NationStates Jolt Archive


USian Rightwing Authoritarianism

Free Soviets
17-07-2006, 18:27
it's increasingly obvious that the 'conservative' movement and many of it's 'libertarian' fellow travellers have moved on to an overtly authoritarian, psuedo or proto fascist (depending on whether you think they are moving towards it or just paralleling it) ideology.

my question to you all is this - was it always really this way, or is this actually a new sort of thing altogether? where did all these authoritarian followers come from and what were they doing before?
Sedation Ministry
17-07-2006, 18:27
it's increasingly obvious that the 'conservative' movement and many of it's 'libertarian' fellow travellers have moved on to an overtly authoritarian, psuedo or proto fascist (depending on whether you think they are moving towards it or just paralleling it) ideology.

my question to you all is this - was it always really this way, or is this actually a new sort of thing altogether? where did all these authoritarian followers come from and what were they doing before?

Are you asking where did all the Democrats go?
BogMarsh
17-07-2006, 18:31
Are you asking where did all the Democrats go?


Most of those joined the GOP after chaps like Free Soviets started to claim THEY were the mainstream Democrats.

Next question?
Sedation Ministry
17-07-2006, 18:33
Sounds like a loose use of the term fascist (or protofascist).

Was the Constitution suspended? Was martial law declared? Didn't the Supreme Court hand Bush his ass?

Still looks like a republic to me.
Free Soviets
17-07-2006, 18:35
Are you asking where did all the Democrats go?

nah, they're still hanging around in essentially the same numbers as always, if not more. they just suck at being a political party.

what i'm asking is where the 23% of the population (http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Video_50_year_study_says_conservatives_0711.html) that are full-on authoritarians came from - is it just part of the fundamental makeup of being 'conservative' no matter what rhetoric they put on it, or is it new?
Free Soviets
17-07-2006, 18:36
Most of those joined the GOP after chaps like Free Soviets started to claim THEY were the mainstream Democrats.

when would i ever claim something silly like that?
BogMarsh
17-07-2006, 18:38
nah, they're still hanging around in essentially the same numbers as always, if not more. they just suck at being a political party.

what i'm asking is where the 23% of the population (http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Video_50_year_study_says_conservatives_0711.html) that are full-on authoritarians came from - is it just part of the fundamental makeup of being 'conservative' no matter what rhetoric they put on it, or is it new?


Oooh! I got you! Authoritarian = doublespeak for... conservative.
Yep - they always were there, and are growing.
I don't expect libbies to win ANY election before the 23rd century or so.
Sedation Ministry
17-07-2006, 18:43
nah, they're still hanging around in essentially the same numbers as always, if not more. they just suck at being a political party.

what i'm asking is where the 23% of the population (http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Video_50_year_study_says_conservatives_0711.html) that are full-on authoritarians came from - is it just part of the fundamental makeup of being 'conservative' no matter what rhetoric they put on it, or is it new?

It's new. I tend to think of myself as a Gingrich Republican - you know, smaller government, balanced budgets, elimination of welfare as we know it, no gun laws, etc.

I believe that some of this is also rubbing off on Democrats. Hillary Clinton sounds pretty authoritarian (and rather like Cheney) with some of her ideas about Muslims.
Free Soviets
17-07-2006, 18:46
Sounds like a loose use of the term fascist (or protofascist).

no, i use it in a very real and historically grounded sense, as i actually have studied fascism as an ideology.

Was the Constitution suspended? Was martial law declared? Didn't the Supreme Court hand Bush his ass?

Still looks like a republic to me.

irrelevent at best. the question is one of beliefs and attitudes, not political results at this moment (and whether the supreme court actually handed bush his ass seems like a bit of an open question to me).
Not bad
17-07-2006, 18:46
nah, they're still hanging around in essentially the same numbers as always, if not more. they just suck at being a political party.

what i'm asking is where the 23% of the population (http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Video_50_year_study_says_conservatives_0711.html) that are full-on authoritarians came from - is it just part of the fundamental makeup of being 'conservative' no matter what rhetoric they put on it, or is it new?

So your complaint is with sheep. Is it that sheep exist or that sheep do not follow your particular brand of politics? If the former then what do you advocate doing to remove sheep from the public? If the latter then I suggest a different political style than calling them names in order to convert them to your one true way.
Sedation Ministry
17-07-2006, 18:48
So your complaint is with sheep. Is it that sheep exist or that sheep do not follow your particular brand of politics? If the former then what do you advocate doing to remove sheep from the public? If the latter then I suggest a different political style than calling them names in order to convert them to your one true way.

I think I'm supposed to listen to Martin Sheen rant, and Tim Robbins cry, and Sean Penn fart in the wind, and I'm supposed to become a follower of Cindy Sheehan as a result.

The mystery must be "why isn't this happenning en masse"?
Free Soviets
17-07-2006, 18:52
It's new. I tend to think of myself as a Gingrich Republican - you know, smaller government, balanced budgets, elimination of welfare as we know it, no gun laws, etc.

ah, but gingrich is definitely part of the authoritarian movement, and always has been. he's just of the 'authoritarian leader' mold.
Kazus
17-07-2006, 18:52
Was the Constitution suspended?

Certainly Bush is doing a great job of upholding it...


Was martial law declared?

It might need to be in DC, but thats irrelevant.

Didn't the Supreme Court hand Bush his ass?

Well the beautiful thing is that the court is not a legislature. So all bush needs to do is get his lapdogs in congress to pass a bill making everything illegal he does legal. And they will do it too.
A Lynx Bus
17-07-2006, 18:54
Oh the horror!
Sedation Ministry
17-07-2006, 18:55
ah, but gingrich is definitely part of the authoritarian movement, and always has been. he's just of the 'authoritarian leader' mold.
"No gun laws" is hardly authoritarian.

And scarcely fascist.

Part of the fascist takeover of any nation is the immediate disarmament of the entire civilian population.
Free Soviets
17-07-2006, 19:04
"No gun laws" is hardly authoritarian.

And scarcely fascist.

Part of the fascist takeover of any nation is the immediate disarmament of the entire civilian population.

actually, an essential part of a fascist takeover involves the use of armed thugs in coordinated attacks on 'enemies of the people' - blackshirts, brownshirts, falangists, etc. it's probably best not to get your information on fascism from the nra.
R0cka
17-07-2006, 19:05
USian Rightwing Authoritarianism


Usian = corny.
Free Soviets
17-07-2006, 19:08
Oooh! I got you! Authoritarian = doublespeak for... conservative.

only if conservatism actually is equivalent to authoritarianism. while i would tend to think that conservatives are more likely to fall prey to authoritarianism due to the nature of the things they believe, it does not seem to me that they are one and the same of logical necessity. however, the rapid ideological change observed not only in the leaders of the movement, but in the mass of followers as well does seem to say something.
Mikesburg
17-07-2006, 19:11
Conservative ideology has always lent itself to trusting the status quo, or to trust the wisdom of your leaders. To equate that with 'authoritarianism' might not be exactly right. There's obviously a set of people who will be like Britney Spears and her comment 'Well, I think we should trust the president, since he's the president and all' (Not an exact quote).

However, I don't believe it's either a right or left wing phenomenon, just more noticeable when the current administration is decidedly conservative. Liberal ideology has always been far more radical, and willing to turn their leaders aside for something new.
Zatarack
17-07-2006, 19:11
it's increasingly obvious that the 'conservative' movement and many of it's 'libertarian' fellow travellers have moved on to an overtly authoritarian, psuedo or proto fascist (depending on whether you think they are moving towards it or just paralleling it) ideology.

my question to you all is this - was it always really this way, or is this actually a new sort of thing altogether? where did all these authoritarian followers come from and what were they doing before?

The government has been going this way since WWII.
Sedation Ministry
17-07-2006, 19:12
only if conservatism actually is equivalent to authoritarianism. while i would tend to think that conservatives are more likely to fall prey to authoritarianism due to the nature of the things they believe, it does not seem to me that they are one and the same of logical necessity. however, the rapid ideological change observed not only in the leaders of the movement, but in the mass of followers as well does seem to say something.

Yes, as we all know, that famous Leftist, Lenin, would never have fallen prey to authoritarianism...
Free Soviets
17-07-2006, 19:28
However, I don't believe it's either a right or left wing phenomenon, just more noticeable when the current administration is decidedly conservative.

research cited in john dean's new book seems to indicate that in the u.s. at least, it is an entirely rightwing phenomena - i haven't seen the actual research he's quoted, so this might be an artifact of the researchers' definitions.

in any case, chairman bob doesn't exactly have the masses rallying to his banner.
Sedation Ministry
17-07-2006, 19:30
research cited in john dean's new book seems to indicate that in the u.s. at least, it is an entirely rightwing phenomena - i haven't seen the actual research he's quoted, so this might be an artifact of the researchers' definitions.

in any case, chairman bob doesn't exactly have the masses rallying to his banner.

yeah, john dean always struck me as an honest, upright, completely unquestionable researcher, yep.

So you're saying that Franklin Roosevelt, noted Democrat, wasn't an authoritarian? That it wasn't his idea to incarcerate thousands of Japanese-Americans without charge for the duration of WW II? An act that makes George Bush look like Helen Thomas?
Mikesburg
17-07-2006, 19:38
People like to throw the term 'fascist' around for just about everything, but I get the sense that you (Free Soviets) really mean it when you're talking about the US.

So let's explore that...

What do you define as the hallmarks of Fascism, (not necessarily Nazism), and how does that relate to the US?
Anglachel and Anguirel
17-07-2006, 19:39
It was not always this way. The neocon movement evolved (oh, how they hate that word) from a number of members of the Reagan administration, including our very own Rumsfeld. There are a number of others, who are involved in the current administration, who have certain fascist tendencies.

However, I want to note an important distinction: In fascism, the government has complete and total control of almost all industry. Neocons tend to support deregulation of industry and such.

However, in respect to the other aspects of fascism (racism/nationalism/xenophobia, andthe installation of a police state), they are moving along quite nicely.
Free Soviets
17-07-2006, 19:44
however, the rapid ideological change observed not only in the leaders of the movement, but in the mass of followers as well does seem to say something.

for example, look what the lovely folks over at free republic had to say about secret government courts authorizing secret searches under fisa...back at the end of 2000 (http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a27337612f5.htm).
Refused Party Program
17-07-2006, 19:51
Yes, as we all know, that famous Leftist, Lenin, would never have fallen prey to authoritarianism...


I wonder if Free Soviets finds this as amusing as I do.
Gurguvungunit
17-07-2006, 19:53
Well, I'll bite.

Racism:
Is an artifact of 9/11, not a policy of the Bush administration. I distinctly remember Hillary Clinton opposing the Ports Deal on the basis that 'we'd be putting the security of our nation in the hands of an Islamist Nation', even though said nation has been a constant ally of the United States for the last few years.

That being said, the Bush administration takes part in it just as much, but it's more noticeable because they're the ruling administration right now.

Xenophobia:
See above.

Nationalism:
Nationalism is an unfortunate side effect, once again, of 9/11. When a nation that is so used to security as America is threatened, people will willingly flock to the banner of their nation to 'defend' it. Take what happened in Britain during WWII. The UK was used to being one of the world's largest powers. It had not long ago ruled the largest land empire in the world and controlled the seas.

But when Germany started the Blitz, people were first frightened and confused, and then swiftly became fiercely patriotic and supportive of the war effort despite the fact that only a year ago, the British had been calling for appeasement and 'peace in our time'.

So it's not the evil, bastard Republicans that are causing all of this, it's Americans as a whole responding how people respond when under threat. Cut us some slack and stop calling us fascists. It's annoying.
Sedation Ministry
17-07-2006, 19:58
I wonder if Free Soviets finds this as amusing as I do.
Stalin was a great authoritarian, too. And hailed by the New York Times in 1936 as one of the most progressive Socialists of all time.
Refused Party Program
17-07-2006, 20:02
Stalin was a great authoritarian, too. And hailed by the New York Times in 1936 as one of the most progressive Socialists of all time.

Yeah, so?
Sedation Ministry
17-07-2006, 20:03
Yeah, so?
Authoritarianism seems to be a universal thing, not just "of the Right".
Refused Party Program
17-07-2006, 20:13
Authoritarianism seems to be a universal thing, not just "of the Right".

FS wasn't arguing that authoritarianism doesn't lend itself to left-wing politics. He was making the point that American conservatism has shifted even further towards the authoritarian end of the scale in recent years and like a good little Scientist he's wondering why.
Anglachel and Anguirel
17-07-2006, 20:20
Well, I'll bite.

Racism:
Is an artifact of 9/11, not a policy of the Bush administration. I distinctly remember Hillary Clinton opposing the Ports Deal on the basis that 'we'd be putting the security of our nation in the hands of an Islamist Nation', even though said nation has been a constant ally of the United States for the last few years.

That being said, the Bush administration takes part in it just as much, but it's more noticeable because they're the ruling administration right now.
We're staunchly allied with Saudi Arabia, an Islamist nation that really doesn't like us. The House of Saud has always been associated with the Wahhabist extremists, and they have never been friends of anyone outside of their own crazed belief system. But just because we are allied with Saudi Arabia does not mean that they harbor no ill will towards us. I personally do not believe that our own security should be trusted to groups that are opposed to us, but that's just me.

Nationalism:
Nationalism is an unfortunate side effect, once again, of 9/11. When a nation that is so used to security as America is threatened, people will willingly flock to the banner of their nation to 'defend' it. Take what happened in Britain during WWII. The UK was used to being one of the world's largest powers. It had not long ago ruled the largest land empire in the world and controlled the seas.

