• 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:
So rev... you know how to type a word. Now back it up with explanation and analysis to show the world why my arguments are just strawmen.

if you are able that is. But I bet you cannot. :peace (just for you since you seem addicted to these smilie faces) :mrgreen:

Let me assist you:

The argument put forward by Harmarket regarding ________________________ is actually just use of the strawman because ____________________________ and ______________________________________.

No thanks are necessary.
Click to expand...



Who said:

Some here have complained that non-libertarians do not really know what libertarians stand for, what they believe, what the support or do not support. This seems to be a continual and nearly constant complaint from libertarians going back years.
 
Rev
perhaps you should read the thread. Here is an example of what I was talking about which you falsely labeled as a strawman. you
DrunkenAsparagus said:
To all kneejerk Libertarian bashers:

Libertarianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Minarchism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Read the freaking articles. Many of you have been around here or other debate sites for a long time. You should have a grasp on basic political terms. Your kneejerk equating American-style Libertarianism with Anarchism, Corpratism, or other things that don't involve keeping a small, but still functional government shows nothing but ignorance on your part, willful or otherwise. I'm sick of responding to these kinds of things.
Click to expand...

You see rev, its real, its very very real.

And I hope you are not under the delusion that libertarianism is only discussed within this message board and only started recently.
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
here is an article that identifies a least ten different types of libertarians

What Kind of Libertarian Are You? - 10 Different Types of Libertarianism

maybe people are confused because libertarians themselves can be very confusing.

and of course the famous cartoon giving us a full two dozen libertarian types -- humorously of course

The 24 Types of Libertarian | Progressive Political Cartoon by Barry Deutsch
Click to expand...

I am an even mix of Anarcho-Capitalism, Civil and Fiscal Libertarianism, and Libertarian Socialism.

Many of these positions tend to overlap. The only real distinctions lie between left and right libertarians, anarchists and minarchists, moderates and radicals, and the wayward Objectivists.
 
haymarket said:
here is an article that identifies a least ten different types of libertarians

What Kind of Libertarian Are You? - 10 Different Types of Libertarianism
Click to expand...

This is a site with a predominately American membership. In the US, and in the multitude of threads shown here, it has been pretty explicitly stated that Libertarianism is assumed to mean classical liberalism or something close to it unless otherwise stated. Maybe if you're new and from a part of the world were Libertarianism means something different it's understandable, but otherwise to say that's not what libertarianism means is just being obtuse.
 
haymarket said:
In the world of the 21st century, corporations are amassing wealth and the power that it can purchase at an alarming rate.
Click to expand...

How are wealthy corporations any more or less powerful than their counterparts in the early 20th century?

The idea that a corporation can tell an employee that a condition of employment is a surrender of their political rights or they risk termination is a reality.
Click to expand...

First of all, give me the names of the corporations in question. Second of all, is that really the violation of freedoms that you were referring to? Does a corporation limit your freedom of mobility by requiring that you show up to work every morning at 8 AM and stay there until 5 PM? The answer is not unless you signed up for it! If your freedoms really were violated, then you would have no alternative. But when you sign up to work for a company, you are sacrificing a portion of your rights in order to cooperate with your employer for a common purpose. It is not a violation of freedom if the company threatens to terminate your employment if you begin working for the competition. It is not a violation of freedom if the military restricts your right to protest in full military garment, because you signed up for it!

Government, on the other hand, is something you're born into. If the government decides to restrict your freedom of speech, there is no alternative. That's the difference!

That is the world we live in and the Citizens United decision is not going to help change that. Many progressives like myself have a very strong conviction that it will only be the government representing the will of the majority of the people that can counter balance corporate power. I see no other force with enough resources to do it.
Click to expand...

So, the only means is through government? Then why did the CEO of Target apologize for allowing the company to contribute x number of dollars to an advocacy group that stirred controversy among the LGBT community? If contributing money to politicians goes against the grain of society, then the corporation in question will suffer consequences. But in reality, unions and public employee associations are the biggest contributors to politicians, NOT corporations. And regardless, corporations are associations of free individuals. The government has no authority in establishing ANY law that restricts the freedom of speech for individuals. If a corporation is owned by a number of individuals and those individuals wish to use the resources of that organization to influence the political election, then they have every right.

