NationStates Jolt Archive

1. The Cult of the Superior Man. Both libertarians and fascists think the world is divided into superior and inferior people, ubermenschen and untermenschen, and they both believe that most of the evil in the world comes from inferior people keeping the superior ones down. They both promise to release the best and the brightest from the shackles placed on them by the unworthy - whether the unworthy happen to be the "lazy poor" or "government bureaucrats" or "dirty Jews" or immigrants.

The only difference between libertarians and fascists is that libertarians don't believe (or they say they don't believe) that superior people should enforce their will on inferior people. But this is a thin line, easily crossed. Once you've convinced yourself that you're better than everyone else, it's easy to justify repressing the ignorant masses, for their own good. Which leads us neatly to the second point...


"It would be absurd to appraise a man's worth by the race to which he belongs and at the same time to make war against the Marxist principle, that all men are equal, without being determined to pursue our own principle to its ultimate consequences. If we admit the significance of blood, that is to say, if we recognize the race as the fundamental element on which all life is based, we shall have to apply to the individual the logical consequences of this principle. In general I must estimate the worth of nations differently, on the basis of the different races from which they spring, and I must also differentiate in estimating the worth of the individual within his own race. The principle, that one people is not the same as another, applies also to the individual members of a national community. No one brain, for instance, is equal to another; because the constituent elements belonging to the same blood vary in a thousand subtle details, though they are fundamentally of the same quality."
-- Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", volume II, chapter 4.

"Fascism.. asserts the irremediable and fertile and beneficent inequality of men."
-- The Doctrine of Fascism, authored by Giovanni Gentile, signed by Benito Mussolini

2. Opposition to democracy. Both libertarians and fascists hate democracy because they don't think inferior people should be able to tell superior people what to do. They both hate democracy because democracy gives power to the "unwashed masses" on the assumption that all people are equal. It's important to note, however, that libertarians and fascists are not necessarily hostile to the masses themselves - in fact they are often populist, from Mussolini to Ron Paul. They are only hostile to the idea of equality among the masses, and most of all to the idea of equality between the masses and the elite. Libertarians and fascists often genuinely believe that they are working to help the people, the masses, but they believe that salvation can only come from above, from the elite. Which leads us to the third point...

"Mankind is not a uniform and equal mass. There are differences between races. The Earth has received its culture from elite peoples; what we see today is ultimately the result of the activity and the achievements of the Aryans. Decisive within each race, however, are the personalities it is able to produce. Personalities have created the cultural shape of mankind and not democratic majorities."
-- Adolf Hitler, quoted in "The rise of the Nazis", Conan Fischer. Manchester University Press: New York, 1995. Page 139.

3. Belief in Natural Hierarchy. Libertarians and fascists are elitists, and moreover they believe that elitism and hierarchy are part of the natural order of things. The phrase "rebellion against nature" has been used by libertarians and fascists to describe the political views of their enemies - particularly egalitarian views. Libertarians and fascists don't think their kind of society is the best among a number of competing kinds of viable societies, they believe their kind of society is the ONLY viable, "natural" kind of society. Libertarians and fascists tell the masses that they have to subject themselves to hierarchy for their own good, because hierarchy and inequality is the only way to have a civilized society.

"There are three ways of settling the social question: The privileged class rules the people. The insurgent proletariat exterminates the possessing class. Or else our third formula that gives each man the opportunity to develop himself according to his talents."
-- Adolf Hitler, quoted in "Hitler's Secret Conversations", translated by Norman Cameron and R.H. Stevens. Farrar, Straus and Young: United States, 1953. Page 267.

Those are the fundamental similarities between libertarian and fascist thinking, but there are also many other, less vital parallels:

4. Belief that the unfortunate get what they deserve. If hierarchy is natural, it follows that those at the bottom of the hierarchy are there through their own fault or their own flaws. Libertarians think the poor deserve to be poor. Fascists think oppressed races deserve to be oppressed. Both libertarians and fascists have voiced support for the "IQ and the Wealth of Nations" thesis - the idea that poor countries in Africa and Latin America are poor because their people are stupid.

"It is my firm conviction that property rights... must be unconditionally respected. Any tampering with them would eliminate one of the most vital incentives to human activity and would jeopardise future endeavour."
-- Adolf Hitler, quoted in "Hitler's Secret Conversations", translated by Norman Cameron and R.H. Stevens. Farrar, Straus and Young: United States, 1953. Page 368.

"The individual must be given more latitude and be taught to cultivate a sense of responsibility and a readiness to accept it."
-- Adolf Hitler, quoted in "Hitler's Secret Conversations", translated by Norman Cameron and R.H. Stevens. Farrar, Straus and Young: United States, 1953. Page 536.

It is true that fascists think poor nations are poor primarily for ethnic reasons. But not only for ethnic reasons. Fascists also always made the argument that certain nations - particularly Russia - are poor because of communism:

"Russia could be a land of plenty, but the production of real values is forthwith utterly destroyed by Bolshevism [...] and such production cannot be brought into working order again even after twenty years."
-- Adolf Hitler, quoted in "The Speeches of Adolf Hitler", translated by Norman H. Baynes. Oxford University Press: London, 1942. Page 705.

5. Conspiracy theories. Unlike Marxists, who recognize that different social and economic institutions are appropriate at different stages of history, libertarians and fascists believe that their ideas are always valid, everywhere at all times. The question then arises, if their ideas are so right, and if they've always been right, how come they haven't conquered the world yet? There is only one possible explanation: conspiracy. Libertarians and fascists cannot explain their own failures, so they use all sorts of conspiracy theories to rationalize them. Someone - Jews or evil government bureaucrats - must be conspiring to smear and hide the eternal truth of libertarianism or fascism. New World Order, Federal Reserve controlled by Jews and Communists etc etc.

Right. A conspiracy of Jews is crushing the people in the Nazi case, and a conspiracy of bureaucrats is crushing the people in the libertarian case. The people cannot see their true interests, and it is up to the fascist/libertarian to bring about a glorious rebirth based on old, forgotten values and the practices of the people's heroic ancestors (that's 19th century free marketeers or the "Founding Fathers" for you libertarians, medieval heroes for the fascists). And this is to be done by undemocratic means - because democracy is evil - and against the will of the majority if necessary.

6. The Cult of Righteous Violence. Libertarians and fascists love their guns, and they firmly uphold the use of righteous violence (that's "retaliatory force" in libertarian-speak) against their enemies. They don't see such "righteous violence" as a necessary evil, the way others may view a just war or a revolution. No, they see this violence as a good thing, something to be embraced and celebrated.

Karl would be proud.

Godwin.



You are confusing libertarianism with Objectivism on point one.

Beyond that, Hitler advocated superior human beings based on race, not even Objectivists argue that.

Further, libertarian ideologies propose that men are fundamentally equal in their being, and that they should be equal before the law. In turn men should not be forbidden from achieving the most with their lives, either by the state planner or slave driver.

Finally, Marxism claims to have a full and complete view of history, and the social mechanisms that drive society. A claim that can only be rejected.

Finally, you've expressed plenty of glee at the prospect of tossing a Molotov Cocktail through the windows of those you "deem" capitalist. I daresay righteous violence figures quite nicely into your own ideology. I, for one, abhor force, and view the use of it to be the last possible option.

And a significant number of strawmen, that too.

So people that are 100% oppossed to government intervention in anything, are fascists?

does not compute commrade.

You are generalizing libertarians FAR too much, although there may a tiny bit of truth your statements.

1. The Cult of the Superior Man. Both libertarians and fascists think the world is divided into superior and inferior people, ubermenschen and untermenschen, and they both believe that most of the evil in the world comes from inferior people keeping the superior ones down. They both promise to release the best and the brightest from the shackles placed on them by the unworthy - whether the unworthy happen to be the "lazy poor" or "government bureaucrats" or "dirty Jews" or immigrants.

The only difference between libertarians and fascists is that libertarians don't believe (or they say they don't believe) that superior people should enforce their will on inferior people. But this is a thin line, easily crossed. Once you've convinced yourself that you're better than everyone else, it's easy to justify repressing the ignorant masses, for their own good. Which leads us neatly to the second point...





2. Opposition to democracy. Both libertarians and fascists hate democracy because they don't think inferior people should be able to tell superior people what to do. They both hate democracy because democracy gives power to the "unwashed masses" on the assumption that all people are equal. It's important to note, however, that libertarians and fascists are not necessarily hostile to the masses themselves - in fact they are often populist, from Mussolini to Ron Paul. They are only hostile to the idea of equality among the masses, and most of all to the idea of equality between the masses and the elite. Libertarians and fascists often genuinely believe that they are working to help the people, the masses, but they believe that salvation can only come from above, from the elite. Which leads us to the third point...


3. Belief in Natural Hierarchy. Libertarians and fascists are elitists, and moreover they believe that elitism and hierarchy are part of the natural order of things. The phrase "rebellion against nature" has been used by libertarians and fascists to describe the political views of their enemies - particularly egalitarian views. Libertarians and fascists don't think their kind of society is the best among a number of competing kinds of viable societies, they believe their kind of society is the ONLY viable, "natural" kind of society. Libertarians and fascists tell the masses that they have to subject themselves to hierarchy for their own good, because hierarchy and inequality is the only way to have a civilized society.


Those are the fundamental similarities between libertarian and fascist thinking, but there are also many other, less vital parallels:

4. Belief that the unfortunate get what they deserve. If hierarchy is natural, it follows that those at the bottom of the hierarchy are there through their own fault or their own flaws. Libertarians think the poor deserve to be poor. Fascists think oppressed races deserve to be oppressed. Both libertarians and fascists have voiced support for the "IQ and the Wealth of Nations" thesis - the idea that poor countries in Africa and Latin America are poor because their people are stupid.



It is true that fascists think poor nations are poor primarily for ethnic reasons. But not only for ethnic reasons. Fascists also always made the argument that certain nations - particularly Russia - are poor because of communism:


5. Conspiracy theories. Unlike Marxists, who recognize that different social and economic institutions are appropriate at different stages of history, libertarians and fascists believe that their ideas are always valid, everywhere at all times. The question then arises, if their ideas are so right, and if they've always been right, how come they haven't conquered the world yet? There is only one possible explanation: conspiracy. Libertarians and fascists cannot explain their own failures, so they use all sorts of conspiracy theories to rationalize them. Someone - Jews or evil government bureaucrats - must be conspiring to smear and hide the eternal truth of libertarianism or fascism. New World Order, Federal Reserve controlled by Jews and Communists etc etc.

Right. A conspiracy of Jews is crushing the people in the Nazi case, and a conspiracy of bureaucrats is crushing the people in the libertarian case. The people cannot see their true interests, and it is up to the fascist/libertarian to bring about a glorious rebirth based on old, forgotten values and the practices of the people's heroic ancestors (that's 19th century free marketeers or the "Founding Fathers" for you libertarians, medieval heroes for the fascists). And this is to be done by undemocratic means - because democracy is evil - and against the will of the majority if necessary.

6. The Cult of Righteous Violence. Libertarians and fascists love their guns, and they firmly uphold the use of righteous violence (that's "retaliatory force" in libertarian-speak) against their enemies. They don't see such "righteous violence" as a necessary evil, the way others may view a just war or a revolution. No, they see this violence as a good thing, something to be embraced and celebrated.

This is actually an interesting hypothesis, Andaras. I must concede, you bring up some interesting similarities, which would likely horrify proponents of both compared systems.

However, I would point out certain flaws in your reasoning:

1: Libertarians do not believe in superior or inferior human beings. Basic Libertarian doctrine is that people be allowed to succeed or fail based on their own actions, without interference from organized government - they make no value judgements on those who succeed or fail, acknowledging that the intelligent can still make dumb mistakes, and the stupid can still get lucky. Success and failure are not necessarily due to inherent capacity.

2:I do not disagree.

3: I believe you are overemphasizing the belief in this in the case of Libertatrians. Most L. acknowlege that other governmental forms are effective and efficient - they simply believe that Libertarianism is superior, not the only functional system.

4:Here I must emphatically disagree. Your depiction of Facism - though I should note, primarily NAZIST fascism, as opposed to the Italian, Spanish or Argentinian forms, which had radically differing views on this subject - is reasonably accurate. However, Libertarianism does not accept the arguments you have put forward at all, and rather blames prior economic conditions, government interference and incompetence, and interference by the West and Eastern Bloc for the conditions throughout the "Third World".

5: I have no argument against your hypothesis here.

6: Here, I believe you are making a fundamental error. Libertarian and Fascist positions on violence, and in particular on the possession of the tools of violence, are in fact diametrically opposed.

Libertarianism sees the possession of control (power) over the means of violence to be a guarantor of the freedom of the individual. Individual ownership of the machinery of violence protects freedom by ensuring that should an outside force, whether political/governmental, religious or individual, attempt to impose it's will by violence (which to the libertarian is ANY form of coercion whatsoever), it wll be met by violence, ensuring such coercion to fail.

Fascism sees value only in the power of violence for the state. Use of violence to empower, create, defend and expand the state is good; use of violence against the interests of the state is automatically bad. In particular, the individual is to possess control of the means of violence only when in service to the state, and is forbidden to oppose the desires of that state in any way.

I should like to see your response to this.

Beyond that, Hitler advocated superior human beings based on race, not even Objectivists argue that.

The Jews believe in superior humans based on race ... But no one tells them otherwise.

I disagree strongly with the Libertarian POV, but you provided nothing to back your points up beyond statements from Hitler and Mussolini. Ok, you've shown us Fascism, but you have yet to equate it to Libertarianism beyond your say so (Which given your previous posts has no value).

No, it isn't.

No, it isn't.

Well yeah Libertarianism is Libertarianism.

Communism is a pizza orbiting Jupiter.
The development of Modern Industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable.
— (The Communist Manifesto)

Well yeah Libertarianism is Libertarianism.
Yes, and Fascism is Fascism.

One is the worship of man as a concept, the other is the worship of the state, and all those involved in its upkeep.

Communism is a pizza orbiting Jupiter.

Does it have pepperoni?

This is actually an interesting hypothesis, Andaras. I must concede, you bring up some interesting similarities, which would likely horrify proponents of both compared systems.

However, I would point out certain flaws in your reasoning:

1: Libertarians do not believe in superior or inferior human beings. Basic Libertarian doctrine is that people be allowed to succeed or fail based on their own actions, without interference from organized government - they make no value judgements on those who succeed or fail, acknowledging that the intelligent can still make dumb mistakes, and the stupid can still get lucky. Success and failure are not necessarily due to inherent capacity.

2:I do not disagree.