But when Germany started the Blitz, people were first frightened and confused, and then swiftly became fiercely patriotic and supportive of the war effort despite the fact that only a year ago, the British had been calling for appeasement and 'peace in our time'.

So it's not the evil, bastard Republicans that are causing all of this, it's Americans as a whole responding how people respond when under threat. Cut us some slack and stop calling us fascists. It's annoying.
Unless you work for the Bush administration, the Project for a New American Century, or Fox News, I'm not calling you a fascist.

I agree that feelings of nationalism and fear of foreigners are almost inevitably inflamed by any event like 9/11 or the Blitz or Pearl Harbor. But I still consider those feelings wrong. The way that Bush and others have exploited the attacks on September 11 is just despicable. Iraq was never tied in any way to the event, but they still used it in order to get an excuse to attack Iraq.

Moreover, the neocons pushed the Patriot Act through Congress shortly after 9/11, a law that grossly violates the spirit and letter of our civil rights. Granted, most everyone in Congress rolled over and took it up the ass like the submissives they are.

Then there's Guantanamo and all the illegal detentions: No, this isn't the first time, but once again, that doesn't make it right. We fought a damned revolution because of things like military tribunals (it was called an admiralty court back then, but it was the exact same thing), and now we as a nation have decided that security is more important than freedom, the basic tenet of fascism.
Free Soviets
17-07-2006, 20:23
yeah, john dean always struck me as an honest, upright, completely unquestionable researcher, yep.

does an ad hominem that isn't even aimed right count as a different fallacy altogether?
Taldaan
17-07-2006, 20:28
But when Germany started the Blitz, people were first frightened and confused, and then swiftly became fiercely patriotic and supportive of the war effort despite the fact that only a year ago, the British had been calling for appeasement and 'peace in our time'.

Not entirely true. Appeasement was viewed, by the majority of the populace and arguably by the government too, as a policy of war. The support for appeasement partly came from wanting to entirely avoid war with Germany, but mainly because Britain was not ready for a war with Germany. At the time of the appeasement policy the air defence network was not complete, and after the success of German bombing in the Spanish Civil War bombers were seen as the new superweapon. Without adequate defence against air raids, Britain would have suffered far more damage at the hands of the Luftwaffe.

Sorry about that, just a pet peeve of mine. Anyway, conservatives have always been at the authoritarian end of the spectrum, although generally nothing like extreme enough to be called fascists. In the American political system, I doubt that authoritarianism have become much more widespread among the populace (although the effects of 9/11 and the "War on Terror" can't be discounted), just more vocal. As every party wants to win votes, this new activism by authoritarian groups leads to more authoritarian candidates being put up for election.

And by the way, authoritarianism isn't restricted to either left or right. While the right wing seems to have more of them, there are plenty of authoritarian socialists and communists, as well as liberal capitalists. Remember, liberal does NOT mean socialist. Also, the Democrats are neither socialist nor liberal. Another couple of pet peeves there. ;)
Jello Biafra
17-07-2006, 20:49
So you're saying that Franklin Roosevelt, noted Democrat, wasn't an authoritarian? That it wasn't his idea to incarcerate thousands of Japanese-Americans without charge for the duration of WW II? An act that makes George Bush look like Helen Thomas?Do you mean like how GWB has incarcerated thousands of Arab-Americans without charge for the duration (thus far) of the War On Terror?
Verve Pipe
17-07-2006, 20:49
I wouldn't call the right authoritarian, but I wouldn't exactly call them completely democratic. They seem to be more prone to overstepping the role of government when it comes to personal liberties. They don't really understand the concept that, I believe, Jefferson laid out -- that laws should infringe on personal liberty only when a person is trampling on the rights of others.
Sedation Ministry
17-07-2006, 20:50
Do you mean like how GWB has incarcerated thousands of Arab-Americans without charge for the duration (thus far) of the War On Terror?

Thousands of "Arab-Americans"? For the "duration"?

Linky....

Maybe you're thinking of the chaps at Guantanamo, but they are not Americans by and large.

Thousands? I think not.
Verve Pipe
17-07-2006, 20:58
Thousands of "Arab-Americans"? For the "duration"?

Linky....

Maybe you're thinking of the chaps at Guantanamo, but they are not Americans by and large.

Thousands? I think not.
Yet there are Americans included in the bunch. Does it really even matter what their nationality is? Wasn't the idea behind the Constitution, and "democracy-spreading" in the current age, that all people deserve the basic protections laid out by it? So what if there aren't thousands detained at Guantanamo? So what if most are foreigners? Does that make such detainment that leaves no chance to challenge it and devoid of all human rights protections a justifiable action?
Jello Biafra
17-07-2006, 21:00
Maybe you're thinking of the chaps at Guantanamo, but they are not Americans by and large.

Thousands? I think not.There are the ones at Guantanamo, but Guantanamo is hardly the only prison where they're being held.
The Aeson
17-07-2006, 21:01
it's increasingly obvious that the 'conservative' movement and many of it's 'libertarian' fellow travellers have moved on to an overtly authoritarian, psuedo or proto fascist (depending on whether you think they are moving towards it or just paralleling it) ideology.

my question to you all is this - was it always really this way, or is this actually a new sort of thing altogether? where did all these authoritarian followers come from and what were they doing before?

It's all part of the vast West-wing plot to discredit the major parties in the US, so that they can move in and take complete control of the nation, beginning with deploying tactical nuclear devices to destroy the Grand Canyon. I had proof, but it was stolen by Muppets in the employ of the West Wingers.
Verve Pipe
17-07-2006, 21:03
It's all part of the vast West-wing plot to discredit the major parties in the US, so that they can move in and take complete control of the nation, beginning with deploying tactical nuclear devices to destroy the Grand Canyon. I had proof, but it was stolen by Muppets in the employ of the West Wingers.
I really wouldn't be surprised as long as the Grand Canyon was determined to be "not technically under the jurisdiction of the United States" and that those killed in the process were "not technically people", so the Geneva Convention does not protect them.
Conscience and Truth
17-07-2006, 21:04
it's increasingly obvious that the 'conservative' movement and many of it's 'libertarian' fellow travellers have moved on to an overtly authoritarian, psuedo or proto fascist (depending on whether you think they are moving towards it or just paralleling it) ideology.

my question to you all is this - was it always really this way, or is this actually a new sort of thing altogether? where did all these authoritarian followers come from and what were they doing before?

Free Soviets, you along with fellow mainstream Democrats, believe, as most Americans, that the Soviets did have a system that could be looked at solve modern society's problems. The simple fact is that GOVERNMENT must provide education, healthcare, childcare, housing, pensions, food, recreation and the basic necessities of life, because modern capitalism is just for the rich. :(

I, like you, am scared that the proto-fascist conservatives are taking away all of our liberties. America is no longer free, and I want to go and live in another country. :(

In order to reverse the trend, we need to look to Bob Casey in Pennsylvania, Jon Tester in Montana and Jim Webb in Virginia.
Sedation Ministry
17-07-2006, 21:05
There are the ones at Guantanamo, but Guantanamo is hardly the only prison where they're being held.
Unless you can prove that thousands of Arab-Americans have been held since the beginning of the GWOT, for an indefinite term (and that would mean they are all still in there), I'm not likely to believe you.

Post a link. If it's the thousands you claim, incarcerated without trial in US prisons (and all still there, you claim), then you shouldn't have any trouble finding a link.
The Aeson
17-07-2006, 21:06
I really wouldn't be surprised as long as the Grand Canyon was determined to be "not technically under the jurisdiction of the United States" and that those killed in the process were "not technically people", so the Geneva Convention does not protect them.

Oh, sure, the plan goes like this. They sell the Grand Canyon to a corporation owned by them, and tell all of the press to tell the people they've got twenty hours to get out. All the press mysteriously forgets, but that's not the governments fault now is it?
Refused Party Program
17-07-2006, 21:06
Free Soviets, you along with fellow mainstream Democrats...

HAHAHAHAHAHA
The Atlantian islands
17-07-2006, 21:07
my question to you all is this - was it always really this way, or is this actually a new sort of thing altogether? where did all these authoritarian followers come from and what were they doing before?My question to you is this - Why do you have to say "USian" in your post. This is not a debate over American or "USian" and it, in fact, has NOTHING to do with "USian"...Your post would have had the EXACT same content and point had you said American, and as American is legally, and officially the ONLY accepted word for an American, in English, why do you do it? Is it just to piss off Americans who you know find it annoying, or is it because of some other agenda?:rolleyes:
The Atlantian islands
17-07-2006, 21:08
it's increasingly obvious that the 'conservative' movement and many of it's 'libertarian' fellow travellers have moved on to an overtly authoritarian, psuedo or proto fascist (depending on whether you think they are moving towards it or just paralleling it) ideology.
Well, atleast we're on the right path then.:)
The Aeson
17-07-2006, 21:08
My question to you is this - Why do you have to say "USian" in your post. This is not a debate over American or "USian" and it, in fact, has NOTHING to do with "USian"...Your post would have had the EXACT same content and point had you said American, and as American is legally, and officially the ONLY accepted word for an American, in English, why do you do it? Is it just to piss off Americans who you know find it annoying, or is it because of some other agenda?:rolleyes:

Omigod! FS is a West Winger! Kill him, stick a lemon in his mouth, steal his left sock, scatter poppy seeds all over him, put a stake through his shirt, and cut his head off!
Verve Pipe
17-07-2006, 21:09
Unless you can prove that thousands of Arab-Americans have been held since the beginning of the GWOT, for an indefinite term (and that would mean they are all still in there), I'm not likely to believe you.

Post a link. If it's the thousands you claim, incarcerated without trial in US prisons (and all still there, you claim), then you shouldn't have any trouble finding a link.
There aren't thousands, as it's been claimed. But it's a well-known fact that there are a number of people being held at Guanatanamo, and that they have been held indefinitely. That was the entire focus of the Supreme Court's ruling in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, which in turn sparked the more recent decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. Wiki both of them, starting with Hamdi. Nobody knows how many people are held in Guantanamo, because most information about the place is classified. But it is a certainty that there are people there and more than just a few.
The Atlantian islands
17-07-2006, 21:09
Omigod! FS is a West Winger! Kill him, stick a lemon in his mouth, steal his left sock, scatter poppy seeds all over him, put a stake through his shirt, and cut his head off!
WHAT the fuck are you on?
The Aeson
17-07-2006, 21:10
WHAT the fuck are you on?

*shrug* nothing, actually. That's the scary part.
The Atlantian islands
17-07-2006, 21:12
*shrug* nothing, actually. That's the scary part.
*Moves back*


Anyway, do you get what I was trying to say?
The Aeson
17-07-2006, 21:12
*Moves back*


Anyway, do you get what I was trying to say?

Yep. You're one of the people who finds USian an offensive term.
Sedation Ministry
17-07-2006, 21:14
Yep. You're one of the people who finds USian an offensive term.

Is "Eeeuww-ian" an offensive term?
Glorious Freedonia
17-07-2006, 21:15
Conservative Americans (We are referred to as Liberals in Europe) have been around since the Enlightenment. We tend to believe in lower taxes, human rights, free markets, and a relatively smaller governmental role in society.

I am proud to be a Conservative, however I recognize the need for environmental protections with much more vigor than many of my fellows.

The problem with Conservatives in America is that we tend to fall within the Republican party. We share this party with Christians who are often pro-life and are sometimes a little on the whacky side.

We also share this party with a man named George W. Bush who has fought a wonderful and much needed war in Iraq and Afghanistan. I am not sure that he is doing that great of a job at it, but he is at least doing a better job at fighting a war than another Republican named Abraham Lincoln did.

Other than fighting a great and necessary war and lowering taxes, Mr. Bush has pretty much made every wrong choice imaginable. Many Conservatives like Bush because no Democratic leader was really any good at war since Roosevelt.

Democrats seem to be cowards and pacifists.
Free Soviets
17-07-2006, 21:15
My question to you is this - Why do you have to say "USian" in your post. This is not a debate over American or "USian" and it, in fact, has NOTHING to do with "USian"...Your post would have had the EXACT same content and point had you said American, and as American is legally, and officially the ONLY accepted word for an American, in English, why do you do it? Is it just to piss off Americans who you know find it annoying, or is it because of some other agenda?:rolleyes:

because i like it better and anyone who gets pissed off by it's use is probably not going to contribute anything useful to the thread anyway.

when have i ever cared for legal and official?
New Shabaz
17-07-2006, 21:16
First off I have no idea who or what a Usian is? Second off you need to look at the data and who is presening it and what there agenda is ditto for how the data was collected. Only after turning a VERY critial eye on the data itself can you even begin to draw any conclusions. I mean are these "conservatives" self defined in which case they may not even be conservatives. Also keep in mind that the definition of conservative has changed alot in 50 years.



it's increasingly obvious that the 'conservative' movement and many of it's 'libertarian' fellow travellers have moved on to an overtly authoritarian, psuedo or proto fascist (depending on whether you think they are moving towards it or just paralleling it) ideology.

my question to you all is this - was it always really this way, or is this actually a new sort of thing altogether? where did all these authoritarian followers come from and what were they doing before?
The Aeson
17-07-2006, 21:17
Is "Eeeuww-ian" an offensive term?

Nope. Childish, and, somewhat amusing, but not offensive.
The Atlantian islands
17-07-2006, 21:17
Yep. You're one of the people who finds USian an offensive term.
Well...I dont know if offensive is the right word. Its not like somebody calling me a ****** (if I was black). Its just that I feel that people use it to unsult and piss of Americans...and as it is legally and officially not a real word and especially not a word to replace the legally and politcally official word 'American'.

Its like..I dont see the point in using unless you just wanna piss people off, and in that case, dont hide behind it, just come out and say it.
The Atlantian islands
17-07-2006, 21:18
Nope. Childish, and, somewhat amusing, but not offensive.
Ok, so see my above post. Like I said..not really offensive but...(see above)
The Aeson
17-07-2006, 21:18
We also share this party with a man named George W. Bush who has fought a wonderful and much needed war in Iraq and Afghanistan. I am not sure that he is doing that great of a job at it, but he is at least doing a better job at fighting a war than another Republican named Abraham Lincoln did.


You know, I was with you right up until 'Wonderful War'
The Atlantian islands
17-07-2006, 21:19
because i like it better and anyone who gets pissed off by it's use is probably not going to contribute anything useful to the thread anyway.

when have i ever cared for legal and official?
It looks fucking lame and makes you look noobish.

Its like starting a thread about Germanys political party and saying....So the Krauts have......(but being serious about it).

And it confuses people who have never seen it before (most Americans), like New Shabaz.
Kazus
17-07-2006, 21:21
Democrats seem to be cowards and pacifists.

Ill give you coward, but I HATE when people use something like pacifist as an insult. How is not sending someone elses family members and loved ones to die a bad thing?
The Atlantian islands
17-07-2006, 21:23
Ill give you coward, but I HATE when people use something like pacifist as an insult. How is not sending someone elses family members and loved ones to die a bad thing?
Its not that. Its the fact that they arnt prepared to use force, which makes their threats look little more than "Hey...you suck, stop it!"..."What are you gonna do if I dont!"..."Uh...talk to the U.N.?"


Nobody wants their leader to be a warmonger...but people do want their leader to be able to wage war...if it is needed and definetly keep it in mind as an option.
Conscience and Truth
17-07-2006, 21:25
Ill give you coward, but I HATE when people use something like pacifist as an insult. How is not sending someone elses family members and loved ones to die a bad thing?

Kazus, no peace is a great thing. You care so deeply for other people. We need to end war now.
The Aeson
17-07-2006, 21:25
Its not that. Its the fact that they arnt prepared to use force, which makes their threats look little more than "Hey...you suck, stop it!"..."What are you gonna do if I dont!"..."Uh...talk to the U.N.?"


Nobody wants their leader to be a warmonger...but people do want their leader to be able to wage war...if it is needed and definetly keep it in mind as an option.

Well, I wouldn't say nobody...

Oh. I just did.:D
Jello Biafra
17-07-2006, 21:28
Unless you can prove that thousands of Arab-Americans have been held since the beginning of the GWOT, for an indefinite term (and that would mean they are all still in there), I'm not likely to believe you.

Post a link. If it's the thousands you claim, incarcerated without trial in US prisons (and all still there, you claim), then you shouldn't have any trouble finding a link.Oh, I never have luck finding links. I have two relevant ones, but neither alone are sufficient for what I want, but they are a start, so I'll post them anyway and continue looking.

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0226-08.htm
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0110-33.htm
The Atlantian islands
17-07-2006, 21:30
Well, I wouldn't say nobody...

Oh. I just did.:D
Except for Imperialists and Hitler-youths.:p

But do you still see my point?
The Aeson
17-07-2006, 21:32
Except for Imperialists and Hitler-youths.:p

But do you still see my point?

Yep. Can I go back to insane conspiracy theories now?
The Atlantian islands
17-07-2006, 21:34
Yep. Can I go back to insane conspiracy theories now?
Be my guest.
The Aeson
17-07-2006, 21:36
ZOMG! Vampire West Wingers! Get out the Holy Water! Get out the various religious symbols! Oh noes! They're atheist vampires!

And that's why you should coat your tinfoil hat with garlic. Vampires aren't allergic to garlic or anything, but they have a very strong sense of smell.

Hence, Bush's ears.
Kazus
17-07-2006, 21:39
Nobody wants their leader to be a warmonger...but people do want their leader to be able to wage war...if it is needed and definetly keep it in mind as an option.

Truly, powerful nations can start and fight wars. The truly powerful ones end them.

~~Rude One
Sedation Ministry
17-07-2006, 21:40
Truly, powerful nations can start and fight wars. The truly powerful ones end them.

~~Rude One

If the US ran its military more like the Mongols or Tamerlane...
Free Soviets
17-07-2006, 21:41
FS wasn't arguing that authoritarianism doesn't lend itself to left-wing politics. He was making the point that American conservatism has shifted even further towards the authoritarian end of the scale in recent years and like a good little Scientist he's wondering why.

...but apparently not too many people find this to be an interesting line of inquiry. of course, this is to be expected among people on that side of the spectrum (see also: "anti-intellectualism" and "irrationalism").
Sumamba Buwhan
17-07-2006, 21:42
Well...I dont know if offensive is the right word. Its not like somebody calling me a ****** (if I was black). Its just that I feel that people use it to unsult and piss of Americans...and as it is legally and officially not a real word and especially not a word to replace the legally and politcally official word 'American'.

Its like..I dont see the point in using unless you just wanna piss people off, and in that case, dont hide behind it, just come out and say it.

Free Soviets, apologize right now for not being politically correct! You dastardly individual you.
Sedation Ministry
17-07-2006, 21:43
...but apparently not too many people find this to be an interesting line of inquiry. of course, this is to be expected among people on that side of the spectrum (see also: "anti-intellectualism" and "irrationalism").

I don't feel that the majority of conservatives have gone into "authoritarianism" any more than the Democrats have. The Republicans just happen to be in power.

After hearing Hillary Clinton speak a few times, I get the impression that she would make Rumsfeld and Cheney look like pansies when it comes to conducting surveillance on Americans.
Dissonant Cognition
17-07-2006, 21:44
Where did all these authoritarian followers come from and what were they doing before?

Assuming that the category of "rightwing authoritarianism" includes both Republicans and Democrats:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hegemony

http://www.wto.int/
http://www.worldbank.org/
http://www.un.org/
http://www.nato.int/
http://www.imf.org/

Which is the most powerful country in the World Trade Organization? Which country, by convention, always holds the presidency at the World Bank ( http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/EXTABOUTUS/0,,contentMDK:20040580~menuPK:1696997~pagePK:51123644~piPK:329829~theSitePK:29708,00.html )? Which country holds permanent veto power in the UN Security Council? Which country is the corner stone of any NATO military force? Which country has the highest voting power in the International Monetary Fund ( http://www.imf.org/external/np/sec/memdir/members.htm#u )?

Domination of international economic and political institutions only naturally imbues one with a sense of omnipotence. And, of course, giving a man a position of absolute unchallengable power is the best way to find out what kind of an authoritarian he is. That the Republicans and Democrats trade power unchallenged by any other political group at home only serves to enhance the effect.

The authoritarians went to war (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_War) and state capitalism won (its morality is lacking, but from a cold, purely economic viewpoint it is clearly superior to state socialism).

The authoritarians are doing what they have always been doing. Only now, what's left of them can play unchallenged.
The Atlantian islands
17-07-2006, 21:45
Truly, powerful nations can start and fight wars. The truly powerful ones end them.

~~Rude One
...Ok....We have started many wars, ended many wars...I'm not seeing your point.
Free Soviets
17-07-2006, 21:46
I mean are these "conservatives" self defined in which case they may not even be conservatives. Also keep in mind that the definition of conservative has changed alot in 50 years.

the issue is that self-identified conservatives overwhelmingly support blatantly authoritarian policies at this point. as for the definition of 'conservative', doesn't it strike you as fundamentally odd that it even could change 'a lot' in a mere 50 years?
The Atlantian islands
17-07-2006, 21:46
Free Soviets, apologize right now for not being politically correct! You dastardly individual you.
...I never once in my post said "Politically Correct".
The Atlantian islands
17-07-2006, 21:47
the issue is that self-identified conservatives overwhelmingly support blatantly authoritarian policies at this point. as for the definition of 'conservative', doesn't it strike you as fundamentally odd that it even could change 'a lot' in a mere 50 years?
I guess you conveniently left out the part where he proclaimed that he didnt know what a "USian" was...huh.:rolleyes:
Sumamba Buwhan
17-07-2006, 21:48
I don't feel that the majority of conservatives have gone into "authoritarianism" any more than the Democrats have. The Republicans just happen to be in power.

After hearing Hillary Clinton speak a few times, I get the impression that she would make Rumsfeld and Cheney look like pansies when it comes to conducting surveillance on Americans.

as if the Dems aren't conservatives as well... it's just that the Republicans are a bit more gung ho about it. The Dems just try to hide it.
Free Soviets
17-07-2006, 21:49
I don't feel that the majority of conservatives have gone into "authoritarianism" any more than the Democrats have.

this isn't the sort of thing you 'feel'. this is empirical.
Sedation Ministry
17-07-2006, 21:51
this isn't the sort of thing you 'feel'. this is empirical.
I think the current undercurrent of authoritarianism has more to do with the general atmosphere of war and conflict, nationalism and terrorist threat (that vague, generalized, creepy feeling that maybe there's a bomb on the bus today).

Makes authority a lot easier to sell. If you're the party in power, you sell it, even if in the past you might have opposed it.

Mark my words. If the terrorists are still in business when the Democrats take over, they'll be "tough on terror" and forget all the nice things they promised.

It's less to do with the political spectrum and more to do with consolidation of power in a threat environment.
Sumamba Buwhan
17-07-2006, 21:52
...I never once in my post said "Politically Correct".


I never said you did use the term. You are still acting like the politically correct crowd when talking about a word being used as if it is offensive when it clearly is not.
Verve Pipe
17-07-2006, 21:56
Assuming that the category of "rightwing authoritarianism" includes both Republicans and Democrats:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hegemony

http://www.wto.int/
http://www.worldbank.org/
http://www.un.org/
http://www.nato.int/
http://www.imf.org/

Which is the most powerful country in the World Trade Organization? Which country, by convention, always holds the presidency at the World Bank ( http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/EXTABOUTUS/0,,contentMDK:20040580~menuPK:1696997~pagePK:51123644~piPK:329829~theSitePK:29708,00.html )? Which country holds permanent veto power in the UN Security Council? Which country is the corner stone of any NATO military force? Which country has the highest voting power in the International Monetary Fund ( http://www.imf.org/external/np/sec/memdir/members.htm#u )?

Domination of international economic and political institutions only naturally imbues one with a sense of omnipotence. And, of course, giving a man a position of absolute unchallengable power is the best way to find out what kind of an authoritarian he is. That the Republicans and Democrats trade power unchallenged by any other political group at home only serves to enhance the effect.

The authoritarians went to war (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_War) and state capitalism won (its morality is lacking, but from a cold, purely economic viewpoint it is clearly superior to state socialism).

The authoritarians are doing what they have always been doing. Only now, what's left of them can play unchallenged.
Just because the United States is a powerful entity does not make it an authoritarian force. It may have more say and more power than other countries, but their voices are still heard. Remember when the U.N. refused to support the U.S.'s invasion of Iraq?

State sponsored capitalism lost. The United States spends more money on healthcare for its citizens than any other country in the world through programs like Medicare and Medicaid. Publically-funded schools exist in order to guarantee everyone an education, programs like social security and welfare support those who cannot support themselves as do various pension programs, the people's right to religious beliefs allows for churches to be tax exempt, etc., etc.

There are flaws, of course. Many. But the fact is that the United States is far from a pure, cold capitalism as you suggest.
Sumamba Buwhan
17-07-2006, 21:58
I guess you conveniently left out the part where he proclaimed that he didnt know what a "USian" was...huh.:rolleyes:


He knows exactly what it means - he has participated in other threads where they were debating the use of the term "USian" and has even started threads about how much he hates the term.
Free Soviets
17-07-2006, 22:02
I think the current undercurrent of authoritarianism has more to do with the general atmosphere of war and conflict, nationalism and terrorist threat (that vague, generalized, creepy feeling that maybe there's a bomb on the bus today).

Makes authority a lot easier to sell.

but why is a very concentrated part of the public the only part that is buying?
Dissonant Cognition
17-07-2006, 22:07
Remember when the U.N. refused to support the U.S.'s invasion of Iraq?


But, since the United States occupies a position of unchallengable hegemony, it proceeded with said invasion anyway, exactly because it has the power to do so (including the power to terminate with extreme prejudice any possible attempt by the UN to make it do otherwise, if necessary). It is true that a hegemon need not necessarily be authoritarian in nature. However, the historically unilateralist behavior of the United States, coupled with its hegemonic position, makes an authoritarian nature extremely likely. Empirical observation of the historical record demonstrates what happens when a single individual, or a relatively small group thereof, is placed into a position of unchallenged power much greater than that of the general population.


The United States spends more money on healthcare for its citizens than any other country in the world through programs like Medicare and Medicaid. Publically-funded schools exist in order to guarantee everyone an education, programs like social security and welfare support those who cannot support themselves as do various pension programs, the people's right to religious beliefs allows for churches to be tax exempt, etc., etc


It has been argued that the welfare state is an eventual result of capitalist economics. After all, how else will a given society generate the wealth necessary to sustain such programs? The miserable failure of state socialism rules that possibility out.
Sumamba Buwhan
17-07-2006, 22:09
but why is a very concentrated part of the public the only part that is buying?

it's the military, church goer, boy scout crowd... they seem more inclined to listen to authority first and if the people in charge are authoritarian...
The Atlantian islands
17-07-2006, 22:09
He knows exactly what it means - he has participated in other threads where they were debating the use of the term "USian" and has even started threads about how much he hates the term.
So then why do you defend a term that people hate and that pisses them off?

Its like defending calling Mexicans "Border Jumpers" or arab "dune coons" or Germans "Krauts"....
Neo Undelia
17-07-2006, 22:11
You want to know why? It’s because foolish people can vote. Unintelligent people are incapable of understanding science and reason, so they instead resort to faith. That’s fine for them, I suppose, though it is a poison in their own lives, but because they are irrational and lacking higher reasoning skills they of course assume that what is good for them must be good for everybody. Combine that with the xenophobia and easily riled emotions common among the stupid, and, well, exploitation is inevitable.

The masterminds of the two political parties (I hardly see a difference) have attempted to play on the evident stupidity in the masses for the past hundred years or so to amass more power for themselves. The lesser politicians, those who share the intelligence of the masses, are simply strung along and used like puppets.
Dissonant Cognition
17-07-2006, 22:11
[The United States] may have more say and more power than other countries, but their voices are still heard.


Of course the voices of other countries is heard. But this does not mean that the most powerful shareholder/voting power/veto power has to pay attention when it doesn't want to.
Verve Pipe
17-07-2006, 22:12
But, since the United States occupies a position of unchallengable hegemony, it proceeded with said invasion anyway, exactly because it has the power to do so (including the power to terminate with extreme prejudice any possible attempt by the UN to make it do otherwise, if necessary). It is true that a hegemon need not necessarily be authoritarian in nature. However, the historically unilateralist behavior of the United States, coupled with its hegemonic position, makes an authoritarian nature extremely likely. Empirical observation of the historical record demonstrates what happens when a single individual, or a relatively small group thereof, is placed into a position of unchallenged power much greater than that of the general population.



It has been argued that the welfare state is an eventual result of capitalist economics. After all, how else will a given society generate the wealth necessary to sustain such programs? The miserable failure of state socialism rules that possibility out.
Any country can act unilaterally if it wishes to, not just the U.S. The fact is that the U.N. has no enforcement power as a body, and has no say in the final decisions of any member country. The point that the U.N. hasn't been able to control the U.S. is moot.
Verve Pipe
17-07-2006, 22:14
Of course the voices of other countries is heard. But this does not mean that the most powerful shareholder/voting power/veto power has to pay attention when it doesn't want to.
I don't think you understand -- no one has to listen. The U.N. has no enforcement power whatsoever. This point does nothing to show the dominant nature of the U.S., because any country can act in such a way.
Dissonant Cognition
17-07-2006, 22:18
Any country can act unilaterally if it wishes to, not just the U.S.


Again, completely true. Which country other than the United States, however, can get away with it?


The fact is that the U.N. has no enforcement power as a body, and has no say in the final decisions of any member country.


Untrue. The UN does have enforcement power via the authorization of economic sanctions and war (see also: Persian Gulf War (http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_Gulf_War)). But again, economic "globalization" means that placement of sanctions against the United States amounts to economic suicide, simply because the US is the economic power, as well as the greatest sharesholder/voting power in the WTO, IMF, etc. Going to war against the nuclear power and greatest military force on the planet is to invite certain destruction. Nevermind that all of these measures can be shot dead in the Security Council by the United States itself, anyway.
Vittos Ordination2
17-07-2006, 22:27
nah, they're still hanging around in essentially the same numbers as always, if not more. they just suck at being a political party.

what i'm asking is where the 23% of the population (http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Video_50_year_study_says_conservatives_0711.html) that are full-on authoritarians came from - is it just part of the fundamental makeup of being 'conservative' no matter what rhetoric they put on it, or is it new?

They have been more worried about following the ultimate authoritarian, God, up until they slapped the war paint on for the Republican party.

Tell me that everything Dean described of conservative followers doesn't apply to the devoutly religious.
Conscience and Truth
17-07-2006, 22:33
They have been more worried about following the ultimate authoritarian, God, up until they slapped the war paint on for the Republican party.

Tell me that everything Dean described of conservative followers doesn't apply to the devoutly religious.

Virtuous Ordination, congratulations on your elevation to the clergy.

I, like you, have studied the study referened by John Dean. It is true that while 1% of liberals are authoritarian, the majority of republicans are. This is scary, and I'm worried for my safety.

YOU CAN'T put your morality on me! :( :(
Sumamba Buwhan
17-07-2006, 22:34
So then why do you defend a term that people hate and that pisses them off?

Its like defending calling Mexicans "Border Jumpers" or arab "dune coons" or Germans "Krauts"....


because I thought I came up with the term on my own (even though it has been around for a couple hundred years apparently - since the late 1700's) and as a USian I use it because I think it is less ambiguous. I am not putting myself or my fellow USians down by using it.

Just because a minority of people find the term offensive for no good reason, doesn't concern me. The term "USian" isnt used in derogatory sentences that are 'anti-american' in the eyes of uber-natiolistic US Americans, any more than the term American is (in fact the term "USian" is used less so). The term was invented as a way to be more precise. Your examples are simply not comparable.

But dont derail this thread... this isnt a discussion about the term USIan and the mods dont want any new threads started concerning it so either go gravedigging and participate there (or simply read the reasons people use the term) or get over it.
Anarchic Conceptions
17-07-2006, 22:40
This is not a debate over American or "USian" and it,


Then why make it one?


American is legally, and officially

You mean there is a law somewhere that says you cannot use USian and must use American?
Vittos Ordination2
17-07-2006, 22:41
Virtuous Ordination, congratulations on your elevation to the clergy.

I, like you, have studied the study referened by John Dean. It is true that while 1% of liberals are authoritarian, the majority of republicans are. This is scary, and I'm worried for my safety.

YOU CAN'T put your morality on me! :( :(

You'll forgive me if all I see are non-sequitors here.

What exactly are you trying to say?
Taldaan
17-07-2006, 22:43
Virtuous Ordination, congratulations on your elevation to the clergy.

I, like you, have studied the study referened by John Dean. It is true that while 1% of liberals are authoritarian, the majority of republicans are. This is scary, and I'm worried for my safety.

YOU CAN'T put your morality on me! :( :(

*ka-smack*

One percent of liberals are authoritarian? Where on earth do you pull these statistics from? Liberal is the opposite of authoritarian! The polar opposite! The antithesis! Absolutely mutually exclusive in every circumstance! For someone who's overall message I agree with, you're doing a damn good job of pushing me to the other side.
Vittos Ordination2
17-07-2006, 22:50
*ka-smack*

One percent of liberals are authoritarian? Where on earth do you pull these statistics from?

From the original article Free Soviets posted.
New Shabaz
17-07-2006, 23:08
All things evolve ...Whigs Torries Liberals Convervatives the paries change over time. Many self descriped conservatrives are real part of the "Christian Right" so I take anything were you self label politically with a grain of salt...my dad claims to be a Demorcat but has all Republican beliefs. There is not enough eveidence in what you presented to draw a real conclustion.


the issue is that self-identified conservatives overwhelmingly support blatantly authoritarian policies at this point. as for the definition of 'conservative', doesn't it strike you as fundamentally odd that it even could change 'a lot' in a mere 50 years?
Meath Street
17-07-2006, 23:10
Nationalism:
Nationalism is an unfortunate side effect, once again, of 9/11. When a nation that is so used to security as America is threatened, people will willingly flock to the banner of their nation to 'defend' it. Take what happened in Britain during WWII. The UK was used to being one of the world's largest powers. It had not long ago ruled the largest land empire in the world and controlled the seas.
Nationalism that hasn't really been seen in such an extreme in any major power since WWII. Nowadays in the ever-radicalising conservative Right in America, it's normal to

call everyone who doesn't agree with them unpatriotic
arrogantly belittle other nations for being less populous and less militaristic
proclaim that God is on the US Government's side

It's a disgrace. America is supposed to be a civilised nation.

So it's not the evil, bastard Republicans that are causing all of this, it's Americans as a whole responding how people respond when under threat. Cut us some slack and stop calling us fascists. It's annoying.
Yet we Europeans have also been attacked yet we don't react the same way.


However, I want to note an important distinction: In fascism, the government has complete and total control of almost all industry.
Only in the Communist brand of fascism, not so much in Mussolini fascism.

And by the way, authoritarianism isn't restricted to either left or right. While the right wing seems to have more of them, there are plenty of authoritarian socialists and communists
There are not plenty of them.

My question to you is this - Why do you have to say "USian" in your post. This is not a debate over American or "USian" and it, in fact, has NOTHING to do with "USian"...Your post would have had the EXACT same content and point had you said American, and as American is legally, and officially the ONLY accepted word for an American, in English, why do you do it? Is it just to piss off Americans who you know find it annoying, or is it because of some other agenda?:rolleyes:
Fact: USian is not an inherently offensive term.
Fact: "American" is not enshrined in law, it's merely common custom.

Is it so hard to just accept it?

Well, atleast we're on the right path then.:)
You think Fascism is good? And you're Jewish?

Conservative Americans (We are referred to as Liberals in Europe) have been around since the Enlightenment. We tend to believe in lower taxes, human rights, free markets, and a relatively smaller governmental role in society.
*snigger*

We also share this party with a man named George W. Bush who has fought a wonderful and much needed war in Iraq and Afghanistan.
No wars are wonderful; they're necessary at best.

Democrats seem to be cowards and pacifists.
Despite the fact that most Democrats support the unnecessary war in Iraq.

Its not that. Its the fact that they arnt prepared to use force, which makes their threats look little more than "Hey...you suck, stop it!"..."What are you gonna do if I dont!"..."Uh...talk to the U.N.?"
Typical Republican, you go by the image of the most radical liberals and assume it applies to all Democrats.
Eutrusca
17-07-2006, 23:14
nah, they're still hanging around in essentially the same numbers as always, if not more. they just suck at being a political party.

what i'm asking is where the 23% of the population (http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Video_50_year_study_says_conservatives_0711.html) that are full-on authoritarians came from - is it just part of the fundamental makeup of being 'conservative' no matter what rhetoric they put on it, or is it new?
Either you were raised exclusively by women, or you hate your father. [ being very Freudian ] :D
New Shabaz
17-07-2006, 23:14
That word does not exist ...it is like "ain't" and polite writers and speakers do not use it. However the correct term for somebody from Europe is Euian. (pronuounced like you stepped in dogshit EEEUUUUWWWian)


He knows exactly what it means - he has participated in other threads where they were debating the use of the term "USian" and has even started threads about how much he hates the term.
Free Soviets
17-07-2006, 23:20
Nowadays in the ever-radicalising conservative Right in America, it's normal to
call everyone who doesn't agree with them unpatriotic

more than that - traitors, fifth columnists, enemies of the people, etc.

oh, and they've recently adopted a tactic from outright modern fascists; posting the names, pictures, addresses, phone numbers, family information, and such of these 'traitors' surrounded by harsh denounciations of them and calls for them to be locked up/executed/otherwise 'dealt with'.
Free Soviets
17-07-2006, 23:21
They have been more worried about following the ultimate authoritarian, God, up until they slapped the war paint on for the Republican party.

Tell me that everything Dean described of conservative followers doesn't apply to the devoutly religious.

this strikes me as rather reasonable, actually
Free Soviets
17-07-2006, 23:25
That word does not exist ...it is like "ain't"

of course, ain't is in the oed, as usage defines existence.

care to actually participate in the thread now?
Sumamba Buwhan
18-07-2006, 00:10
All things evolve ...

you mean... like language? ;)

ok, now on with addressing the point of the thread
Free Mercantile States
18-07-2006, 00:23
My big question is what happened to all the libertarians, minarchists, and fiscal conservatives who used to occupy the so-called GOP. They're not conservatives anymore - they're statist bastards, proto-fascist pigdogs whose only resemblance to a real conservative is that they don't want to give money to poor people and hate deviation from tradition and the mainstream. But not coincidentally, both of those are also compatible with fascism, and everything that differs between conservatives and fascists falls on the side of fascism for the Republicans.

The only silver lining here is that as more Americans realize the true nature of the contemporary Republican Party, they'll go over to the libertarians. Our day has come!
The Atlantian islands
18-07-2006, 00:27
Fact: USian is not an inherently offensive term.
Fact: "American" is not enshrined in law, it's merely common custom.

You think Fascism is good? And you're Jewish?

Typical Republican, you go by the image of the most radical liberals and assume it applies to all Democrats.

1. I meant politically, legally, and officially American is the right word in English..as thats what your government, and every government of the world says...and thats what we have called ourselves throughout our history.

2. You have like 5 posts, how do you know I'm Jewish? And no I dont like REAL Fascism...but if having a Conservative government in power means having a Fascist government in power...then I guess I "like Fascism"....

3. Typical nothing, Republicans are better leaders and have a thing about making their enemies and opponents fear them. Democrats just tend to be pussies when it comes to crucial foreign affairs.
Free Soviets
18-07-2006, 00:39
My big question is what happened to all the libertarians, minarchists, and fiscal conservatives who used to occupy the so-called GOP.

well for a lot of the big, well-known and outspoken ones, we know exactly what happened - they gave it up to spend their time praising and defending authoritarianism instead. what worries me more is whether they ever really supported any libertarian ideas, or if it was all just a front or a bit of self-deception.
Ultraextreme Sanity
18-07-2006, 00:58
WTF is a USian ? Is it like a YOUian or a THEYian ?
Jello Biafra
18-07-2006, 01:31
The only silver lining here is that as more Americans realize the true nature of the contemporary Republican Party, they'll go over to the libertarians. Our day has come!Not really, more than likely they'll go to the Democrats, as the Democrats are quickly taking up the territory that the Republicans used to have.
Free Soviets
18-07-2006, 01:35
but if having a Conservative government in power means having a Fascist government in power

who has said anything of the sort?
Free Mercantile States
18-07-2006, 01:36
Not really, more than likely they'll go to the Democrats, as the Democrats are quickly taking up the territory that the Republicans used to have.

Geez, just rain on my parade....:p
New Domici
18-07-2006, 02:07
Sounds like a loose use of the term fascist (or protofascist).

Was the Constitution suspended? Was martial law declared? Didn't the Supreme Court hand Bush his ass?

Still looks like a republic to me.

Just because they haven't taken overt control according to their preffered model doesn't mean that the fascist movement isn't ascendent in the GOP these days. They've been working since the 30's to undo social security, and came damn close with Bush. They might have done it if Bush wasn't so spectacularly incompotent at waging war.

We're taught that after the war the Nazis vanished without a trace
But batallions of fascists still dream of a master race
The history books they tell of their defeat in forty-five
But they all come out of the woodwork on the day the Nazi died
They say the prisoner of Spandau was a symbol of defeat
Whilst Hess remained imprisoned and the fascists they were beat
So the promise of an aryan world would never materialise
So why did they all come out of the woodwork on the day the Nazi died
They're here and they're there and they're everywhere
(Repeat)
The world is riddled with maggots--the maggots are getting fat
They're making a tasty meal of all the bosses and bureacrats
They're taking over the board rooms and they're fat and full of pride
And they all came out of the woodwork on the day the Nazi died
So if you meet with these historians I'll tell you what to say
Tell them that the Nazis never really went away
They're out there burning houses down and peddling racist lies
And we'll never rest again until every Nazi dies
New Domici
18-07-2006, 02:09
WTF is a USian ? Is it like a YOUian or a THEYian ?

No, it's pronounced as a derivative of Ooze. Oooozian.
Free Soviets
18-07-2006, 04:40
My big question is what happened to all the libertarians, minarchists, and fiscal conservatives who used to occupy the so-called GOP.well for a lot of the big, well-known and outspoken ones, we know exactly what happened - they gave it up to spend their time praising and defending authoritarianism instead. what worries me more is whether they ever really supported any libertarian ideas, or if it was all just a front or a bit of self-deception.

thoughts?
Jello Biafra
18-07-2006, 05:17
Geez, just rain on my parade....:PHa, your parade? At least the wing your political views fall on have a viable party representating them. :)

thoughts?Well...some right-wing libertarians are good at self-deception, so I'd suggest that the ones who now hail authoritarianist measures were just deceiving themselves.
Andaluciae
18-07-2006, 05:17
Mr. Dean claims that conservatives are fascists.
Ms. Coulter claims that liberals are traitors.

They're both of the same breed in my personal opinion.
Bobs Own Pipe
18-07-2006, 05:18
Mr. Dean claims that conservatives are fascists.
Ms. Coulter claims that liberals are traitors.

They're both of the same breed in my personal opinion.
Well, except they aren't, even.
Andaluciae
18-07-2006, 05:22
Well, except they aren't, even.
Of course, one's on the left, the other's on the right.
Soheran
18-07-2006, 05:22
Mr. Dean claims that conservatives are fascists.

When did he make that claim?
Andaluciae
18-07-2006, 05:24
When did he make that claim?
Authoritarians, whatever.
Ultraextreme Sanity
18-07-2006, 05:27
Well I dont know about them USians or themians BUT in the United States of America we Americans take our authoritarians of any type , out and shoot them . sometimes more than once . we ahve also been known to hang them and tar and feather them .
We certainly do not elect them . No one try to rule by decree and lives .
So unless I am mistaken by what you mean by authoritarian ..... I pity those poor bastards in that usian place with the themians it must suck to be them.
Or themians .
Free Soviets
18-07-2006, 05:30
Mr. Dean claims that conservatives are fascists.

doubtful, considering he self-identifies as one...
Free Soviets
18-07-2006, 05:41
Well...some right-wing libertarians are good at self-deception, so I'd suggest that the ones who now hail authoritarianist measures were just deceiving themselves.

one of the things that has worried me about many libertarians is their seeming inability to remember from one moment to the next what it is exactly that they are arguing for - just watch them complain about corporate welfare and state interference in the market more generally in one breath, and defend the power and privilege the elite have used said system to gain in the next. the level of self-deception necessary for these sorts of moves would seem to me to be rather high. for at least some of them i suspect it is fully intentional.
Jello Biafra
18-07-2006, 05:43
one of the things that has worried me about many libertarians is their seeming inability to remember from one moment to the next what it is exactly that they are arguing for - just watch them complain about corporate welfare and state interference in the market more generally in one breath, and defend the power and privilege the elite have used said system to gain in the next. the level of self-deception necessary for these sorts of moves would seem to me to be rather high. for at least some of them i suspect it is fully intentional.Oh no, see, their philosophy has a magical barrier where politicians would be immune to such tactics.
Dissonant Cognition
18-07-2006, 06:11
... and defend the power and privilege the elite have used said system to gain in the next.

What exactly constitutes this defense? I like to be very vocal about the tendency you describe, about how much current economic privilege is due to statist and authoritarian machinations (corporations and intellectual "property" are two of the big ones). However, I will just as quickly argue that the statist socialist "redistribution" measures that some propose as a solution is a cure at least as bad as, if not worse than, the disease. My rejection of this particular "solution," however, does not constitute a defense of statist capitalist problems.

So, do those who "defend the power and privilege [of] the elite" actually do so, or do they simply reject what they don't see as helping to solve the problem?
Bottle
18-07-2006, 13:38
it's increasingly obvious that the 'conservative' movement and many of it's 'libertarian' fellow travellers have moved on to an overtly authoritarian, psuedo or proto fascist (depending on whether you think they are moving towards it or just paralleling it) ideology.

my question to you all is this - was it always really this way, or is this actually a new sort of thing altogether? where did all these authoritarian followers come from and what were they doing before?
A very loud and very frightened minority of wealthy white heterosexual male Christians have decided that controlling all three branches of government and every major industry is not enough control for them. They are oppressed by the existence of non-male, non-white, non-Christian, non-straight, non-wealthy people who believe they should have rights and be treated with dignity. Thus, the terrified white heterosexual male Christians are not actually imposing a dictatorial theocracy upon us...rather, they are rising up against repression!!

Forward, brave soldiers!
BogMarsh
18-07-2006, 13:43
A very loud and very frightened minority of wealthy white heterosexual male Christians have decided that controlling all three branches of government and every major industry is not enough control for them. They are oppressed by the existence of non-male, non-white, non-Christian, non-straight, non-wealthy people who believe they should have rights and be treated with dignity. Thus, the terrified white heterosexual male Christians are not actually imposing a dictatorial theocracy upon us...rather, they are rising up against repression!!

Forward, brave soldiers!
On the down side... have you ever considered the following:

The reason why paternalistic societies dominate is because they excel at it, when compared with other models?

( The thought really struck me while reading Bettany Hughes' Helen of Troy )

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1400041783/002-0472767-1663268?v=glance&n=283155
Sedation Ministry
18-07-2006, 13:50
Well, except they aren't, even.
Sure they are. They are infamous shills with no credibility. One just happens to have a penis (rumor has it) and the other one has a toothy vagina.
The Roman Pontiff
18-07-2006, 14:00
fas·cism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fshzm)
n.

1. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.

2. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.

3. Oppressive, dictatorial control.


Perhaps I am ignorant, but I fail to see what resemblance the Bush Administration has to fascism. Has Bush called for the removal of the Legislative and Judiciary Branches of Government? Has Bush imposed "stringent socioeconomic controls?" Has Bush supressed his liberal opposition through the use of terror and censorship? Is Bush racist?

The term "fascism" is thrown around [I]very[I] loosely today and is used more or less in regards to a leader that people just don't like. The irony is that liberalism is far more similar to the methods of fascism than anything Bush has done.

American liberalism calls for:

1. Bigger more expansive federal Government
2. Government control over what children are taught
3. Promoting programs that create a dependency on the Government
4. Government control on end-of-life decisions
5. Government control on businesses and the private sector
6. Censorship of any opposing views
7. Banning of arms

Socialism gives the Government far too much control over the livelihood and wellbeing of its citizens and, historically, when such a political ideology is embraced it falls into fascism. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Democrats are more "fascist" than Republicans could ever dream. Simply going to war with a nation that broke the terms of a ceasefire with you doesn't automatically make you a "fascist."
Free Soviets
18-07-2006, 14:59
What exactly constitutes this defense?

in the most common form, it is claimed that x cannot be an example of exploitation or privilege because "the free market doesn't work like that". so the defense and even promotion of sweatshops, despite the fact that they are almost always the product of a very specific set of state policies aimed at forcing people off of their traditional land, into the cash economy, and preventing them from organizing to protect and promote their own interests. or the defense of current distributions of wealth on the grounds that those with lots of it were successful on 'the free market'.

and then there is just the general pro-elite vibe i get off of some of them, because they spend a disproportionate amount of time complaining about about government programs that nominally help (and are pushed for) by the poor, and their major policy wishes all seem to be aimed at getting rid of those oppressive welfare queens and unqualified black people that are stealing their jobs, etc.
Free Soviets
18-07-2006, 15:03
fas·cism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fshzm)
n.

1. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.

2. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.

3. Oppressive, dictatorial control.


Perhaps I am ignorant, but I fail to see what resemblance the Bush Administration has to fascism.

one good step would be to never ever try to use a dictionary to define a political ideology. especially not fascism, which is a rather complex and sometimes contradictory one.

so do you seriously deny the authoritarianism of the current conservative movement?
BogMarsh
18-07-2006, 15:03
one good step would be to never ever try to use a dictionary to define a political ideology. especially not fascism, which is a rather complex and sometimes contradictory one.

so do you seriously deny the authoritarianism of the current conservative movement?

Yep. Why not?
Sedation Ministry
18-07-2006, 15:06
one good step would be to never ever try to use a dictionary to define a political ideology. especially not fascism, which is a rather complex and sometimes contradictory one.

so do you seriously deny the authoritarianism of the current conservative movement?

Parts of the current conservative movement, but not all.
Nonexistentland
18-07-2006, 15:19
one good step would be to never ever try to use a dictionary to define a political ideology. especially not fascism, which is a rather complex and sometimes contradictory one.

so do you seriously deny the authoritarianism of the current conservative movement?

I can't level with labeling the Bush presidency "authoritarian," and certainly not fascist. He is still subject to both the legislative and judicial branches of government, and, ultimately, the people. The programs he has instituted imply a certain level of government regulation, but it is no worse than other strong government institutions of the past.
Taldaan
18-07-2006, 15:47
From the original article Free Soviets posted.

That article said that around 1% of people from the left wing were authoritarian. They were probably Stalinists or similar, certainly not liberals. Liberal and socialist mean different things. Just because they are often part of the same political philosophy (like capitalism and authoritarianism) doesn't mean that they are one and the same.
Free Soviets
18-07-2006, 15:53
some light reading (http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2004/11/holiday-break.html) - and in pdf (http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/The%20Rise%20Of%20Pseudo%20Fascism.pdf), too.

it's slightly out of date, as it was written in 2004. since then the conservative movement has more openly adopted the street-level violence of fascism, though not in much of an organized fashion yet. but they appear to be working on it.
Free Soviets
18-07-2006, 15:54
I can't level with labeling the Bush presidency "authoritarian," and certainly not fascist. He is still subject to both the legislative and judicial branches of government, and, ultimately, the people. The programs he has instituted imply a certain level of government regulation, but it is no worse than other strong government institutions of the past.

regulation?! mate, wtf are you talking about?
Free Soviets
18-07-2006, 15:55
Parts of the current conservative movement, but not all.

yup. just the ones running the show and those that appear to be the most popular.
Sedation Ministry
18-07-2006, 15:56
some light reading (http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2004/11/holiday-break.html) - and in pdf (http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/The%20Rise%20Of%20Pseudo%20Fascism.pdf), too.

it's slightly out of date, as it was written in 2004. since then the conservative movement has more openly adopted the street-level violence of fascism, though not in much of an organized fashion yet. but they appear to be working on it.


umm....

so, where are the organizations that are the brownshirts? Or, as in Babylon 5, where is the government-sponsored Nightwatch organization?

I see zero street-level violence in organizations that are associated with neo-cons.

Plenty of street-level violence from organizations that are against free trade, or against globalization, or who are eco-freaks or animal rights people.