If you really want to stop corporations from donating to politicians, then let's agree on a second bill of rights that forbids any merger between state and economic power. In other words, NO subsidies, NO tariffs, NO bailouts, NO excessive regulation, etc. If the government is not acting as a feeding tube for the corporations, then the corporations will have no reason to contribute.
 
Galt
you and I don't even live in the same world if you are that clueless about the wealth of corporations today compared to what they were 100 years ago.

you say this

If you really want to stop corporations from donating to politicians, then let's agree on a second bill of rights that forbids any merger between state and economic power. In other words, NO subsidies, NO tariffs, NO bailouts, NO excessive regulation, etc.
Click to expand...

As tantalizing as the offer may seem to some, I respectfully turn it down. I happen to think our Founding Fathers were very wise when they included the power to levy a tariff in the Constitution. It is unfortunate that some have forgotten that the power still exists. I also happen to believe they were very wise when they included Article I, Section 8, paragraph 18 in there as well.
 
Last edited:
DrunkenAsparagus said:
This is a site with a predominately American membership. In the US, and in the multitude of threads shown here, it has been pretty explicitly stated that Libertarianism is assumed to mean classical liberalism or something close to it unless otherwise stated. Maybe if you're new and from a part of the world were Libertarianism means something different it's understandable, but otherwise to say that's not what libertarianism means is just being obtuse.
Click to expand...

So are you contending that the ten types listed in the article do not exist here? And if so what makes you right and the article wrong?
 
haymarket said:
So are you contending that the ten types listed in the article do not exist here? And if so what makes you right and the article wrong?
Click to expand...

No, I'm contending that on this site and in American Political discussion (again, sorry foreigners, but most DP posters are American) Libertarianism means small government, and free market capitalism unless otherwise stated.
 
haymarket said:
Galt
you and I don't even live in the same world if you are that clueless about the wealth of corporations today compared to what they were 100 years ago.
Click to expand...

Sure, in terms of real dollars, corporations are wealthier today than they were a century ago. But other things remain the same. Corporations then and now continue to try and influence law while the people generally hold them in high suspicion.

As tantalizing as the offer may seem to some, I respectfully turn it down. I happen to think our Founding Fathers were very wise when they included the power to levy a tariff in the Constitution. It is unfortunate that some have forgotten that the power still exists. I also happen to believe they were very wise when they included Article I, Section 8, paragraph 18 in there as well.
Click to expand...

I bet you haven't read the Federalist papers. Here's an excerpt:
"No axiom is more clearly established in law or in reason than wherever the end is required, the means are authorized; wherever a general power to do a thing is given, every particular power for doing it is included."

So, how does the elastic clause have anything to do with the federal government restricting the 1st Amendment rights of Americans? The elastic clause is suppose to help the government execute powers that have been specifically outlined in the constitution, not to help violate the freedoms of individuals. And the power to tariff was necessary at the time to pay off the war debt. But, like all things government, the tariff expanded to such a ridiculous rate that climaxed with the infamous 1828 "Tariff of Abomination." The founders were wise men, but not Gods. And I strongly disagree that we need any sort of tariff system today, for the evidence shows that such measures are detrimental to the economy of this country, as well as the global economy.
 
Galt -

I will not ask you to provide numerical evidence of your assertion that

In terms of real dollars, corporations are wealthier today than they were a century ago. But other things remain the same. Corporations then and now continue to try and influence law while the people generally hold them in high suspicion.
Click to expand...

On its face, it goes against every bit of information I have about the subject. But you are entitled to your beliefs and I strongly suspect it would make no difference to either of us either way.

Regarding the Federalist Papers: so what? The last time I looked the FP were very interesting historical writings that explained the thoughts of a few people who were part of the much larger group of Founding Fathers.

The tariff: I also strongly suspect that the parts of the economy you are most strongly concerned about and the parts of the economy that I am most concerned about are not at all the same. I also suspect based on your closing reference to the global economy that we would be miles apart on that issue also.