3: I believe you are overemphasizing the belief in this in the case of Libertatrians. Most L. acknowlege that other governmental forms are effective and efficient - they simply believe that Libertarianism is superior, not the only functional system.

4:Here I must emphatically disagree. Your depiction of Facism - though I should note, primarily NAZIST fascism, as opposed to the Italian, Spanish or Argentinian forms, which had radically differing views on this subject - is reasonably accurate. However, Libertarianism does not accept the arguments you have put forward at all, and rather blames prior economic conditions, government interference and incompetence, and interference by the West and Eastern Bloc for the conditions throughout the "Third World".

5: I have no argument against your hypothesis here.

6: Here, I believe you are making a fundamental error. Libertarian and Fascist positions on violence, and in particular on the possession of the tools of violence, are in fact diametrically opposed.

Libertarianism sees the possession of control (power) over the means of violence to be a guarantor of the freedom of the individual. Individual ownership of the machinery of violence protects freedom by ensuring that should an outside force, whether political/governmental, religious or individual, attempt to impose it's will by violence (which to the libertarian is ANY form of coercion whatsoever), it wll be met by violence, ensuring such coercion to fail.

Fascism sees value only in the power of violence for the state. Use of violence to empower, create, defend and expand the state is good; use of violence against the interests of the state is automatically bad. In particular, the individual is to possess control of the means of violence only when in service to the state, and is forbidden to oppose the desires of that state in any way.

I should like to see your response to this.

Well said. Perhaps I'll start a thread stating how I came to my current libertarianesque viewpoint. Andares: What personal experiences or observations brought you to the Marxist philosophy? I have seen your statements in numerous threads, but I still don't know why you believe what you believe.

Fascism is a state-centered philosophy. Libertarianism is an individualistic philosophy. While you may find tangential philosophical similarities, there are very different premises for the reasoning involved to reach each conclusion.

Does it have pepperoni?

It has what appears to be pepperoni, but it will be a long time before we have the technology to make sending a ship to collect a sample a viable possibility.

It is not pepperoni. The pizza must be plain and universal.

It has what appears to be pepperoni, but it will be a long time before we have the technology to make sending a ship to collect a sample a viable possibility.

That stench, though...it's got to be anchovies.

Enough with the spamjack, folks. Back on topic.

Enough with the spamjack, folks. Back on topic.

Apologies. I'm hungry. *nod*

Apologies. I'm hungry. *nod*


So eat a pie.

Enough with the spamjack, folks. Back on topic.

Sure thing.


The point I was trying to make, in a pizza related fashion, was that Andaras has claimed that libertarianism is fascism and provided some relevant quotes about fascism. Ok, that's about half of a comparison. Fish out some relevant quotes about libertarianism(who is the libertarian equivalent of Hitler, anyway?) and show us how similar they are.

(who is the libertarian equivalent of Hitler, anyway?)
Ayn Rand :p

Ayn Rand :p

Mm - Objectivism isn't the only form of Libertarianism.

Mm - Objectivism isn't the only form of Libertarianism.
And Nazism isn't the only kind of fascism.

And Nazism isn't the only kind of fascism.

Good point.

I find it amusing that the people who object to the fact (that some are indeed superior to others) the loudest, are almost always the inferior.

This is actually an interesting hypothesis, Andaras. I must concede, you bring up some interesting similarities, which would likely horrify proponents of both compared systems.

However, I would point out certain flaws in your reasoning:

1: Libertarians do not believe in superior or inferior human beings. Basic Libertarian doctrine is that people be allowed to succeed or fail based on their own actions, without interference from organized government - they make no value judgements on those who succeed or fail, acknowledging that the intelligent can still make dumb mistakes, and the stupid can still get lucky. Success and failure are not necessarily due to inherent capacity.


Oh really? You don't believe that the world is divided into superior and inferior people? You don't believe that the rich are better and smarter than everyone else, that they are intelligent, honest, creative and hardworking, and that they carry the world on their shoulders only to be hindered by the statist demands of the poor, who are stupid, lazy, dishonest, thieving, uncreative parasites?

Replace "the rich" with "the Germans" and "the poor" with "the Jews" and you'll see where I'm getting at.

Your only defence is going to be "But but... the rich really are superior and the poor really are inferior, while the Germans and the Jews weren't like that at all. We're not like the fascists because we are right and they were wrong." Heh.

It's easy to say "I don't think the world is divided into superior and inferior people." It's not so easy to hide how you feel about specific groups of people, namely the rich and the poor.

Libertarianism sees the possession of control (power) over the means of violence to be a guarantor of the freedom of the individual. Individual ownership of the machinery of violence protects freedom by ensuring that should an outside force, whether political/governmental, religious or individual, attempt to impose it's will by violence (which to the libertarian is ANY form of coercion whatsoever), it wll be met by violence, ensuring such coercion to fail.

Fascism sees value only in the power of violence for the state. Use of violence to empower, create, defend and expand the state is good; use of violence against the interests of the state is automatically bad. In particular, the individual is to possess control of the means of violence only when in service to the state, and is forbidden to oppose the desires of that state in any way.