Give me a solid example of street-level violence.
Free Soviets
18-07-2006, 16:25
Give me a solid example of street-level violence.

recently, stop the aclu started a new "project" involving posting the names, addresses, phone numbers, photographs, etc of people involved in alcu cases, surrounded by the usual denouncements of them as enemies of america, traitors, scum, and such. this is a tactic quite familiar to those of us who have been dealing with neos and other open fascists.

so far they've gotten at least one jewish family chased out of town.

elsewhere, we have entire swaths of the rightwing noise machine engaging in the same tactic aimed at photographers, journalists, newspaper publishers, etc. we've even had a number of calls for the assassination of judges and opposition politicians. and i'm not talking about rants from obscure people nobody has ever heard of, but people within the mainstream of the conservative movement, websites with readership numbers that would put them in the top 200 newspapers and magazines, people invited to share the stage at republican fundraisers with the party leadership, and even the occassional republican politician.

some (http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/07/prominent-right-wing-blogger-today.html) more (http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/07/journalists-its-time-for-some-articles.html) light (http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2006/07/projection-strategy.html) reading (http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2006/07/drums-of-elimination.html)
Sedation Ministry
18-07-2006, 16:29
recently, stop the aclu started a new "project" involving posting the names, addresses, phone numbers, photographs, etc of people involved in alcu cases, surrounded by the usual denouncements of them as enemies of america, traitors, scum, and such. this is a tactic quite familiar to those of us who have been dealing with neos and other open fascists.

so far they've gotten at least one jewish family chased out of town.

elsewhere, we have entire swaths of the rightwing noise machine engaging in the same tactic aimed at photographers, journalists, newspaper publishers, etc. we've even had a number of calls for the assassination of judges and opposition politicians. and i'm not talking about rants from obscure people nobody has ever heard of, but people within the mainstream of the conservative movement, websites with readership numbers that would put them in the top 200 newspapers and magazines, people invited to share the stage at republican fundraisers with the party leadership, and even the occassional republican politician.

some (http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/07/prominent-right-wing-blogger-today.html) more (http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/07/journalists-its-time-for-some-articles.html) light (http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2006/07/projection-strategy.html) reading (http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2006/07/drums-of-elimination.html)


Sorry, that's all talk. I see no organization of black or brownshirts. No armbands. No marching in the streets, battling it out with others.

I do see plenty of street-level violence from the Left. Plenty of fighting with police, burning cars, smashing windows, and other forms of violence.
Andaluciae
18-07-2006, 16:33
recently, stop the aclu started a new "project" involving posting the names, addresses, phone numbers, photographs, etc of people involved in alcu cases, surrounded by the usual denouncements of them as enemies of america, traitors, scum, and such. this is a tactic quite familiar to those of us who have been dealing with neos and other open fascists.
That's just classic ad hominem behaviors. It's been that way since the founding of the United States, virtually every major political figure, excluding Washington, was subject to charges of treason from the political opposition. It's rather a lot of asshattery to call people that, but it's nothing new.

so far they've gotten at least one jewish family chased out of town.
Town? Which town? There's a lot of towns.

Beyond that, the neoconservative movement finds that some of it's strongest supporters are Jews. Wolfowitz and Perl immediately come to mind.

elsewhere, we have entire swaths of the rightwing noise machine engaging in the same tactic aimed at photographers, journalists, newspaper publishers, etc. we've even had a number of calls for the assassination of judges and opposition politicians. and i'm not talking about rants from obscure people nobody has ever heard of, but people within the mainstream of the conservative movement, websites with readership numbers that would put them in the top 200 newspapers and magazines, people invited to share the stage at republican fundraisers with the party leadership, and even the occassional republican politician.
Votewinning in the classic sense. They're a part of the conservative voting bloc, and without them, Republicans would be much worse off in political campaigns.
Sedation Ministry
18-07-2006, 16:35
Beyond that, the neoconservative movement finds that some of it's strongest supporters are Jews. Wolfowitz and Perl immediately come to mind.


In fact, the voting demographic amongst Jews in the US is changing over to Republican - apparently, the Democratic Party can't be counted on to support Israel.

That, and a lot of Democratic pundits use "neocon" as a slur word for "Jew".
CSW
18-07-2006, 16:50
In fact, the voting demographic amongst Jews in the US is changing over to Republican - apparently, the Democratic Party can't be counted on to support Israel.

That, and a lot of Democratic pundits use "neocon" as a slur word for "Jew".
I think that's a new record for insinuations of anti-semitism, only 200 posts :rolleyes:.
Deep Kimchi
18-07-2006, 16:52
I think that's a new record for insinuations of anti-semitism, only 200 posts :rolleyes:.


If you hung out at more synagogues, you might realize that younger Jews feel that Democrats are anti-semitic, whether you care to admit it or not.

Just because they feel that way doesn't mean they are wrong.
BogMarsh
18-07-2006, 16:53
In fact, the voting demographic amongst Jews in the US is changing over to Republican - apparently, the Democratic Party can't be counted on to support Israel.

That, and a lot of Democratic pundits use "neocon" as a slur word for "Jew".

The voting demographic for just about everything in the US is slowly changing towards Republican.

If you encourage your own proponents to be liberal about abortion, you are effectively aborting your own future constituents.

Note to future politicians: always encourage the voters for other parties to abort their kids.
Free Soviets
18-07-2006, 17:09
Sorry, that's all talk. I see no organization of black or brownshirts. No armbands. No marching in the streets, battling it out with others.

um...

since then the conservative movement has more openly adopted the street-level violence of fascism, though not in much of an organized fashion yet. but they appear to be working on it.

your reasoning looks exactly like this:
"sure, they say they want to kill or lock up goup z, but they haven't actually done so yet, therefore they couldn't possibly actually intend to do so..."
New Domici
18-07-2006, 17:52
In fact, the voting demographic amongst Jews in the US is changing over to Republican - apparently, the Democratic Party can't be counted on to support Israel.

That's because, historicly, groups that sympathize with the downtrodden tend to vote liberal. That's why the powerful Catholic Church urges it's people to vote Conservative, but the historically despised Catholic voters tend to vote liberal.

Many in this generation of Jews has begun to forget it's connection to the downtrodden of the world because it's footing in our society is so secure. With the focus on the holocaust of WWII, not a lot of attention has been paid to the more recent anti-semitism of the KKK, who are mostly recognized as an anti-black group.

That, and a lot of Democratic pundits use "neocon" as a slur word for "Jew".

No they don't. That's just something that neocon's say to glom onto the sympathy of another group more sympathetic than they. "Criticize my evil and you're an anti-semite" they cry. No, I'm anti-evil. Your philosophies are abhorrent. The fact that you've got some notable Jews among your number does not entitle you to claim sanctuary behind the shawl of Shoah.
New Domici
18-07-2006, 17:54
If you hung out at more synagogues, you might realize that younger Jews feel that Democrats are anti-semitic, whether you care to admit it or not.

Just because they feel that way doesn't mean they are wrong.

That's funny, I hang out at my wife's synagogue and that's not the vibe I get at all. I hear a lot of complaining about Bush, and Democrats have been sweeping local elections in NYC and the surrounding suburbs. But I guess that's just a big city thing. Where do most American Jews live again?
Kecibukia
18-07-2006, 18:07
That's funny, I hang out at my wife's synagogue and that's not the vibe I get at all. I hear a lot of complaining about Bush, and Democrats have been sweeping local elections in NYC and the surrounding suburbs. But I guess that's just a big city thing. Where do most American Jews live again?

In DK's defense, according to polls by the AJC, conservative views among American Jews has been steadily increasing. Still the minority, but increasing.

http://www.ajc.org/site/c.ijITI2PHKoG/b.846741/k.8A33/Publications__Surveys/apps/nl/newsletter3.asp
Teh_pantless_hero
18-07-2006, 18:10
That, and a lot of Democratic pundits use "neocon" as a slur word for "Jew".
Could you possibly make up any more bullshit? I submit you could not.

If you encourage your own proponents to be liberal about abortion, you are effectively aborting your own future constituents.
Hey look, a poorly through out argument. That argument holds the assumption that every pregnancy to a "liberal" ends in an abortion. Double the slander, double the fun.
New Domici
18-07-2006, 20:36
Well I dont know about them USians or themians BUT in the United States of America we Americans take our authoritarians of any type , out and shoot them . sometimes more than once . we ahve also been known to hang them and tar and feather them .
We certainly do not elect them . No one try to rule by decree and lives .
So unless I am mistaken by what you mean by authoritarian ..... I pity those poor bastards in that usian place with the themians it must suck to be them.
Or themians .

Well, yes, we shot Reagan, but he stayed in office. One of us tried to shoot Bush, but he was stopped before he got there and no one has tried since. We did get an Eastern European to try to do it with a hand grenade, but it didn't even go off.

We Americans aren't exactly punctilious about shooting our authoritarians. We do however have a wonderful tendency to pretend that they're carrying out the people's will.
Anglachel and Anguirel
18-07-2006, 20:59
If you hung out at more synagogues, you might realize that younger Jews feel that Democrats are anti-semitic, whether you care to admit it or not.

Just because they feel that way doesn't mean they are wrong.
Actually, out of all the Jews I know, pretty much all of them are Democrats. Except for a few who can't or aren't registered to vote yet.
Sumamba Buwhan
18-07-2006, 21:10
Actually, out of all the Jews I know, pretty much all of them are Democrats. Except for a few who can't or aren't registered to vote yet.

Same here in Vegas - I work with the Jewish Family Services Agency as well as the Jewish Community Center (I'm the IT guy for both) and they are fully Democrat. They talk constant crap about Bush as well as the Republican party in general.

It's a nice change from most of the companies I work with because they are usually associated witht he defense industry and are mostly pro-Republican with only a couple people I know in those companies being either Dems or just liberal.
Anglachel and Anguirel
18-07-2006, 21:14
I suppose Orthodox Jews probably vote Republican... but I don't know how much of the Jewish population in America they constitute. Not much, I'd imagine.
New Shabaz
18-07-2006, 21:48
I whole heartedly disagree....The Democratic party is dead...it moved to far left and abandonded the center....this will soon happen to the GOP too I see at least 1 possibly 2 new parties in the near future a Centerleft and Centeright party to fill the vacumes left as the Dems and Repubs move to there polar extremes


Not really, more than likely they'll go to the Democrats, as the Democrats are quickly taking up the territory that the Republicans used to have.
New Shabaz
18-07-2006, 21:50
There is a growing disenfranchized center.

thoughts?
Neo Kervoskia
18-07-2006, 21:57
Personally, I'll take what comes. I've grown too cold to care anymore.
John Galts Vision
18-07-2006, 22:05
actually, an essential part of a fascist takeover involves the use of armed thugs in coordinated attacks on 'enemies of the people' - blackshirts, brownshirts, falangists, etc. it's probably best not to get your information on fascism from the nra.


Why would authoritarians, who plan to use armed thugs in their rise to power, ensure through the law that the targets of their thugs, who must greatly outnumber the thugs or this would otherwise be a democratic change, may remain armed as well?

No, authoritarians are the ones who try to disarm the populace, by whatever pretense they see as expedient, not those who try to ensure that freedom.
Taldaan
18-07-2006, 22:09
I whole heartedly disagree....The Democratic party is dead...it moved to far left and abandonded the center....this will soon happen to the GOP too I see at least 1 possibly 2 new parties in the near future a Centerleft and Centeright party to fill the vacumes left as the Dems and Repubs move to there polar extremes

Dead? I doubt it. They may not have won the Presidency for two terms running now, but that isn't all that rare.

And the far left claim? I call bullshit. The Democrats aren't even left wing, let alone far left.

Do the Democrats want to take away property rights? No.
Privatise industry? No.
Set up communal farms? No.
Swap "The Star-Spangled Banner" for "The Internationale"? Nope.
Hand over the means of production to the workers? Don't hold your breath.

Putting slightly more regulation on business doesn't make you far left, it makes you near/mid right rather than mid/far right. The moment Hillary Clinton declares the USA the People's Republic of America, we can restart this conversation.
Dissonant Cognition
18-07-2006, 22:11
so the defense and even promotion of sweatshops, despite the fact that they are almost always the product of a very specific set of state policies aimed at forcing people off of their traditional land, into the cash economy, and preventing them from organizing to protect and promote their own interests.


Yeah, I've figured for a while that these sorts of issues are more complicated (http://www.freetheslaves.net/) than "well, they could be starving instead." I've been meaning to read Disposable People by Kevin Bales for a while now. My personal favorite, however, was the recent deal with the Chinese oil corporation (70% state owned, if I recall correctly) trying to buy UNOCAL. "Ah, well, we have to allow it, because it's a matter of free trade." Um, one of the parties to the proposed deal was the People's Republic of China; what "free market?" I came away feeling that "free market" was really intended to mean "easy profit."


and then there is just the general pro-elite vibe i get off of some of them, because they spend a disproportionate amount of time complaining about about government programs that nominally help (and are pushed for) by the poor, and their major policy wishes all seem to be aimed at getting rid of those oppressive welfare queens and unqualified black people that are stealing their jobs, etc.

It does seem that capitalism is so entwined with "Libertarian" ideology that any attack against the statist tendencies of the economic elite automatically elicits accusations of "socialism" as a knee-jerk reaction (Again, my personal favorite is the assertion that capitalism requires no statist intervention...followed by defenses of the corporation, intellectual "property," and other complete legal fictions created and enforced by the state; one gets the impression that statism is tollerable as long as it is profitable).

Then again, many actually practice what they preach: http://www.ij.org/cases/index.html
John Galts Vision
18-07-2006, 22:12
...that Libertarians are the complete opposite of authoritarians. They are conservative (in the U.S. sense of the word) when it comes to expanding economic freedom (free-markets, private property, etc) but Libertarians generally differ quite strongly with conservatives when it comes to social issues, precicely because they disagree with authoritarian policies.

Also, those commonly defined as liberal are quite authoritarian on many issues as well. They may not want to tell you who you can marry or what you can put in your body, but they surely want to tell you what you can do with your money, how to run your business, what you can own, and want to take what's yours to do with as they please.

Whenever government is put in charge of something, it is inherently authoritarian. If a "Liberal" policy is to give the government greater control through banning, regulating, taxing, distributing, etc., that is authoritarian. Same goes for "Conservative" policies.

You can't conveneintly redefine authoritarian to fit only policies and beliefs that you don't agree with and expect that no one will call you to the mat on it.
Dissonant Cognition
18-07-2006, 22:18
Whenever government is put in charge of something, it is inherently authoritarian.