I would have a tariff and it would work like this: any company that moves American jobs overseas is now free to sell those products anywhere overseas they want to sell them. I use "overseas" in the broadest sense and would include Mexico and other nations not really overseas at all. If those same products want ot be sold here, then we would have a tariff. I happen to love this country and the American people. I agree with Ross Perot when he predicted the 'giant sucking sound' of good paying manufacturing jobs leaving America if NAFTA were passed. I happen to reside in an area of the country which has been decimated by the economic treason of large corporations. Sorry if I do not welcome their foreign made products back on the shelves of Wal Mart. But I am inclined that way.

My reference to the elastic clause was in part response to your offer to drop economic regulation.
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
Galt -

I will not ask you to provide numerical evidence of your assertion that



On its face, it goes against every bit of information I have about the subject. But you are entitled to your beliefs and I strongly suspect it would make no difference to either of us either way.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what is the major difference. You made the assertion, so I'll wait for you to back it up with examples and statistics. How, and in what ways, are corporations more powerful now than in the past? I suppose the multinational agreements and licensing procedures have created larger corporations, but I'm not sure I'm convinced that larger ultimately means more powerful. And I define power as having control over other people.

Regarding the Federalist Papers: so what? The last time I looked the FP were very interesting historical writings that explained the thoughts of a few people who were part of the much larger group of Founding Fathers.
Click to expand...

The FP are a primary source for interpretation of the constitution. It helped pushed the ratification process, and it outlined the philosophy and motivation of the proposed system of government. You can't fully understand the constitution without reading the federalist papers.

The tariff: I also strongly suspect that the parts of the economy you are most strongly concerned about and the parts of the economy that I am most concerned about are not at all the same. I also suspect based on your closing reference to the global economy that we would be miles apart on that issue also.
Click to expand...

As in, America is #1 and **** the rest of the world? That sort of economic nationalism served as the backbone of mercantilism and imperialism. Why not step into the 21st century of liberalized trade and global cooperation?

I would have a tariff and it would work like this: any company that moves American jobs overseas is now free to sell those products anywhere overseas they want to sell them. I use "overseas" in the broadest sense and would include Mexico and other nations not really overseas at all. If those same products want ot be sold here, then we would have a tariff. I happen to love this country and the American people. I agree with Ross Perot when he predicted the 'giant sucking sound' of good paying manufacturing jobs leaving America if NAFTA were passed. I happen to reside in an area of the country which has been decimated by the economic treason of large corporations. Sorry if I do not welcome their foreign made products back on the shelves of Wal Mart. But I am inclined that way.
Click to expand...

Yes you are, just like the bastards who felt the same way legislated the infamous Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 which further exacerbated global trade and led to a deeper depression.

My reference to the elastic clause was in part response to your offer to drop economic regulation.
Click to expand...

I said a bare minimum of regulations, which could be deemed necessary and constitutional given the elasticity clause. However, regulating the freedom of businesses to trade, associate, set prices, and form licensing agreements are not covered under the elasticity clause. You can't just use the elasticity clause to justify any and all expansion of government power. If it has nothing to do with the constitutional powers, or specifically the protection of the Bill of Rights, the elasticity clause is irrelevant.
 
from Galt

The FP are a primary source for interpretation of the constitution.
Click to expand...

So what? Do they have the same standing before the Supreme Court as the actual language contained in the Constitution? NO. Case closed.


Yes you are, just like the bastards who felt the same way legislated the infamous Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 which further exacerbated global trade and led to a deeper depression.
Click to expand...

News flash for Galt: the Smoot Hawley tariff happened 80 freakin years ago. Got that? it in no way shape or form disqualifies all tariffs now or in the future no more than one successful tariff in our history justifies all tariffs now or in the future. I do not think that is hard to comprehend.

I said a bare minimum of regulations, which could be deemed necessary and constitutional given the elasticity clause. However, regulating the freedom of businesses to trade, associate, set prices, and form licensing agreements are not covered under the elasticity clause.
Click to expand...