I should like to see your response to this.
Your idea of fascism seems to be some ridiculous straw man. Fascists and libertarians are very similar in their thinking and their goals; where they differ is only in their means (a bit like the difference between communists and anarchists), and of course in the fact that most libertarians discriminate on a non-racial basis (though there are plenty of racist "white-mans property" libertarians too).

The idea that it is moral for people to receive different rewards in terms of wealth or power for their different levels of talent, ability, and virtue is one of those. It is a defining idea of the political right, and it is reviled by socialists and communists.

Notice the words "it is moral" at the beginning of the idea. Those are important. We on the left may sometimes accept different rewards in terms of wealth or power for different levels of talent, ability, and virtue, but only as a necessary evil. Those of us on the revolutionary left believe there will come a time when this evil will no longer be necessary.

If you believe that different rewards in terms of wealth or power for different people are good and moral, not just a necessary evil, then you are my enemy. In fact I would say that this is the single most important defining characteristic of what I call "the enemy."

The point is that fascists and libertarians often use the same arguments, talk in the same way, and see the world in the same way. In this case, I was showing that they both use arguments based on notions of individual responsibility.

I don't think individual responsibility is bad. I think individual responsibility is morally neutral, and politically irrelevant. I also think that anyone who sees it as a legitimate political issue is morally and politically suspect.

And lastly...

There is no conspiracy of the capitalist elite, which is what libertarians and fascists both claim. The capitalists aren't all working together in a shadowy organization to oppress the proletariat, like the Jews or the bureaucrats are supposed to in fascist or libertarian conspiracy theories. There is no secret capitalist world government, like the Illuminati or the Masons or "international Jewry" or whatever.

Also, "rebirth" is not the same as "revolution." The point is that fascists and libertarians claim to restore former glory, to recreate some golden age of the past (again, this is laissez-faire for libertarians, and the ancien regime for fascists). Communists make no such claim, and those semi-communists that try to - such as those calling for the restoration of the Soviet Union - usually end up sliding into fascism (*cough* National Bolsheviks *cough*).

Oh, and no communist wants to carry out a revolution against the will of a majority of the population. In fact, such a revolution is impossible. While the majority doesn't have to be actively involved or fighting in the revolution, they have to be at least broadly sympathetic to it.

And before anyone gets onto the fact that libertarians claim to be socially-progressive, libertarianism does not grant any social freedoms at all, because libertarians believe that all property should be private and that the owners should be able to discriminate or limit any social freedoms as they see fit on their property. In fact you'll often see libertarians defending the right for a shopowner not to serve immigrants or even people of color, 'because it's his property'...

So, in fact, the level of social freedom in libertarianism is whatever the major landowners want it to be.

It's easy to say "I don't think the world is divided into superior and inferior people." It's not so easy to hide how you feel about specific groups of people, namely the rich and the poor.
Unlike building up wealth, you cannot change your race by hard effort and often some sacrifice.

Hence why I view all races as equal, but do have a bias towards thinking that rich people have more acumen and are largely more intelligent than the poor.

1: Libertarians do not believe in superior or inferior human beings.

Oh really? You don't believe that the world is divided into superior and inferior people?

So if I ask you if you rape 6 year old girls, and you say you don't, can I take that to mean you do?

Or, in other words, he already answered your question, so show some intellectual honesty and respect that.

Unlike building up wealth, you cannot change your race by hard effort and often some sacrifice.

Hence why I view all races as equal, but do have a bias towards thinking that rich people have more acumen and are largely more intelligent than the poor.

Social mobility is something of a bourgeois myth I would contend, yes it's possible for some people to enter the bourgeois from humble beginnings, but the very structure of the pyramid capitalist society means only a tiny amount ever will, so the 'dream' of wealth is just that, a dream.

So eat a pie.

http://www.abestweb.com/smilies/eek3.gif

Social mobility is something of a bourgeois myth I would contend, yes it's possible for some people to enter the bourgeois from humble beginnings, but the very structure of the pyramid capitalist society means only a tiny amount ever will, so the 'dream' of wealth is just that, a dream.
A dream my family has realised. Happy days, to be honest.

A dream my family has realised. Happy days, to be honest.
So now your doing well at the behest of the exploitation of others and your happy about it? You know Yootopia I think you maybe clinically psychopathic, but then again libertarianism does take a great amount of amorality to accept.

1. The Cult of the Superior Man. Both libertarians and fascists think the world is divided into superior and inferior people, ubermenschen and untermenschen, and they both believe that most of the evil in the world comes from inferior people keeping the superior ones down. They both promise to release the best and the brightest from the shackles placed on them by the unworthy - whether the unworthy happen to be the "lazy poor" or "government bureaucrats" or "dirty Jews" or immigrants.

Are you saying you don't believe the world is divided into superior and inferior?

The proletariat and the bourgeois?

People who believe in your Stalinistic ideology, people who don't?