...

You can't conveneintly redefine authoritarian to fit only policies and beliefs that you don't agree with and expect that no one will call you to the mat on it.

No, you can't.
Vittos Ordination2
18-07-2006, 22:21
Why would authoritarians, who plan to use armed thugs in their rise to power, ensure through the law that the targets of their thugs, who must greatly outnumber the thugs or this would otherwise be a democratic change, may remain armed as well?

No, authoritarians are the ones who try to disarm the populace, by whatever pretense they see as expedient, not those who try to ensure that freedom.

Have you not noticed that those reactionaries who support authoritarians also are those who are most likely to own weapons, believe that violence is a useful solution to confrontation, and more vigorous in the pursuit of their ideology?

The thugs win because the majority of dissent is non-confrontational, often ambivalent, and generally less prone to violence to bring about political change.
Jello Biafra
18-07-2006, 22:34
In fact, the voting demographic amongst Jews in the US is changing over to Republican - apparently, the Democratic Party can't be counted on to support Israel.

That, and a lot of Democratic pundits use "neocon" as a slur word for "Jew".There's a difference between being anti-Jew and being anti-Zionist.
John Galts Vision
18-07-2006, 22:39
Have you not noticed that those reactionaries who support authoritarians also are those who are most likely to own weapons, believe that violence is a useful solution to confrontation, and more vigorous in the pursuit of their ideology?

The thugs win because the majority of dissent is non-confrontational, often ambivalent, and generally less prone to violence to bring about political change.


I think 'reactionaries' in your statement is a loaded term, but you're right, authoritarians are usually supported by the armed thugs, regardless of the ideological persuasion of said authoritarians. Still, your statements do not refute at all what I said here. It is the opposite of authoritarian to allow ownership of weapons by the populace.

For the general thread:
I would like to clarify my point. I'm not saying that anything remotely authoritarian is bad; this is a continuum, not a dichotomy. If there were no authoritarianism at all, we would live in anarchy. I was taking issue with the fact that Free Soviets was trying to assert that authoritarianism was associated with one particular ideology (which is false - it is a facet, to some degree, of all except anarchy) and was disingenuously trying to redefine authoritarian to fit only those whom he obviously disagrees with.
Vittos Ordination2
18-07-2006, 22:39
in the most common form, it is claimed that x cannot be an example of exploitation or privilege because "the free market doesn't work like that". so the defense and even promotion of sweatshops, despite the fact that they are almost always the product of a very specific set of state policies aimed at forcing people off of their traditional land, into the cash economy, and preventing them from organizing to protect and promote their own interests. or the defense of current distributions of wealth on the grounds that those with lots of it were successful on 'the free market'.

What you are describing is the result of the attacks against libertarianism. The constant example brought up to show the devestation that capitalism reaps upon humanity is the sweatshop.

So, libertarians are forced to defend low wages under the guise of the sweatshop. In the end they are not defending or promoting sweatshops, they are promoting what they see as a fair valuation of labor. If asked about all of the government policies that go into maintaining sweatshops, libertarians would be appalled.

But since they are constantly met with the "Capitalism=Slavery" argument, they are forced to defend even the worst elements of the labor market, when truly taken into account, those worst elements do not apply to a libertarian ideology.

and then there is just the general pro-elite vibe i get off of some of them, because they spend a disproportionate amount of time complaining about about government programs that nominally help (and are pushed for) by the poor, and their major policy wishes all seem to be aimed at getting rid of those oppressive welfare queens and unqualified black people that are stealing their jobs, etc.

You will definitely get that, I do all of the time. Look at the influence Rand has had on the libertarian movement, and she has the most disgustingly elitist attitude I have ever encountered. I will say for libertarians, though, that they don't have the elitist views of most conservatives, at least the real libertarians oppose policy on moral principle, rather than a practical "They don't deserve my help" principle.
Vittos Ordination2
18-07-2006, 22:43
I think 'reactionaries' in your statement is a loaded term, but you're right, authoritarians are usually supported by the armed thugs, regardless of the ideological persuasion of said authoritarians. Still, your statements do not refute at all what I said here. It is the opposite of authoritarian to allow ownership of weapons by the populace.

All sides have reactionaries, the reactionaries that follow authoritarians are generally more violent.

No authoritarians would love to have guns in the population when they have the ability to manipulate the general opinion of the state of affairs. If they spread an idea of danger, they get two birds with one stone. A portion of the population will rally behind them out of fear, and that same fear will motivate them to arm themselves.
New Shabaz
18-07-2006, 22:54
Or controlled the Senate or House....but hey those are minor ...They also control more state legislatures as are they the majority of governors. If they don't make a HUGE comeback with Dean as head of the DNC..They can join the Whigs, Tories, Bullmoose and Anti-Masonic parties in the dustbin of history. And relativly they are far left (at least that is the most vocal faction) You can thank that the likes of Michael Moore for this ...and when the GOP dies it will be Anne Coulter digging the grave.


Dead? I doubt it. They may not have won the Presidency for two terms running now, but that isn't all that rare.

And the far left claim? I call bullshit. The Democrats aren't even left wing, let alone far left.

Do the Democrats want to take away property rights? No.
Privatise industry? No.
Set up communal farms? No.
Swap "The Star-Spangled Banner" for "The Internationale"? Nope.
Hand over the means of production to the workers? Don't hold your breath.

Putting slightly more regulation on business doesn't make you far left, it makes you near/mid right rather than mid/far right. The moment Hillary Clinton declares the USA the People's Republic of America, we can restart this conversation.
Jello Biafra
18-07-2006, 22:54
So, libertarians are forced to defend low wages under the guise of the sweatshop. In the end they are not defending or promoting sweatshops, they are promoting what they see as a fair valuation of labor. If asked about all of the government policies that go into maintaining sweatshops, libertarians would be appalled.Do you think that if these government policies weren't there, there would be no sweatshops?
John Galts Vision
18-07-2006, 23:05
All sides have reactionaries, the reactionaries that follow authoritarians are generally more violent.

No authoritarians would love to have guns in the population when they have the ability to manipulate the general opinion of the state of affairs. If they spread an idea of danger, they get two birds with one stone. A portion of the population will rally behind them out of fear, and that same fear will motivate them to arm themselves.


Generally though, authoritarians (used as a noun) don't like guns available to the population, as this can make things very complicated when they inevitably take away political and civil freedoms.

Again, we're talking about a continuous variable as though it were a dichotomy. There are degrees of authoritarian (as an adjective). What I may think of as too much, another may think of as not enough. Still, the policy of freedom to possess firearms is non-authoritarian in nature, regardless of whether some of those who support this policy also support other, more authoritarian policies.
Free Soviets
18-07-2006, 23:30
Libertarians are the complete opposite of authoritarians

except when they jump ship, which is what got this line of debate started (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11386254&postcount=115).

to quote andrew sullivan (http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/2006/07/two_glenns.html), talking about massively popular (http://truthlaidbear.com/showdetails.php?host=http://instapundit.com) self-identified libertarian blogger glenn reynolds (of instapundit),

"But his appeasement of the Malkin right is truly dispiriting. He's not alone in this respect, unable to break with the illegal, arguably un-conservative and certainly anti-libertarian aspects of the current administration... [W]hen push came to shove, Reynolds never challenged in any serious way the abuses of power in this administration nor the extremism of the Malkinesque blogosphere. When a libertarian finds any excuses to ignore or minimize government-sponsored illegality and torture, then he has truly ceased to be a libertarian in any profound sense."
Vittos Ordination2
19-07-2006, 00:37
Do you think that if these government policies weren't there, there would be no sweatshops?

Not in their present form, and the economic status of the workers would not be stagnant.
Jello Biafra
19-07-2006, 00:39
Not in their present form, and the economic status of the workers would not be stagnant.I can see why they wouldn't be exactly the same, but why do you believe things would be so different?
Surf Shack
19-07-2006, 00:40
it's increasingly obvious that the 'conservative' movement and many of it's 'libertarian' fellow travellers have moved on to an overtly authoritarian, psuedo or proto fascist (depending on whether you think they are moving towards it or just paralleling it) ideology.

my question to you all is this - was it always really this way, or is this actually a new sort of thing altogether? where did all these authoritarian followers come from and what were they doing before?

LOL! I love biased 'tards talking about politics.

Factually, the US has constantly turned further and further to the left since its creation. It's not our fault you moved faster in your short lifespan. Now, why do we keep posting threads on topics that have been beaten to death? It's boring.
Vittos Ordination2
19-07-2006, 00:45
I can see why they wouldn't be exactly the same, but why do you believe things would be so different?

The difference depends on what policies are in place. If libertarian policy were in place, the lower class would gain some leverage in negotiation. It may be slight at first, but as the the lower classes gain a little more financial independence with that initial leverage, they will gain added leverage. It is an upward cycle: more leverage in the labor market, more financial independence, more leverage. As time goes by, workers will have near complete leverage in negotiating their price.

I wonder, however, whether capitalism ever allows for complete leverage within the labor force, and whether it actually allows for true equilibrium on labor prices.
Europa Maxima
19-07-2006, 00:47
it's increasingly obvious that the 'conservative' movement and many of it's 'libertarian' fellow travellers have moved on to an overtly authoritarian, psuedo or proto fascist (depending on whether you think they are moving towards it or just paralleling it) ideology.
Which libertarians are you referring to, would-be shock jock?

my question to you all is this - was it always really this way, or is this actually a new sort of thing altogether? where did all these authoritarian followers come from and what were they doing before?
Oh I dunno, they probably got bored with the nonsense that is Communism. Fascism is far more fun. ^^
Free Mercantile States
19-07-2006, 00:50
I whole heartedly disagree....The Democratic party is dead...it moved to far left and abandonded the center....this will soon happen to the GOP too I see at least 1 possibly 2 new parties in the near future a Centerleft and Centeright party to fill the vacumes left as the Dems and Repubs move to there polar extremes

The GOP will do this soon? You consider them centrist?!
Dissonant Cognition
19-07-2006, 00:59
Which libertarians are you referring to, would-be shock jock?


Kevin Carson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Carson#On_free_markets) refers to them as "vulgar libertarians" (http://mutualist.blogspot.com/2005/01/vulgar-libertarianism-watch-part-1.html).
Europa Maxima
19-07-2006, 01:02
Kevin Carson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Carson#On_free_markets) refers to them as "vulgar libertarians" (http://mutualist.blogspot.com/2005/01/vulgar-libertarianism-watch-part-1.html).
God, not another one of these. Can't the universe do us all a favour and swallow up these whiny little socialist pricks? :rolleyes:
Potarius
19-07-2006, 01:06
God, not another one of these. Can't the universe do us all a favour and swallow up this whiny little socialist pricks? :rolleyes:

What an idiot... People like him are one of the reasons I removed myself from the idealogy (though I never actually subscribed to it, or any idealogy, in the first place).
Europa Maxima
19-07-2006, 01:07
What an idiot... People like him are one of the reasons I removed myself from the idealogy (though I never actually subscribed to it, or any idealogy, in the first place).
You mean socialism?
Neo Undelia
19-07-2006, 01:07
Oh I dunno, they probably got bored with the nonsense that is Communism. Fascism is far more fun. ^^
Better uniforms. Better music.
Potarius
19-07-2006, 01:09
Better uniforms. Better music.

Oi!/Street Punk is some good stuff. Too bad a good amount of the bands are near-Fascist (or full-on Fascist). :p
Europa Maxima
19-07-2006, 01:11
Oi!/Street Punk is some good stuff. Too bad a good amount of the bands are near-Fascist (or full-on Fascist). :p
Including some of the ones I like. :p Funny that conservatism would find its rebirth in young punk/rock bands. :confused:
Dissonant Cognition
19-07-2006, 01:14
God, not another one of these. Can't the universe do us all a favour and swallow up these whiny little socialist pricks? :rolleyes:

How about addressing his statement(s), instead of resorting to kindergarten-level debating tactics? :)
Potarius
19-07-2006, 01:15
Including some of the ones I like. :p Funny that conservatism would find its rebirth in young punk/rock bands. :confused:

Weird, isn't it? The genre was started as a lust for freedom, and now a good amount of the new bands are against it (let's face it... Social Conservatism and doing whatever you want to do with your own body aren't quite compatible). People are stupid, eh?
Surf Shack
19-07-2006, 01:15
The GOP will do this soon? You consider them centrist?!
Actually, both of our political parties have grown more liberal over time, if you compare them to their original forms. So, by that definition, you COULD claim that the GOP is centrist, and that the rest of the world has simply moved farther left. But that would be sort of silly, so I don't think we'll use that def.:)
Europa Maxima
19-07-2006, 01:18
How about addressing his statement(s), instead of resorting to kindergarten-level debating tactics? :)
Nah, right now I'd just be happy to silence the socialist dogs. <.< I'll get back to actual debating after the vacations. :p
Europa Maxima
19-07-2006, 01:19
Weird, isn't it? The genre was started as a lust for freedom, and now a good amount of the new bands are against it (let's face it... Social Conservatism and doing whatever you want to do with your own body aren't quite compatible). People are stupid, eh?
Well I am happy that a lot of rock nowadays is right-wing, but I'm not a big fan of social conservatism, so in some ways it's a step backwards to me.
Dissonant Cognition
19-07-2006, 01:20
So, by that definition, you COULD claim that the GOP is centrist, and that the rest of the world has simply moved farther left. But that would be sort of silly, so I don't think we'll use that def.:)

Actually, that definition is pretty much the truth. The two party system essentially guarantees that the major parties will tend to gravitate towards the center (edit: in order to maximize electoral gain). Where exactly the "center" lies, however, will depend on the specifics of the given political society. In the United States, the center is well to the right. Compared to what qualifies as a "left-wing" party is most of the world, both the Republican and Democrats are right-wing parties.
Dissonant Cognition
19-07-2006, 01:22
Nah, right now I'd just be happy to silence the socialist dogs. <.< I'll get back to actual debating after the vacations. :p

Even 5 minutes of examination will demonstrate that Carson is not a "socialist" in the way that most (American) Libertarians define "socialist."
Potarius
19-07-2006, 01:24
Well I am happy that a lot of rock nowadays is right-wing, but I'm not a big fan of social conservatism, so in some ways it's a step backwards to me.

