• 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
Indeed, and the rub is where that balance lies. The varying political philosophies will put emphasis on various areas depending on where they feel that balance is. Libertarian political philosophy is no different, our core is upon the preservation and proliferation of the rights and liberties of the individual. Everything then flows from there. There are many entities to watch, be it from the government sector, the economic sector, etc. And the interplay of these various actors have consequences upon us all. But in all the various libertarian attack threads, it's as if this seems to be an unreasonable process for our political ideology while acceptable in other forms. This thread, the traffic intersection thread, etc. are examples of dishonest or ignorant application of generalized libertarian ideals to a system in which actual libertarian models may not even drive to.

In this thread people propose that libertarian ideology drives to oligarchy; but oligarchy is already had even in the absence of applied libertarian theory. Thus it is not a product of libertarian political philosophy; but rather the evolution of government once created. Government is necessary, but also dangerous. Thus it must be controlled and restricted, which is where our (libertarian) philosophy currently focuses its efforts.

In the end, I really hate these troll/attack threads because there's never any real effort to discuss with us our foundations, our platforms, and specifically what we'd like to drive to and what we could accept. It's always some outlandish and silly thing. "libertarianism will drive to fascism" or some other crap like that. And I think a lot gets "blamed" (for lack of a better word) on libertarian philosophy. Too many people, IMO, look at our crazy section and apply that to the overall. And through the liberal use of hyperbole and propaganda lay blame unto our platform which does not rightfully belong. I believe that for many people if they'd seriously sit down and have an adult discussion of libertarian philosophy would come out for the better. Doesn't say you have to agree with it; but in the end would behoove us much more than these silly attack threads and rampant supposition.

I understand your frustration. Too harsh polemics and a rude tone easily becomes tiresome. And I hope I did not give you the impression I was blaming you or libertarianism in general for fascism.

Personally, I sympathize with libertarianism, although I don't consider myself a libertarian (a libertarian friend of mine once said, though, he believes I am a libertarian who has just not read enough Friedman and Hayek yet :p ). Usually, I am by far not as bothered by social safety nets and limited redistribution, as many libertarians I have met seem to be, but I believe, on the contrary, that they are a good thing to compensate bad side effects of free markets. On the other side, I am very wary of genuine socialists or social democrats who go too far in these regards, who seem to distrust markets in general and/or don't understand the market's great strength when it comes to efficiency. Also, I believe the market has done more in history to improve the general public's wealth, than socialism or redistribution has. I'd just not go so far saying that redistribution is wrong or unnecessary. And I am not quite as fond of the qualities of free markets on other fields than efficiency, like justness and fairness -- freedom is not everything, we also need some equality, and when your belly is empty, you can't fill it with the nice freedom from coercion.

The main problem I see with ideological libertarianism, much like with other ideologies, like socialism, is that they sound great on paper, but I see problems when it comes putting them to reality. To realize the libertarian ideal of a genuinely free market, and a tough, but very small government, is probably just as unrealistic as the establishment of a socialist utopia. And just like the socialists, I see the threat that libertarians may cause quite a few unwanted side effects in their strife for the ideal, when they take actions to make it become reality.

But I do believe libertarian thought is a good bulwark and balance against prevalent other ideologies, which are often way too embracing of government.
 
Last edited:
I think that most libertarians are likely well aware of the side effects of our political ideology. There will never be that perfect system, and in reality what you end up with is a conglomeration of various ideologies. However, every ideology has a trade off somewhere.
 
No.However libertarianism will never work and libertarians have the cover of knowing at least at some level it will never be attempted.
 
Can you expound more upon your question? I don't quite understand, any examples?

Sure. I guess my broader question, beyond the immediate one, is whether libertarian politics (and Small Government ideology in general) has unintentional negative consequences that need to be more carefully examined by its proponents.