How many posts have I seen you make defending Stalinism, and you refer to the "dirty Kulaks" who apparently deserved to be mass murdered?

Sorry Andy, but you're a hypocrite even if your completely unsupported point about Libertarians being racist Nazis had any merit at all. And it doesn't. Your point is only - yet again - to smear anyone and everyone who disagrees with your radical pro-Stalin trolling point (that is, everyone in the civilized world). It's not worth shit.


6. The Cult of Righteous Violence. Libertarians and fascists love their guns, and they firmly uphold the use of righteous violence (that's "retaliatory force" in libertarian-speak) against their enemies. They don't see such "righteous violence" as a necessary evil, the way others may view a just war or a revolution. No, they see this violence as a good thing, something to be embraced and celebrated.

Maybe if you hadn't already made the mistake of telling everyone what your position on Joseph Stalin - incidentally the most prolific mass murder AND the biggest fascist dictator in all history - then one could take 'point's like this somewhat seriously.

But no. You yourself have NO PROBLEM with violence, you have no problem with mass murder and genocide as long as you can justify it with your Stalinistic propaganda. (Which, of course, you can. To yourself, anyway.)

Your disgusting hypocrisy deserves nothing but scorn.

snip.

No, because people are divided by property, that is not an assertion that is a reality which you can confirm by looking at the world.

Libertarian fascists, on the other hand, replace an objective study with conspiracy theory.

Once again Trostia I feel your overwhelming hate and irrationality boiling over into your posts.

Also, Stalin 'murdered' no one, not unless you think that peasants defending themselves from fascist Kulaks were were enslaving them and their families, is bad.

A dream my family has realised. Happy days, to be honest.
are you a libertarian?

No, because people are divided by property, that is not an assertion that is a reality which you can confirm by looking at the world.

In other words, you do believe in superior vs inferior people, but you believe you're RIGHT to believe so.

You don't care about the superior/inferior dichotomy, you just care about WHICH dichotomy.

Libertarian fascists, on the other hand, replace an objective study with conspiracy theory.

See above.

Once again Trostia I feel your overwhelming hate and irrationality boiling over into your posts.

You "feel" my irrationality? That's nice. I've *rationally demonstrated* your own.

And for the record - yes. I do hate Stalinists and anyone who defends Holocausts, mass murder and genocide.

Your heroes ARE fascists, and here you have the temerity to baldly proclaim - with no evidence at all - that oh no, it's libertarians who are fascistic.

Last I saw, there's one of us here who supports a fascist dictator. Stalin.

And it ain't me.

You go ahead and continue blathering about your "feelings." I'll continue calling you on your blatant trolling bullshit.

Also, Stalin 'murdered' no one, not unless you think that peasants defending themselves from fascist Kulaks were were enslaving them and their families, is bad.

Well, there you have it folks. The millions of victims of Stalin's murders deserved it. They were "fascist Kulaks." Inferior and worthy of death. Sub-human, one might say - killing them doesn't even count as murder. Guess only humans can be murdered.

It's so nice when you prove my point for me.

In other words, you do believe in superior vs inferior people, but you believe you're RIGHT to believe so.

No, I don't believe in superior and inferior people, I believe that one class of people exploits another, that is reality, not assertion.

Well, there you have it folks. The millions of victims of Stalin's murders deserved it. They were "fascist Kulaks." Inferior and worthy of death. Sub-human, one might say - killing them doesn't even count as murder. Guess only humans can be murdered.

It's so nice when you prove my point for me.
Self-defense is a bad thing, it was a civil war in the Ukraine, a class war, it was kill or be killed for the peasants, and Stalin had little control of what was happening, although on this point I agree that the peasants had little choice but to defend themselves.

And no also, I don't think the kulaks were 'sub-human', I think of them purely in terms of a social class, in this case a a class of usurers among the peasants(kulakov), a class of people who buy up and rent the lands of peasants and nobles.

You are confusing libertarianism with Objectivism on point one.
Not to mention that the superiority of an objectivist is a matter of attitude and lifestyle rather than of any inherent or inherited race, class or other origin. Anyone can be an objectivist hero, because the things objectivists see as great and worthy of reward are things that are connected with the human mind.

A Jew might well be considered irredeemable by a Nazi, regardless of his or her actions. But while an objectivist might think that a socialist who has used violence against others to impose his or her values deserves punishment, that doesn't mean that he or she isn't redeemable.

No, I don't believe in superior and inferior people, I believe that one class of people exploits another, that is reality, not assertion.

Yeah, and I don't believe in untermenschen either, but you're not going to accept that. You foolishly set yourself up so that your whole point depends on what people like ME believe. I can contradict you just by being honest about my beliefs.

Your only possible defense is to ignore it, dismiss it, and assume we're all lying (as you have been in this thread).

Yeah, and I don't believe in untermenschen either, but you're not going to accept that. You foolishly set yourself up so that your whole point depends on what people like ME believe. I can contradict you just by being honest about my beliefs.

