NationStates Jolt Archive

August 12, 2005

WASHINGTON -- In 1977, when a bunch of neo-Nazis decided to march through Skokie, a suburb of Chicago heavily populated with Holocaust survivors, there was controversy as to whether they should be allowed. I thought they should. Why? Because neo-Nazis are utterly powerless.

Had they not been -- had they been a party on the rise, as in late-1920s Germany -- I would have been for not only banning the march, but for practically every measure of harassment and persecution from deportation to imprisonment. A tolerant society has an obligation to be tolerant. Except to those so intolerant that they themselves would abolish tolerance.[/B

Call it situational libertarianism: [B]Liberties should be as unlimited as possible -- unless and until there arises a real threat to the open society. Neo-Nazis are pathetic losers. Why curtail civil liberties to stop them? But when a real threat -- such as jihadism -- arises, a liberal democratic society must deploy every resource, including the repressive powers of the state, to deter and defeat those who would abolish liberal democracy. ...]
Heh. "Its population (is) proud of the(ir) wide-ranging civil freedoms, and those who aren't tend to be dragged off the streets by men in dark suits and hustled into cars with tinted windows."
Libertarian Police State (High Social, Medium Economic, Low Political)
Benevolent Dictatorship (High Social, High Economic, Low Political)

Though as a matter of economic reality I think that the two should be reversed since Libertarianisim as a US ideology is ubercapitalist.

The major problem that I was wondering about is why there isn't a general Libertarian classification at all. A libertarian police state would suggest a high, not medium economy so that seems to be an error as well in the system.

The major problem that I was wondering about is why there isn't a general Libertarian classification at all. A libertarian police state would suggest a high, not medium economy so that seems to be an error as well in the system.
Agreed.

Likewise, in a Dictatorship (benevolent or not) central planning tends to suppress economies.

I really think the nomenclatures are reversed.

Libertarians?

Mods?

Hey Syniks, outta curiosity do you think that vigilanteism and libertarianism are compatible?
(if you don't understand what I'm getting at you might after my next post)

Hey Syniks, outta curiosity do you think that vigilanteism and libertarianism are compatible?
(if you don't understand what I'm getting at you might after my next post)

No, they are not. (compatible)

Libertarianisim =/= anarchy.

One of the prime tenets of Libertarianisim is the freedom to do as long as you do not hurt another (that is not actively attempting to hurt you).

One of the accepted limited roles of Government in the Libertarian ideology is that of Policing, i.e. official retribution and/or enforced redress for actual wrongs. This applies to both the Libertarian vision of a Military as well as local policing. The job of Governmental Force is to remove or suppress violence against its citizens through pos-facto punishment - much like a surgeon excises a cancer but won't operate until one appears.

Vigalanteism is a post-facto action of retribution taken by non-governmental entities and is therefore an act of (usually unrestrained) aggression against another and is therefore in contridiction of "prime directive".

I'm waiting for your post. :D