You should take your argument before the US Supreme Court who has heard this before and decided it in favor of existing law which does many of the things you object to. It is settled law.
 
haymarket said:
So what? Do they have the same standing before the Supreme Court as the actual language contained in the Constitution? NO. Case closed.
Click to expand...
The Constitution has no "standing" before any court anywhere, Perry Mason. Learn what terms of art mean before using them.
haymarket said:
You should take your argument before the US Supreme Court who has heard this before and decided it in favor of existing law which does many of the things you object to. It is settled law.
Click to expand...
Is ≠ ought.

There's hardly anything "settled" about the Necessary and Proper Clause. It's been a matter of controversy for the courts since day one.
 
haymarket said:
from Galt



So what? Do they have the same standing before the Supreme Court as the actual language contained in the Constitution? NO. Case closed.
Click to expand...

Of course not, because it is not the formal constitution. Just like the various drafts that were made prior to the ratification of the constitution are not formally the constitution, but serve as a major tool for interpreting the original intent of the founders. The FP can almost be equaled to an instruction's manual.

News flash for Galt: the Smoot Hawley tariff happened 80 freakin years ago. Got that? it in no way shape or form disqualifies all tariffs now or in the future no more than one successful tariff in our history justifies all tariffs now or in the future. I do not think that is hard to comprehend.
Click to expand...

Has there been some drastic change in the way a tariff can or will be implemented? What is the primary difference between a tariff in 1930 that deepens a global depression, and one in 2010 that hinders growth, damages productivity, kills job creation, and raises inflation?

You should take your argument before the US Supreme Court who has heard this before and decided it in favor of existing law which does many of the things you object to. It is settled law.
Click to expand...

As you like to ask, so what? Plessy v. Ferguson was settled law, so what's your point? Can the precedence be overturned?
Click to expand...
 
Again, Galt your argument is not with me its with the decisions of Supreme Court on these issues. Whatever the Court said last is the legal word on this. And the last time I looked, many of things on your list that libertarians object to were argued before the Court and your interpretation lost.

from galt

What is the primary difference between a tariff in 1930 that deepens a global depression, and one in 2010 that hinders growth, damages productivity, kills job creation, and raises inflation?
Click to expand...

Now we are getting somewhere. I am talking about a tariff which protects and creates American jobs and encourages growth by the spending of all that income from American jobs. Not what you are talking about at all.

from Coronado

There's hardly anything "settled" about the Necessary and Proper Clause. It's been a matter of controversy for the courts since day one.
Click to expand...

A matter of controversy where? On the internet message boards? In libertarian circles? The US Supreme Court has decided these things in the past and the law is settled on those issues which Galt objects to. You can hope that new cases come forward in the future and you can also hope that the Court led by Chief Justice Roberts will break his promise to the US Senate and disturb and overrule long settled precendents.

You can hope.
 
haymarket said:
from Coronado



A matter of controversy where? On the internet message boards? In libertarian circles? The US Supreme Court has decided these things in the past and the law is settled on those issues which Galt objects to. You can hope that new cases come forward in the future and you can also hope that the Court led by Chief Justice Roberts will break his promise to the US Senate and disturb and overrule long settled precendents.

You can hope.
Click to expand...
You really have no idea how the Supreme Court works, do you? "Settled law" isn't something the Court cares that much about when it has to do with the Consitution, a fact that they readily admit, and a fact that is obvious to all but the most obtuse and ignorant.

But hey, don't let that stop you from displaying your ignorance all over the board. Please tell us all about how the Constitution has "standing" in a court of law. I'm dying to hear this particular foray into uncharted legal waters. :lamo
 
haymarket said:
Again, Galt your argument is not with me its with the decisions of Supreme Court on these issues. Whatever the Court said last is the legal word on this. And the last time I looked, many of things on your list that libertarians object to were argued before the Court and your interpretation lost.
Click to expand...

And so what? I know how the system works. But simply supporting the precedent because it stands as the current interpretation does not necessarily make it right. Otherwise, the Supreme Court would never have to overturn a single precedent.

Now we are getting somewhere. I am talking about a tariff which protects and creates American jobs and encourages growth by the spending of all that income from American jobs. Not what you are talking about at all.
Click to expand...

