a business = repealing the First Amendment?
Click to expand...

Why do you think they bail out the businesses in the first place? It is not because there is nothing explicitly preventing them from doing so, even if there was that wouldn't stop them.
 
And you obviously do not either since you cannot be specific or do anything beyond repeat vague platitudes and even vaguer slogans. Of course, to change course now would mean leaving the ideal world of abstracts and having to get down and dirty in the real world with real examples about real situations with real people with real consequences. But you really should try it if you want to get beyond those vague slogans.
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
And you obviously do not either since you cannot be specific or do anything beyond repeat vague platitudes and even vaguer slogans. Of course, to change course now would mean leaving the ideal world of abstracts and having to get down and dirty in the real world with real examples about real situations with real people with real consequences. But you really should try it if you want to get beyond those vague slogans.
Click to expand...

No, I actually have a pretty well-developed and internally-consistent set of principles which allow me to do that.

You can continue to dismiss the concept of "freedom" as a "slogan" if you like, but you only continue to confirm what I've been saying.
 
And yet another post repeating the same thing... which amounts to nothing of substance.

Why do you avoid real world specifics like the plague?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom