Troubadour
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2010
- Messages
- 464
- Reaction score
- 181
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Do libertarians inadvertently enable fascism by making institutions weak and vulnerable to private violence?
Do libertarians inadvertently enable fascism by making institutions weak and vulnerable to private violence?
Obviously you are wrong. Please try harder with the troll threads in the future.m-w.com said:fas·cism
noun \ˈfa-ˌshi-zəm also ˈfa-ˌsi-\
Definition of FASCISM
1
often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2
: a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control <early instances of army fascism and brutality — J. W. Aldridge>
Do libertarians inadvertently enable fascism by making institutions weak and vulnerable to private violence?
Do libertarians inadvertently enable fascism by making institutions weak and vulnerable to private violence?
Do libertarians inadvertently enable fascism by making institutions weak and vulnerable to private violence?
Fascism? No.
De facto oligarchy? Yes.
Italy and Mexico would be examples.
De facto oligarchy is what we have now.
Popular democracy is what we have now. Although there is a plutocratic current, its power is transitory.
Yet the party structure is entrenched. Individuals come and go, but the Republocrats forever remain in power. Coupled with the corporate capitalism system we have currently going, we are seeing the emergence of a new aristocracy.
Yet the party structure is entrenched. Individuals come and go, but the Republocrats forever remain in power. Coupled with the corporate capitalism system we have currently going, we are seeing the emergence of a new aristocracy.
And the more government is sold out to the markets, the stronger this aristocracy becomes.
Indeed. But people seem to want to pin some of these outcomes on libertarian political philosophy. However it appears without the induction of libertarian values into the system. In fact, adopting some of the core libertarian values can help to fight this effect. All government will trend towards tyranny if not carefully watched and constrained. At the base of libertarian political theory is a belief in some form of minarchism. That is to say an acknowledgment that government is in some form necessary, but attempts should be made to watch and control it so that it cannot grow too far and begin to act against our rights and liberties.
You can get further in depth with the varying degrees of government involvement called for under libertarian theory, but at the heart is the following. The results of oligarchy and the rise of the aristocracy are not events isolated to the libertarian political platform.
Plutocracy. Aristocrat implies a person has gained their power because of an ancestor's valor on the battlefield or through some notable act of public service, and that they are entitled to the position because abilities are passed long through lineages. The merchant equivalent is plutocrat. Both are weak forms of meritocratic selection, which is, rule of the most skilled.
Weakening the government doesn't stop plutocracy. It requires informed and vigorous control on the part of the people, or representatives who genuinely care about the people, to keep the government effective, but the government must be strong.
Government is a system that has the tendency to expand and become tyrannical, excessively using power and screw people over, if not contained by private actors.
Private actors have the tendency to expand, become plutocracies and excessively use their power, to screw people over, if not contained by government.
It's a tightrope walk, and the best we can hope for is a healthy balance. IMHO.