In terms of the poll, I'm asking whether Small Government is capable of surviving seditious conspiracies on the part of wealthy interests. For instance, let's imagine a state whose budget is a tiny fraction of its wealthiest citizen's property. Now suppose this citizen commits murder, and this fact is discovered: Would it be realistic for Small Government to be capable of enforcing the law on this person if the perpetrator chose instead to openly defy and/or seek to overthrow it?

No.
Facism is mainly characterized by 2 notable things: the support or use of revolt, violence and rebellion to keep things in control - or to alter what's present.
And the belief that individuality is *toxic* to your government, economy and overall function as a society.

Yes, but that doesn't necessarily address the question. An idea can, in practice, have consequences that promote its own opposite extreme.

So - they both shoulder with revolution (through physical means if necessary) - but facism almost *requires* physical control to keep the system at a measured constant (like in the movie Logan's Run)

I'm not quite sure I understand your point here. Fascism functions through a number of mechanisms, and violence is only one of its tools: It also appeals to bigotry, economic privilege, xenophobia, nationalism, religion, severe punishment of street criminals, and scapegoating of defenseless minorities. People may go along with it due to self-interest, ideological sympathy, apathy, or fear, so fascism does not actually require ubiquitous government presence - only the occasional "making an example" of dissidents, and the persistence of propaganda.

and this is how libertarianism functions. It FULLY encompases individual thought and free-will.

It rhetorically enshrines them, but libertarianism fails to understand the social mechanisms by which these things are fostered and protected. In other words, in the name of liberty, it may weaken or erase that which protects it.

Reduction of government inadvertently enables big government to take control? Excuse me, what?

The size of government is unrelated to its power. Arguably Europe has some of the most extensive bureaucracies, while Saudi Arabia is much more parsimonious - a handful of hereditary royalty whose word is law.

The greatest danger is not from the mugger hiding the alleyway, nor from the multibillionaire business magnate, but from the politician in the capital city.

Everything is ultimately connected, and we have to look at how things operate as an ongoing system - we cannot treat politics as a set of static objects. A politician in a democracy wields power through webs of relationships; a business magnate wields power directly, and has the potential to become less accountable to law the greater their wealth in proportion to the state. This can yield two outcomes, neither of which is desirable: Corruption, by which they use their resources to dictate the composition and policies of government, and (an admittedly extreme scenario) fascist sedition, whereby they seek to use private resources to impose themselves as head of a new government.

Accordingly, the state must be kept on a tight leash, so that the statist atrocities of the 20th century can never be repeated.

But private power must also be kept on a tight leash, so that the thousand-year horrors of the Middle Ages are never repeated. Libertarians generally fail to appreciate that their ideas lack a rigorous means to prevent wealth from overthrowing constitutional authority. It happens far more often in history than the sort of ideology-driven atrocities of the 20th century.

No because in order for fascism to take route the state needs full control.

I think you're making a chicken-and-egg error in believing that fascism results from government control - more often than not, it seizes or otherwise acquires power from a much less potent form of government.

It could never happen in a Libertarian society.

People are people in every society. The question is which societies have the most rigorous mechanisms for deflecting fascist impulses? How would a Libertarian society deal with, for the sake of argument, a billionaire who owned most of the media, employed a private standing army, corrupted elected leaders, and decided to install himself as dictator or his family as hereditary royalty?

Ahh I see, meaning with weak institutions strongarms are more likely to take over.

Yes, exactly. Contrary to the assumptions of many Small Government advocates, bureaucracies tend to diffuse government power rather than enhancing it. Dictators usually prefer a much simpler, military-style chain of command so their orders can be obeyed quickly and efficiently. The bureaucratic inefficiency often condemned by conservatives is part of what makes it resistant to radicalism.

Fascism? No.

De facto oligarchy? Yes.

Italy and Mexico would be examples.

Both can be enabled by libertarianism - the only question is the disposition of the seditious elite. I.e., whether they consider it more convenient to organize around a single leader, or to rule as a cabal.