My problem is that most economic right-wingers are also right-wing in social respects. That is what pisses me off about the majority.

If they're such "freedom lovers", why all the shit against people being free to do what they want with themselves? It's bullshit.
Europa Maxima
19-07-2006, 01:24
Even 5 minutes of examination will demonstrate the Carson is not a "socialist" in the way that most Libertarians define "socialist."
I know he isn't. His free market comments give that away. However, the brand of libertarianism I ascribe to is linked to Wilhelm Roepke, which has a sort of bias against big business. Not quite up there with the genius of Mises, but he is my favourite of the lot. What annoyed me was how he branded libertarians as vulgar. I dislike socialists (and most non-capitalists) greatly, but I respect their right to their opinion. So the word vulgar was a bit unnecessary.
Europa Maxima
19-07-2006, 01:26
My problem is that most economic right-wingers are also right-wing in social respects. That is what pisses me off about the majority.

If they're such "freedom lovers", why all the shit against people being free to do what they want with themselves? It's bullshit.
It irritates me too. I have conservative social elements to me, but most revolve around preserving cultures and such...not saying who should marry whom and such. :rolleyes: I think a lot of right-wingers lose sight of their goal there. They forget that economic freedom without social freedom is meaningless. Both are worthless without what goes beyond the forces of supply and demand though in my opinion...
Potarius
19-07-2006, 01:29
It irritates me too. I have conservative social elements to me, but most revolve around preserving cultures and such...not saying who should marry whom and such. :rolleyes: I think a lot of right-wingers lose sight of their goal there. They forget that economic freedom without social freedom is meaningless. Both are worthless without what goes beyond the forces of supply and demand though in my opinion...

Agreed. Not really much more to say than that. Now, I could go on and on with a page-filling post describing my philosophy on the matter, but let's not get into that. :p
John Galts Vision
19-07-2006, 01:30
except when they jump ship, which is what got this line of debate started (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11386254&postcount=115).

*snip*




Then their not very libertarian, are they? By that logic, if a liberal becomes a conservative, do you continue to use that person as an example of liberals.
Europa Maxima
19-07-2006, 01:31
Then their not very libertarian, are they? By that logic, if a liberal becomes a conservative, do you continue to use that person as an example of liberals.
One can be a libertarian but foster conservative ideals...for instance, one could be against abortion personally, but because they believe it is not up to them to govern other people's affairs they will be indifferent. Very laissez-faire. However, that doesn't mean they aren't conservative, on an individual level. That does not, however, mean you can lump a libertarian together with a typical conservative...
Dissonant Cognition
19-07-2006, 01:35
Not quite up there with the genius of Mises, but he is my favourite of the lot.


The Austrian School's emphasis on a priori knowledge to the exclusion of empricism is not what I would characterize as "genius."


What annoyed me was how he branded libertarians as vulgar. I dislike socialists (and most non-capitalists) greatly, but I respect their right to their opinion. So the word vulgar was a bit unnecessary.

He didn't brand libertarians as vulgar. He branded some libertarians as vulgar. Mainly, libertarians who appear to support unlibertarian policy/practice. It appears to me that the word "vulgar" simply characterizes this inconsistancy or corruption of an ideology, instead of being intended as simple name-calling.
Europa Maxima
19-07-2006, 01:41
The Austrian School's emphasis on a priori knowledge to the exclusion of empricism is not what I would characterize as "genius."
His works inspired the like of F. A. von Hayek, Milton Friedman, Ayn Rand and my personal favourite, Wilhelm Roepke. A man that influential definitely possesses something special about him. I cannot say I agree with his complete exclusion of empiricism, but it does not render his genius any weaker. Marx's ideas failed on several levels...the man was still a genius though.

He didn't brand libertarians as vulgar. He branded some libertarians as vulgar. Mainly, libertarians who appear to support unlibertarian policy/practice. It appears to me that the word "vulgar" simply characterizes this inconsistancy or corruption of an ideology, instead of being intended as simple name-calling.
Libertarianism, like any ideology, is prone to corruption upon being adopted by the masses. Unfortunately.
Dissonant Cognition
19-07-2006, 01:47
His works inspired ... Milton Friedman, Ayn Rand ...


It is my understanding that the Chicago School places a much greater emphasis on empricism. Ayn Rand, however, completely rejected the idea of a priori knowledge all together; knowledge comes from experience, period.


A man that influential definitely possesses something special about him.


2:00 AM televangelists are highly influential as well, but they aren't exactly special. They just know how to make the sale. :)
John Galts Vision
19-07-2006, 01:49
One can be a libertarian but foster conservative ideals...for instance, one could be against abortion personally, but because they believe it is not up to them to govern other people's affairs they will be indifferent. Very laissez-faire. However, that doesn't mean they aren't conservative, on an individual level. That does not, however, mean you can lump a libertarian together with a typical conservative...

True, you pretty much just summed me up on that issue.

However, authoritarianism almost by definition consists of the projection of views upon others. Someone can have very stringent views within themselves, but this is not authoritarian until they try, via the political process, to enforce those views upon others.

Again, there are authoritarian and laissez-faire policies of both Liberals and Conservatives.
Europa Maxima
19-07-2006, 01:52
It is my understanding that the Chicago School places a much greater emphasis on empricism. Ayn Rand, however, completely rejected the idea of a priori knowledge all together; knowledge comes from experience, period.
I can't say I agree with her either, however. She had some excellent ideas though. Some of which required greater clarification. Whatever the case may be, I am sticking with Roepke. He seems to be the most thoughtful of all the libertarian master-minds, as well as one of the more realistic ones. I'd go with Hans-Hermann Hoppe, if I supported anarcho-capitalism...something I can't say I do.

2:00 AM televangelists are highly influential as well, but they aren't exactly special. They just know how to make the sale. :)
That is an unfair analogy. His ideas, flawed though some of them may be, were the product of in-depth analysis and much reflection. He was right on some things, and wrong on others. So are many others (Plato, for one). That doesn't rob them of the laurel of genius.
Europa Maxima
19-07-2006, 01:55
True, you pretty much just summed me up on that issue.

However, authoritarianism almost by definition consists of the projection of views upon others. Someone can have very stringent views within themselves, but this is not authoritarian until they try, via the political process, to enforce those views upon others.

Again, there are authoritarian and laissez-faire policies of both Liberals and Conservatives.
Precisely. I am not sure the OP referred to genuine libertarians, however. No real libertarian can be an authoritarian in any sense of the word in terms of social conservatism.
Dissonant Cognition
19-07-2006, 02:00
That is an unfair analogy. His ideas, flawed though some of them may be, were the product of in-depth analysis and much reflection. He was right on some things, and wrong on others. So are many others. That doesn't rob them of the laurel of genius.

The point was that genius does not necessarily follow from influence. And at any rate, one can analyze in depth or refect on a given topic a great deal, but it does not really matter much if the end result doesn't actually reflect reality (whether the Austrian School does is not the point; it does not appear to even be concerned with whether it does to being with).
Europa Maxima
19-07-2006, 02:07
The point was that genius does not necessarily follow from influence. And at any rate, one can analyze in depth or refect on a given topic a great deal, but it does not really matter much if the end result doesn't actually reflect reality (whether the Austrian School does is not the point; it does not appear to even be concerned with whether it does to being with).
Many theories attempt to understand reality but fail in so doing. Mises did take economic facts into consideration whilst composing his work, so to say he dismissed reality altogether is incorrect. Human beings are innately fallible. So was he. That said, I am closer to the Chicago school than the Austrian one in some regards.
Free Soviets
19-07-2006, 02:17
Then their not very libertarian, are they?

sure - hence my question
Europa Maxima
19-07-2006, 02:18
sure - hence my question
Out of curiosity, where do you stand economically/politically?
Free Soviets
19-07-2006, 02:37
Which libertarians are you referring to, would-be shock jock?

a whole host of warbloggers, 'liberventionists', and such, for one. and all those 'libertarian' republicans that took up unconditional support for all the fucked up shit the authoritarians decided they wanted.

it's been sort of an on-going scandal within USian libertarian circles.
Europa Maxima
19-07-2006, 02:40
a whole host of warbloggers, 'liberventionists', and such, for one. and all those 'libertarian' republicans that took up unconditional support for all the fucked up shit the authoritarians decided they wanted.

it's been sort of an on-going scandal within USian libertarian circles.
My, how sad. They betray their own ideas. :confused: I have heard libertarians calling for conservatism and libertarianism to align (my personal favourite Hoppe for one), but this is usually on the grounds that conservatism caves in to the latter, not vice-versa, as in libertarians should be conservatives personally but espouse their movement's goals on a political level. Maybe the ones you refer to were never libertarians to begin with...

What is a 'liberventionist' exactly?
Jello Biafra
19-07-2006, 12:11
It irritates me too. I have conservative social elements to me, but most revolve around preserving cultures and such...not saying who should marry whom and such. :rolleyes: How do you preserve cultures without saying who should marry whom?
BogMarsh
19-07-2006, 12:15
How do you preserve cultures without saying who should marry whom?


Financial incentives? 'Dissapearing' partners you don't deem fitting for the person you wish to marry your way? Written Orders?
Jello Biafra
19-07-2006, 12:16
Financial incentives? 'Dissapearing' partners you don't deem fitting for the person you wish to marry your way? Written Orders?I suppose you could do it that way, but a conservative would be unlikely to do things that are so expensive.
BogMarsh
19-07-2006, 12:17
I suppose you could do it that way, but a conservative would be unlikely to do things that are so expensive.


*munches that one over.*

Er - we could like, introduce a Poll Tax to pay for it?

Margaret Thatcher did...
Jello Biafra
19-07-2006, 12:18
*munches that one over.*

Er - we could like, introduce a Poll Tax to pay for it?

Margaret Thatcher did...Ooh, ooh, how about a tax on interbreeding between cultures, should <gasp!> the unthinkable happen?
BogMarsh
19-07-2006, 12:20
Ooh, ooh, how about a tax on interbreeding between cultures, should <gasp!> the unthinkable happen?


*feels discriminated*

Any more of that and I will exercise the Mongol Option!
Jello Biafra
19-07-2006, 12:25
*feels discriminated*

Any more of that and I will exercise the Mongol Option!Tsk tsk. That's what you get for not maintaining my idea of what cultural purity is.
BogMarsh
19-07-2006, 12:27
Tsk tsk. That's what you get for not maintaining my idea of what cultural purity is.

Look, I have been very reasonable,

but you can't very well pretend you belong to a Master Race,

when you don't even use chopsticks!
Jello Biafra
19-07-2006, 12:28
Look, I have been very reasonable,

but you can't very well pretend you belong to a Master Race,

when you don't even use chopsticks!Lol. Ugh, I feel dirty from all this thinking like a conservative I've been doing. I should go volunteer at a homeless shelter or egg a Mercedes till I feel better.
BogMarsh
19-07-2006, 12:32
Lol. Ugh, I feel dirty from all this thinking like a conservative I've been doing. I should go volunteer at a homeless shelter or egg a Mercedes till I feel better.


Good thinking. I'm just right wing enough that I can keep this ... EthnicEthic nonsense ... up for about 5 posts. I need a break too.
Free Soviets
19-07-2006, 17:33
Out of curiosity, where do you stand economically/politically?

i'm over here in libertarian commie land

What is a 'liberventionist' exactly?

a term the lewrockwell and antiwar.com crowds use to describe the group of libertarians that took up whole-hearted advocacy of (certain) imperial adventures.
New Shabaz
19-07-2006, 18:50
Did you read what I wrote about the polar extremes?? I guess not :( So the answere to you question is no. The GOP is pandering to the Christian right and has also abandoned the center but not (yet) to the same degree as the Dems.

The GOP will do this soon? You consider them centrist?!
Jello Biafra
20-07-2006, 12:36
The difference depends on what policies are in place. If libertarian policy were in place, the lower class would gain some leverage in negotiation. It may be slight at first, but as the the lower classes gain a little more financial independence with that initial leverage, they will gain added leverage. It is an upward cycle: more leverage in the labor market, more financial independence, more leverage. As time goes by, workers will have near complete leverage in negotiating their price.I can see how the leverage gained would snowball, but I can't see how they would get the initial leverage unless conditions were so bad that there was a strong tendency to unionize.

I wonder, however, whether capitalism ever allows for complete leverage within the labor force, and whether it actually allows for true equilibrium on labor prices.It's been claimed, but that's about it.
BogMarsh
20-07-2006, 12:40
I can see how the leverage gained would snowball, but I can't see how they would get the initial leverage unless conditions were so bad that there was a strong tendency to unionize.

It's been claimed, but that's about it.


And of course there is absolutely NO WAY that currently strong market actors will use their current strength to entrench themselves for the long term. [/sceptic]

Markets don't function nor come into existence without a great deal government intervention.