That all sounds like empty rhetoric to me. Explain to me HOW tariffs protect and create American jobs while simultaneously encouraging growth from spending.
 
from Galt

But simply supporting the precedent because it stands as the current interpretation does not necessarily make it right.
Click to expand...
And this is important in the scheme of things because .... because .... exactly why?

This is so easy. If we do not allow companies to remove production and jobs from America without a tarriff to penalize then for bringing the products back her for sale, those companies will stay here and keep making those products with American jobs. Workers at those plants and factories support local businesses and those workers can support more businesses and so an and so on and so on and before you know it - growth has taken place and its right here. Either that or they can cease to exist or go overseas and pay the same anyways in the end. I believe few will opt for door #2 or even #3..

Of course this is only important if you value Americans and their jobs. If you do not then export away overseas and damn any worker who gets in the way.
 
from coronado

You really have no idea how the Supreme Court works, do you? "Settled law" isn't something the Court cares that much about when it has to do with the Consitution, a fact that they readily admit, and a fact that is obvious to all but the most obtuse and ignorant.
Click to expand...

I am shocked. You having the nerve to call the last few SC appointees ignorant and obtuse.

SEN. SPECTER [as read into the record by Sen. Feinstein]: “Judge Roberts, in your confirmation hearing for the circuit court you testified: ‘Roe is the settled law of the land.’ Do you mean settled for you, settled only for your capacity as a circuit judge, or settled beyond that?”
ROBERTS: “Well, beyond that. It’s settled as a precedent of the court, entitled to respect under principles of stare decisis. And those principles, applied in the Casey case, explain when cases should be revisited and when they should not. And it is settled as a precedent of the court, yes.“
SPECTER: ”You went on to say then, ‘It’s a little more than settled. It was reaffirmed in the face of a challenge that it should be overruled in the Casey decision, so it has added precedental value.’“
Click to expand...

So I guess Senator Specter is ignorant and obtuse also.
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
from Galt

And this is important in the scheme of things because .... because .... exactly why?
Click to expand...

Because we're not talking about jurisprudence; we're discussing an ethical form of government. Precedence is irrelevant. If precedence was all that mattered to you in this debate, then no precedence would ever be overturned, and 'separate but equal' would reign supreme.

This is so easy. If we do not allow companies to remove production and jobs from America without a tarriff to penalize then for bringing the products back her for sale, those companies will stay here and keep making those products with American jobs. Workers at those plants and factories support local businesses and those workers can support more businesses and so an and so on and so on and before you know it - growth has taken place and its right here. Either that or they can cease to exist or go overseas and pay the same anyways in the end. I believe few will opt for door #2 or even #3..

Of course this is only important if you value Americans and their jobs. If you do not then export away overseas and damn any worker who gets in the way.
Click to expand...

You didn't even respond effectively to the results of the Smoot-Hawley Act. If this logic were true, then we could simply isolate ourselves from the global market and our prosperity would rise ten-fold.

Here's a quick link:
ISIL -- Free Trade or Protectionism?

Gotta Run!
 
Who said it's inadvertent?

I think quite a few fascist Americans parade as libertarians to draw people into their clutches.
 
Patria Antiqua said:
Who said it's inadvertent?

I think quite a few fascist Americans parade as libertarians to draw people into their clutches.
Click to expand...

really? I have never seen any proof of that. HOwever, I have see lots of fascists pretend to be liberals because liberals want the state to have more and more power to "make things fair" or to "take care of people" and since both groups want more state power, it is a given that the fascist will cloak himself in the more touchy feely "lets take care of people" as a reason to increase power
 
TurtleDude said:
really? I have never seen any proof of that. HOwever, I have see lots of fascists pretend to be liberals because liberals want the state to have more and more power to "make things fair" or to "take care of people" and since both groups want more state power, it is a given that the fascist will cloak himself in the more touchy feely "lets take care of people" as a reason to increase power
Click to expand...

So thats how liberals think. Gosh.:ssst:

One wants state power for one reason
the other wants state power for another
but in wanting state power they are both fascist


... are you a libertarian?
 
Seriously. What better way to destroy the American way of life than to foist a system like libertarianism upon the nation?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom