NationStates Jolt Archive

Are there any fascist libertarians? Is there such a thing?

I just wonder how someone would integrate those philosophies. If there are, I have the perfect motto for you;

"Live Free, Or Else!"

Theres that national socialist libertarian green party. I'm sure somebody will post the link up in a minute

Theres that national socialist libertarian green party. I'm sure somebody will post the link up in a minute
http://www.nazi.org/

(no lie...that really IS their domain name. :eek: )

What about the National Anarchists? a mix of Nazism and Anarchism...they really do exist.

Are there any fascist libertarians? Is there such a thing?

I just wonder how someone would integrate those philosophies. If there are, I have the perfect motto for you;

"Live Free, Or Else!"
New Hampshire's state motto is "Live Free or Die!"

New Hampshire's state motto is "Live Free or Die!"

Stunning coincidence. ;)

This question might be off topic, but how do Libertarians feel about government intervention in the exploitive practices of multi-national corporations or fraudulant marketic techniques?

http://www.nazi.org/

(no lie...that really IS their domain name. :eek: )

Yes, but very, very, appropriate. Revolting, and disgusting, but appropriate.

Stunning coincidence. ;)

But New Hampshire has more people who are independants (i believe its over 50%, myself included) because we want free choice (yes, most do change parties for elections to major parties, but this is a showing of how NH citizens live by their motto)

This question might be off topic, but how do Libertarians feel about government intervention in the exploitive practices of multi-national corporations or fraudulant marketic techniques?
I'm very against those practices, as they are not capitalistic practices but corporatism in the guise of capitalsim. Corporations are the bane of Capitalism.

The only way there could be a Fascist Libertarian (more appropriate to call them libertarian, as the Capital L in America implies a member of the political party) is if they were libertarian in name only.

There are lots of countries in this world and in the past who have called themselves Democratic and yet still have no measure of any democratic institutions of government that derives it power from consent.

There are other possibilities, as some libertarians could apply their views to socialism or other philosophies, but all classical liberals and Libertarians today would say those ideas are statist and unlibertarian.

There is some middle ground like anything else (moderate social democracy has a chunk of statism and the rhetoric of libertarianism), but you can't apply the basic epitome to Statism and the holy grail of minarchism and somehow have a real philsophy.

Long story short: I say no.

But New Hampshire has more people who are independants (i believe its over 50%, myself included) because we want free choice (yes, most do change parties for elections to major parties, but this is a showing of how NH citizens live by their motto)
You wouldn't happen to be a member of the Free State Project (http://www.freestateproject.org/), would you? ;)

I'm very against those practices, as they are not capitalistic practices but corporatism in the guise of capitalsim. Corporations are the bane of Capitalism.

Are you a libertarian? If so, what do you think the government should do about the afore mentioned practices?

I'm a Libertarian and corporate abuses should be treated like any other crime.

It's important to have regulations that protect our basic rights, but that is not the shape that many of the regulatory bodies have taken on. Many are roadblocks that support corporate expansion and concentration of wealth, making it harder for small businesses and individuals to succeed in a similar field.

The government loves corporations because they can use them as friends one day and enemies the next. The FDA loves pharmaceutical companies because they can spend a lot of public capital trying to "limit" them (when all they are doing is putting up roadblocks for the supplement industry and alternative medicine) and then the next day make it as such that they can price gouge.

So who is it then that creates monopoly and concentration of wealth? The free market, or these market watchdogs we've appointed?

Nobody should be free to do things which are in violation of the rights of others, but the removal of economic opportunity for the common person is a very real threat we face from the regulatory system. The bureaucracy will always favors corporations, because that's were the politicians know they can build up favor and support.

The regulatory system needs to be prevented from doing unjust things just as much as the free market if not more. They will use political considerations long before safety, affordability or justice as the basis for their decision making, and it's evident in the choices they make day in and day out.

Are you a libertarian? If so, what do you think the government should do about the afore mentioned practices?
In simplistic terms, I would wipe out all forms of corporate welfare and subsidies and corporate protections.

The problem is that the US is so far down the Corporatisit path that the massive change needed to revert back to real Capitalism would most likely cause a massive economic collapse, not just in the US but worldwide. FDR fucked us royally with the New Deal and now we're stuck with it.

If I had the resources, I'd start a new country somewhere and implement true Capitalism and disallow existing corporations from operating within the borders. New "corporations" would be allowed to spring up within the system, but they would be allowed no political clout whatsoever, leaving them open to competition from small business.

As my fellow poster just said, we need to remove favor, and that includes subsidy, tax advantages, and regulatory and licensing barriers that the big corporations don't have to deal with.

I don't believe that we need upheaval to restore economic justice, we don't need to get rid of corporations, we just need better policy makers in our councils and congresses, who understand the plight of regular citizens trying to make it.

I'm a Libertarian and corporate abuses should be treated like any other crime.

It's important to have regulations that protect our basic rights, but that is not the shape that many of the regulatory bodies have taken on. Many are roadblocks that support corporate expansion and concentration of wealth, making it harder for small businesses and individuals to succeed in a similar field.

The government loves corporations because they can use them as friends one day and enemies the next. The FDA loves pharmaceutical companies because they can spend a lot of public capital trying to "limit" them (when all they are doing is putting up roadblocks for the supplement industry and alternative medicine) and then the next day make it as such that they can price gouge.

So who is it then that creates monopoly and concentration of wealth? The free market, or these market watchdogs we've appointed?

Nobody should be free to do things which are in violation of the rights of others, but the removal of economic opportunity for the common person is a very real threat we face from the regulatory system. The bureaucracy will always favors corporations, because that's were the politicians know they can build up favor and support.

The regulatory system needs to be prevented from doing unjust things just as much as the free market if not more. They will use political considerations long before safety, affordability or justice as the basis for their decision making, and it's evident in the choices they make day in and day out.


This seems very much in keeping with what I've read about libertarianism (although I haven't read much.) However, your argument seems to rely on the assumption that it is government that controls the fate of a corporation and not the other way around. I've had this argument on another thread and I think that while it's true that many corporations succeed because of the economic climate created by the government, isn't it also possible for a business to succeed in a libertarian economy to the point that their power surpasses the government? ie. The Medellin Drug Cartel.

In simplistic terms, I would wipe out all forms of corporate welfare and subsidies and corporate protections.

The problem is that the US is so far down the Corporatisit path that the massive change needed to revert back to real Capitalism would most likely cause a massive economic collapse, not just in the US but worldwide. FDR fucked us royally with the New Deal and now we're stuck with it.

If I had the resources, I'd start a new country somewhere and implement true Capitalism and disallow existing corporations from operating within the borders. New "corporations" would be allowed to spring up within the system, but they would be allowed no political clout whatsoever, leaving them open to competition from small business.

Without government intervention, how can a small business, like a Mom and Pop cafe, compete with a corporation like Starbucks?

This question might be off topic, but how do Libertarians feel about government intervention in the exploitive practices of multi-national corporations or fraudulant marketic techniques?
They close their eyes, out their hands over their ears and shout about how corrupt corporations have nothing to do with their free capitalist ideals. Really. :rolleyes:

EDIT: Oh look, I was right. (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9097097&postcount=10) :D

Well, I'm not a peddler of Libertarianism, I just happen to be a Libertarian.

The only difference between a Libertarian economy and a Democrat or Republican economy is that it's stronger, more efficient and more just to regular folks who work hard.

There'd be no sense in having laws if anyone designed to make corporations more powerful than the law itself. Anyone who tells you that is a crock who doesn't realize that we're slowly eroding law and justice for the favor of corporations already.

The answer to solving the corporation expansion and abuse problem and addressing the lack of individual ownership is not MORE government, though, it's BETTER government and more accountable leadership that sees through the panacea Democrats and Republicans want to paint when they politick.

You can't fix lawlessness with more laws if the law breakers are favored by the law makers. You can't fix problems with more money if the money goes to pay administrators and other bureaucratic overheads, and that's the reality of the much of what the Demopublicans are bringing us.

There's nothing wrong with a regulation if that regulation counts to protect our rights, but when regulations become a laundry list of limitations that allows one group to get bigger, more powerful and more manipulative at the expense of so many others, you know something is awry in Washington.

Without government intervention, how can a small business, like a Mom and Pop cafe, compete with a corporation like Starbucks?
The problem is that many corporations (such as Starbucks) got where they are due to tax abatements and other corporatist protections that small business owners don't get.

As a prime example: Krispy Kreme moved into town (one store) less than a year ago and a handful of mom and pop donut places have had to close down. BUT, the ONLY reason they even moved here was because they DEMANDED all kinds of tax abatements and corporatist protections over an above established local shops...and the gutless city council and county taxing authority GAVE them those protections. More jobs and business have been lost and one corporation has profited BECAUSE OF GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION and unlevelling of the playing field.

What he said and some.

It's very sad, because many of the Corporate Shams happen in places where we absolutely can make a difference: at the municipal levels.

City Councils and County Commissions are regular hangouts for busy bodies and bureaucratic hacks who think any public expenditure is a great "investment" even when it takes from the many to support the few.

Wal-Mart and big box store are notorious for using the local circuit. They bully local governments into snatching up annexed land or sometimes using emminent domain, and giving the land to Wal-Mart on the cheap.

This is not because Wal-Mart pays taxes. Corporations don't pay taxes. Wal-Mart (or any business) is a conduit to getting the PEOPLE to pay more taxes, because any taxes that come from the corporation are budgeted into prices.

Is it fair to tax corporations if they just do that anyway? Well, yes, because the shopper knows what they're getting into, but it's quite indicative of the aims of many municipal governments. They look at these big box stores and they look at the people they have to shut out to get what they want and they will choose the political benefits everytime over the real world results.

Subverting laws and fairness to give a big guy something on the cheap...AND more tax money? It's a deal! For the good of the "public" of course.

They close their eyes, out their hands over their ears and shout about how corrupt corporations have nothing to do with their free capitalist ideals. Really. :rolleyes:

EDIT: Oh look, I was right. (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9097097&postcount=10) :D
No, you are wrong. Corporations (under the current Corporatist state) subvert the free market and competition by securing for themselves government subsidies, tax abatements, protections and the like.

The only reason antitrust laws are now needed are because the fricken' GOVERNMENT gave corporations the means to create massive monopolies in the first place!!!

The only reason antitrust laws are now needed are because the fricken' GOVERNMENT gave corporations the means to create massive monopolies in the first place!!!

Well, when the US government establishes monopolizing corporations (USPS, Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac) with zero accountability and virtually unlimited assets, it's hard to believe they would be strong supporters of antitrust regulation.

I'm a Monocrat Libertarian (Fascism implies Totaliterianism, and that I am NOT).

It's actually quite simple. The government controls everything but businesses in this system. Free trade! Limited everything else!

Someone on this forum once mentioned something along the lines of anarcho-fascism, if I'm not mistaken.

Someone on this forum once mentioned something along the lines of anarcho-fascism, if I'm not mistaken.

What the? How is that possible?! :confused:

Are there any fascist libertarians? Is there such a thing?

I just wonder how someone would integrate those philosophies. If there are, I have the perfect motto for you;

"Live Free, Or Else!"
There is, of Course, the Libertarian Police State HQ (region), founded by Me.... :eek:

It's not so much "Live Free, or Else" it's

"Agitate to Restrict Freedom(s) and Dissappear".

Follow my sig linkys.

I've decided to become a fascist because of this thread. thank LG.

I've decided to become a fascist because of this thread. thank LG.

Always happy to do my part. :)

Are there any fascist libertarians? Is there such a thing?

I just wonder how someone would integrate those philosophies. If there are, I have the perfect motto for you;

"Live Free, Or Else!"

Sounds like me sort of. I want minimal government intervention in peoples' lives, but am against Democracy.

It's actually quite simple. The government controls everything but businesses in this system. Free trade! Limited everything else!
You're not a libertarian. You're a Pinochet!

You're not a libertarian. You're a Pinochet!
That sounds..... dirty... :eek: :D

That sounds..... dirty... :eek: :D
"Hey, baby. Wanna see my Pinochet? http://www.dasmusik.net/forums/images/smilies/naughty.gif "

:p

The problem is that many corporations (such as Starbucks) got where they are due to tax abatements and other corporatist protections that small business owners don't get.

As a prime example: Krispy Kreme moved into town (one store) less than a year ago and a handful of mom and pop donut places have had to close down. BUT, the ONLY reason they even moved here was because they DEMANDED all kinds of tax abatements and corporatist protections over an above established local shops...and the gutless city council and county taxing authority GAVE them those protections. More jobs and business have been lost and one corporation has profited BECAUSE OF GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION and unlevelling of the playing field.

Another advantage that corporations and franchises have over small business is that they have more capital and can open a new location with out having to worry about developing a reputation. How would a libertarian government deal with this to prevent a monopoly? Would they?

As a libertarian, I believe that government itslef is the source of monopolies. By practices such as corporate welfare, tariffs, and coercive trade agreements, certain buisnesses are given an advantage over others. If governmental action was severely limited and absent in certain sectors, this would not be the case.

Another advantage that corporations and franchises have over small business is that they have more capital and can open a new location with out having to worry about developing a reputation. How would a libertarian government deal with this to prevent a monopoly? Would they?

Given a level playing field, which is what a libertarian philosophy produces, the forces of capital and reputation will more evenly balance. The big franchises with their extra capital but lower reputations would not have the advantage they have now. How did the little momma and poppa stores come to exist in the first place. Through free trade, without government backing or preferential tax schemes etc.
I live in a country where free trade is actually much freer than it appears to be in the USA. Yes we do have a McDonalds in town, but the only people that go there are the rich kid teenagers. The local restaurants and diners are doing fine. We do not have Starbucks, they tried and failed here. People want coffee, not coloured water. There are big chains of supermarkets, but theses compete with each other. I am hard pressed to think of any monopolistic service that has taken over a sector. But our government only gives corporate welfare to airlines (Varig) and even there there is competition from low cost airlines.

Given a level playing field, which is what a libertarian philosophy produces, the forces of capital and reputation will more evenly balance. The big franchises with their extra capital but lower reputations would not have the advantage they have now. How did the little momma and poppa stores come to exist in the first place. Through free trade, without government backing or preferential tax schemes etc.
I live in a country where free trade is actually much freer than it appears to be in the USA. Yes we do have a McDonalds in town, but the only people that go there are the rich kid teenagers. The local restaurants and diners are doing fine. We do not have Starbucks, they tried and failed here. People want coffee, not coloured water. There are big chains of supermarkets, but theses compete with each other. I am hard pressed to think of any monopolistic service that has taken over a sector. But our government only gives corporate welfare to airlines (Varig) and even there there is competition from low cost airlines.

With Lulo DaSilva in power I don't think Brazil is a fair example of a "libertarian" government, and while it is true that there are many Latin American government's that are much more capitalist in nature than the U.S., this is because of U.S. intervention. Take Colombia for example.

With regards to the "level playing field" this is something that does not exist. Because of the legacy of colonialism and slavery certain members of a civilization are born at a disadvantage. If the government does not step in with subsidies to encourage small business, public education, health care, low income housing and minimum wage, how is a level playing field supposed to be established?