Your only possible defense is to ignore it, dismiss it, and assume we're all lying (as you have been in this thread).
Anyone who holds that the current social class order does not exist except for the exploitation of the proletariat by the bourgeois must then ultimately hold that the social hierarchy does not because of exploitation save that all men are inherently unequal, whether on genetic predetermination (for fascists), 'culture' (for conservatives) or 'natural talent and success' for libertarianism.

Anyone who holds that the current social class order does not exist except for the exploitation of the proletariat by the bourgeois must then ultimately hold that the social hierarchy does not because of exploitation save that all men are inherently unequal, whether on genetic predetermination (for fascists), 'culture' (for conservatives) or 'natural talent and success' for libertarianism.

Untrue, but hey - you're on a roll for saying really fucked-up shit, why stop now?

That I believe in something called "natural talent and success" doesn't mean anything about whether I believe people are SUPERIOR and INFERIOR, and it certainly has nothing to do with your accusations of racism. Some people ARE talented. I'm almost certainly better at playing the piano than you are. That doesn't mean you are an inferior sub-human or that I think you are.

Try again, this time with less stupid.

I see libertarianism/fascism as little but an intellectual attempt to justify class oppression by denying it's existance and blaming it on various scapegoats (Jews and various inferior races, government bureaucrats, big shadowy finance corporations, welfare dependents, 'untalented' and 'unsuccessful' people etc)

I see libertarianism/fascism as little but an intellectual attempt to justify class oppression by denying it's existance and blaming it on various scapegoats (Jews, government bureaucrats, big shadowy finance corporations.)

Yes. Clearly that's how you see libertarianism.

Are we done here?

Yes. Clearly that's how you see libertarianism.

Are we done here?

I think it's clear enough, save that you are in denial.

Yes, we are done.

Some people ARE talented.
On what basis, genetic?

All people have equal potential (barring brain injury), save that some are robbed of that potential by an economic environment which favors the few over the many.

I think it's clear enough, save that you are in denial.

Oh, I don't think that part's clear at all. Based as it is on nothing.

What is clear, however, is this thread is yet another example of you ranting about your own personal skewed philosophy which no one, not even communists, agrees with. You fail to make your points stick and when confronted, you babble propaganda and dismiss everyone as being "bourgeois" or lying or "in denial."

That was my point. This thread has been reduced to Andaras' Pro-Stalin Emo Blog. Fascinating insight into your personal world-view, but not much to do with reality or rationality or anything like that.

BAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
On the contrary, it seems it is me who has made the point, and answered all criticism in an adequate way. It is you and others who have sadly revert to trolling, personal attacks and general embittered rambling to try and make your point.

It is not my problem your thought are mired in false consciousness to private property, it must be your own choice to engage in self-criticism and realize that your ideas are not original, not profound, it must be your own choice to give up your arrogant idealism.

You post this as if Fascism is a bad thing.

You all are secretly Fascistic in some sense. There is a group of people whom your subconscious hates, though your conscious may have you believing otherwise.

You all dislike someone, unless you have had no social contact (Which is impossible, internet communication counts as social contact) at all.

Democracy is by all means a watered down form of Anarchy, ripe with more bribery and instability than any Fascist nation that has existed within the last 200 years. Every time a new leader has to be chosen, the people naturally divide themselves from each other. Obama supporters tend to like Mccain supporters less, and vice versa. When one side wins, the other side may end up seperating from the rest of the nation, and civil war ensues. The American Civil War is an example of this. When a nation changes their leader every 4 or 8 years, the elected politician often rapes the nation's policies. This is unstability in every form possible.

Also, violence is not something Fascists strive for. Just because we want guns doesn't mean we want to rape your daughter and hang your newborn baby from a ceiling fan before putting out both of your kneecaps and drowning you.

The Jews believe in superior humans based on race ... But no one tells them otherwise.

What do the Jews have to do with anything?

There is a group of people whom your subconscious hates, though your conscious may have you believing otherwise.


Yeah, fascists.

On the contrary, it seems it is me who has made the point, and answered all criticism in an adequate way. It is you and others who have sadly revert to trolling, personal attacks and general embittered rambling to try and make your point.


You've made your point? To whom? Who agrees with you? Anyone?

Dismissal, accusations of lies and more unsupported claims is not answering anything in an "adequate way."

Pointing out your own posts and using them against you is not a "personal attack."


It is not my problem your thought are mired in false consciousness to private property

You're not even making sense here.

it must be your own choice to engage in self-criticism and realize that your ideas are not original, not profound, it must be your own choice to give up your arrogant idealism.

I never said my ideas were original or profound.

Yes, I am arrogant.

Yes, I am idealistic.

So what? I've also ripped your arguments to shreds. That for me is enough. :)

Have a nice day kid.

I see libertarianism/fascism as little but an intellectual attempt to justify class oppression by denying it's existance and blaming it on various scapegoats (Jews and various inferior races, government bureaucrats, big shadowy finance corporations, welfare dependents, 'untalented' and 'unsuccessful' people etc)

What you've done here is create a significant strawman.

it must be your own choice to engage in self-criticism and realize that your ideas are not original, not profound, it must be your own choice to give up your arrogant idealism.