Obviously, libertarian philosophy is very far from facism. Maybe you could even say if more people were libertarians, that would make facism less likely.

Perhaps - although it might make feudalism more likely.

But I do see a problem, that's not resulting from philosophical tenets of libertarianism, but a side effect of the implementation of such ideals: When democracy and public policy (including democratic elections, individual and pluralist participation and according collective action) is pushed back in favor of markets and mere individualism, you feel more and more people falling off the train: Those who are disadvantaged by the markets, the poor and less wealthy. The side effects of free markets are extreme material inequalities.

The more you cut safety nets that save those people from the worst excesses of the market, the more prone they become for fascist or other kinds of populist and demagogic paroles. It's "voice or exit", and when you are too poor for either, you revolt. When you have nothing to lose except your chains, you are ready to revolt. And you are ready to follow demagogues.

Libertarian principles put to action that cause an increase of inequality, and which lowers the power of democracy, will cause the free, republican system to lose legitimacy and support. People who are kept down materially and denied to make a difference with their voice, because the markets dictate everything, are no longer ready to support this system. And when it goes too far, you will find too many people ready to use violence to replace it with another kind of system, even if the alternatives are just illusions.

Well said.

I think someone is a little vague on what fascism is.

"-isms" are always subjective, but we can agree on common characteristics that together comprise fascism: I.e., dictatorship, military aggression, demonization of powerless minorities, appeals to race-nationalism and other endemic bigotries, propaganda, veneration of Order, and alliance with economic elites to overthrow democratic constitutions.

I think that most libertarians are likely well aware of the side effects of our political ideology.

I have to strongly disagree on that, given the levels at which they've supported Republican politics. While there was some principled (and largely perfunctory) opposition to George W. Bush's policies among libertarians, it seemed they considered low taxation a higher priority than protecting basic constitutional liberties. A man who literally defended his policies by citing the medieval Divine Right of Kings doctrine had very strong support among Small Government advocates.
 
I have to strongly disagree on that, given the levels at which they've supported Republican politics. While there was some principled (and largely perfunctory) opposition to George W. Bush's policies among libertarians, it seemed they considered low taxation a higher priority than protecting basic constitutional liberties. A man who literally defended his policies by citing the medieval Divine Right of Kings doctrine had very strong support among Small Government advocates.

You can strongly disagree all you want. Doesn't mean **** less you can back it up with something other than supposition and conjecture. Fact of the matter is that very few (if any, certainly none I've met) libertarians supported Bush. But don't let that stop you from making absurd claims and asinine statements.
 
Libertarians favor a small, contained state, not a weak one. I don't see how things like owning vast swaths of the economy, providing a huge dole, or giving out social freedom helps censorship makes a stable state
 
the power needed to implement socialism is the power needed to establish a fascist state. Both are pernicious forms of collectivism fueled by the same diseased mindset

so the real answer is that socialist dreams created fascist depradations
 
When were Mexico and Italy libertarian?

They have decentralized governments. When the government isn't casting a shadow over everything, other forces will impose ordering principles.

Libertarians favor a small, contained state, not a weak one. I don't see how things like owning vast swaths of the economy, providing a huge dole, or giving out social freedom helps censorship makes a stable state

Small and contained states are weak.
 
Last edited:
A government being "decentralized" doesn't necessarily make it libertarian.
 
I figured this was werethe op was going.


The answet is "no" libertarians have big guns To prevent tyranny.
 
They have decentralized governments. When the government isn't casting a shadow over everything, other forces will impose ordering principles.

Decentralized doesn't mean libertarian. The states were the epitome of state corporatism, giving special favors to a few small groups.

Small and contained states are weak.

No, in Libertarianism, the line is much farther away from where it is now, but it is just as, if not more distinct than now. The state would still have all of the necessary parts to function.
 
A government being "decentralized" doesn't necessarily make it libertarian.

It does when you're trying to make absurd claims and blame things on libertarian philosophy which aren't actually caused by applied libertarian policy.
 
the power needed to implement socialism is the power needed to establish a fascist state. Both are pernicious forms of collectivism fueled by the same diseased mindset

Democracy?

so the real answer is that socialist dreams created fascist depradations

I know your busy barking and frothing at the mouth, but were actually talking about libertarianism atm. Kthx.
 
Fact of the matter is that very few (if any, certainly none I've met) libertarians supported Bush. But don't let that stop you from making absurd claims and asinine statements.

Then allow me to rephrase: People who claim to support "small government," advocate lower taxes, and oppose public spending on infrastructure and social programs overwhelmingly supported George W. Bush.

Libertarians favor a small, contained state, not a weak one.

Can you explain the distinction?

I don't see how things like owning vast swaths of the economy, providing a huge dole, or giving out social freedom helps censorship makes a stable state

This is written unclearly, so I'm not sure what you're saying.

the power needed to implement socialism is the power needed to establish a fascist state.

Not so. "Socialism," insofar as it exists, is an economic policy involving state ownership of part or all of the factors of production. It is politically neutral insofar as the distinction between democracy, fascism, and other forms of government (e.g., China is an oligarchy).

Both are pernicious forms of collectivism fueled by the same diseased mindset

"Collectivism" is a null-word devoid of meaning. To be human is to be both individual and part of larger things. Denying one or the other in one's self is "diseased," and denying one or the other in politics yields crippled, dysfunctional societies. Fascism is bad because it distracts society from its problems by blaming scapegoats, removes the error-correction feedbacks of free expression and democracy, and its intolerance of weakness destroys much of the real strength in its society.

so the real answer is that socialist dreams created fascist depradations

Actually, fascism is often an elite reaction against left-wing socialism, which is itself a reaction against growing wealth inequality. Not only in Europe in the early 20th century, but also in Latin America in the 1970s and 1980s, the growing popularity of socialist political parties led threatened elites to support fascist coups. It was mainly the threat of Soviet Communism that convinced many otherwise moderate Germans to go along with the Nazi Party, because it wrapped itself in German traditions and had the support of wealthy businessmen - the "socialism" in National Socialism was just a ruse to win working-class support in Weimar Republic elections.

I figured this was werethe op was going. The answer is "no" libertarians have big guns To prevent tyranny.

And how many of those guns would side with tyranny if it promised them tax cuts and the eradication of social programs? If it called itself a "small government" committed to "free enterprise" and insisted that its atrocities were merely "defending America against Socialists"? Given what I saw during the Bush years, something tells me it's more likely those guns would remain in their cabinets, if not be volunteered in service to "eradicate the plague of Socialism."
 
Last edited:
Democracy?



I know your busy barking and frothing at the mouth, but were actually talking about libertarianism atm. Kthx.

Do you know the difference between YOUR and YOU'RE?

seriously? if you are going to insult me with your specious claims that I am "barking and frothing at the mouth" how about doing it with proper grammar
 
Bush was bad when it came to smaller government

but he was far far better than the two alternatives
 
Do libertarians inadvertently enable fascism by making institutions weak and vulnerable to private violence?

Perhaps you should ask the fascist moderator, Korimyr the Rat. I'd like to know what he thinks.
 
Bush was bad when it came to smaller government

but he was far far better than the two alternatives

He tortured and murdered people, built torture camps, engaged in a treasonous conspiracy to invade a country that hadn't attacked us, spent a trillion dollars conquering and destroying that country, got tens of thousands of people killed (and hundreds of thousand indirectly through the chaos that ensued), turned the United States into a global pariah, conspired with dictators against foreign democracies, did nothing while an American city was destroyed and then left it to rot, hired prostitutes and actors to pose as reporters and praise him during press conferences, removed embarrassing remarks from official transcripts, enforced a five-mile-wide protest-free zone around himself, forced people to make personal loyalty oaths to him if they wanted to talk to him, falsified government documents as a matter of routine, shrouded the entire government in secrecy, had the Department of Homeland Security investigating his opponents, ignored subpoenas, and for all intents and purposes declared himself Emperor.

So no, Turtle, George W. Bush was not "better than the alternatives" by any stretch of even the most twisted imagination - he was a savagely Orwellian, murdering liar, and Republicans preferred and still prefer him over his opponents because he cut their taxes. That's it. He paid them off. They sold their country for a tax cut, and will do it again at the first opportunity. The Republican Party is no longer American in any way, shape, or form. It is a treasonous, seditious pustule consisting of people who are only in it for themselves alone, and willing to subject their own children to a hellish future for the immediate illusion of personal wealth. That anyone would say mass-murder, torture, and the elimination of the 4th Amendment was preferrable to tax increases is beyond unconscionable. You should be ashamed to even imply such things.

The point of this thread is that libertarian ideology is so easily puppeteered by people like Bush, Cheney, and Rove.
 
Last edited:
He tortured and murdered people, built torture camps, engaged in a treasonous conspiracy to invade a country that hadn't attacked us, spent a trillion dollars conquering and destroying that country, got tens of thousands of people killed (and hundreds of thousand indirectly through the chaos that ensued), turned the United States into a global pariah, conspired with dictators against foreign democracies, did nothing while an American city was destroyed and then left it to rot, hired prostitutes and actors to pose as reporters and praise him during press conferences, removed embarrassing remarks from official transcripts, enforced a five-mile-wide protest-free zone around himself, forced people to make personal loyalty oaths to him if they wanted to talk to him, falsified government documents as a matter of routine, shrouded the entire government in secrecy, had the Department of Homeland Security investigating his opponents, ignored subpoenas, and for all intents and purposes declared himself Emperor.

So no, Turtle, George W. Bush was not "better than the alternatives" by any stretch of even the most twisted imagination - he was a savagely Orwellian, murdering liar, and Republicans preferred and still prefer him over his opponents because he cut their taxes. That's it. He paid them off. They sold their country for a tax cut, and will do it again at the first opportunity. The Republican Party is no longer American in any way, shape, or form. It is a treasonous, seditious pustule consisting of people who are only in it for themselves alone, and willing to subject their own children to a hellish future for the immediate illusion of personal wealth. That anyone would say mass-murder, torture, and the elimination of the 4th Amendment was preferrable to tax increases is beyond unconscionable. You should be ashamed to even imply such things.

The point of this thread is that libertarian ideology is so easily puppeteered by people like Bush, Cheney, and Rove.



Cindy Sheehan? is that you? :ssst:
 
In other words, you don't actually care what's true and what isn't - you're just trying to disrupt discussion.




It could be that, or, it could be 2008 called, they wanted the daily kos/moveon/code pink kool-aid from 2005 back.
 
It could be that, or, it could be 2008 called, they wanted the daily kos/moveon/code pink kool-aid from 2005 back.

If you have no interest in an honest discussion, you're welcome to back out at any time. There's no need for this childish effrontery if you'd rather avoid talking about these subjects.
 
If you have no interest in an honest discussion, you're welcome to back out at any time. There's no need for this childish effrontery if you'd rather avoid talking about these subjects.




I thought the topic was some nonsense about libertarians enabling facsism, not repeating every piece of anti-bush propaganda there is. :shrug:
 
I thought the topic was some nonsense about libertarians enabling facsism

If you read the discussion that's already occurred, you'll understand there have already been several substantive exchanges. If you don't feel that you have something to offer that might add to what's been said, I'm sure there is some other thread that might interests you more. But if you do have meaningful thoughts on the discussion, they're welcome. Make a decision anytime.

not repeating every piece of anti-bush propaganda there is. :shrug:

Feel free to specifically deny something I said. Any time. In fact, I'm straight-up daring you.
 
Back
Top Bottom