This coming from someone whose main political philosophy came out of 19th century Russia and hasn't evolved since?

Oh really? You don't believe that the world is divided into superior and inferior people? You don't believe that the rich are better and smarter than everyone else, that they are intelligent, honest, creative and hardworking, and that they carry the world on their shoulders only to be hindered by the statist demands of the poor, who are stupid, lazy, dishonest, thieving, uncreative parasites?


As a libertarian I would say that the CHOICES made by those who are rich are superior to the CHOICES made by those who are poor and unsuccessful, that is why things are the way they are.

At least in a fair and equitable democracy (that everyone gets to vote in) like the one currently in place in America.

It is not my problem your thought are mired in false consciousness to private property, it must be your own choice to engage in self-criticism and realize that your ideas are not original, not profound, it must be your own choice to give up your arrogant idealism.

Self-criticism? The ideology you've thrown yourself behind is one that's notoriously poor at being able to take any criticism, whatsoever. The claims to having gained access to the objective truth that predominated in the USSR under the reign of Dzugashvili were startling in their totality.

Even reaching into the realm of science, Russian biology was set back decades because of the rigid adherence to the views of Lysenko. Lysenko gained the approval of Stalin, and used his influence to literally kill off his rivals...incidentally, those rivals were the ones who supported the correct theories of Mendelian genetics. Even decades after the death of Stalin, Soviet biologists were required to pay homage to Lysenko, even when Western Biology had showed beyond a shadow of a doubt that Lysenko was wrong. I daresay that that's a perfect example of a lack of self-criticism.

Self-criticism? The ideology you've thrown yourself behind is one that's notoriously poor at being able to take any criticism, whatsoever. The claims to having gained access to the objective truth that predominated in the USSR under the reign of Dzugashvili were startling in their totality.

Even reaching into the realm of science, Russian biology was set back decades because of the rigid adherence to the views of Lysenko. Lysenko gained the approval of Stalin, and used his influence to literally kill off his rivals...incidentally, those rivals were the ones who supported the correct theories of Mendelian genetics. Even decades after the death of Stalin, Soviet biologists were required to pay homage to Lysenko, even when Western Biology had showed beyond a shadow of a doubt that Lysenko was wrong. I daresay that that's a perfect example of a lack of self-criticism.


QTF wish I would have said it myself:hail:

You post this as if Fascism is a bad thing.

I guess that might be because of Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, the Axis, mass murder, genocide, injustice and oppression.

Which we tend to view as also bad things.

You all are secretly Fascistic in some sense. There is a group of people whom your subconscious hates, though your conscious may have you believing otherwise.

If by "some sense" you mean none at all, you're right. Even if your point - which is unfalsifiable, unless you've developed magic telepathy powers - was correct, that doesn't translate to fascism.

You all dislike someone, unless you have had no social contact (Which is impossible, internet communication counts as social contact) at all.


Yeah, see, fascism is not "disliking someone." Do you really think that's what fascism is? Dislike?

Democracy is by all means a watered down form of Anarchy, ripe with more bribery and instability than any Fascist nation that has existed within the last 200 years.

More instability? Well. The US has lasted over 200 years. How long did Mussolini's Italy or Hitler's Germany survive again?

You could describe any government as a "watered down form of anarchy."
Interesting and colorful term but meaningless.

If it's a form of government, it's not anarchy, by definition.

Every time a new leader has to be chosen, the people naturally divide themselves from each other. Obama supporters tend to like Mccain supporters less, and vice versa. When one side wins, the other side may end up seperating from the rest of the nation, and civil war ensues. The American Civil War is an example of this.

So your contention is the ACW was caused by the South disagreeing with Lincoln's election?

Really?

When a nation changes their leader every 4 or 8 years, the elected politician often rapes the nation's policies. This is unstability in every form possible.

It leads to an inconsistent policy, but that doesn't translate to anarchism. Or fascism...

Also, violence is not something Fascists strive for.

Yeah, 60 million dead people in WWII might disagree with you, if they could.

Maybe you personally don't strive for violence, but you don't seem to know what fascism even is, so it's hard to take you as a better example of fascism than, say, Mussolini.

Just because we want guns doesn't mean we want to rape your daughter and hang your newborn baby from a ceiling fan before putting out both of your kneecaps and drowning you.

Just because you want guns doesn't make you a fascist.

Oh really? You don't believe that the world is divided into superior and inferior people? You don't believe that the rich are better and smarter than everyone else, that they are intelligent, honest, creative and hardworking, and that they carry the world on their shoulders only to be hindered by the statist demands of the poor, who are stupid, lazy, dishonest, thieving, uncreative parasites?

Replace "the rich" with "the Germans" and "the poor" with "the Jews" and you'll see where I'm getting at.

This has nothing to do with my beliefs; I'm a conservative pro-democracy capitalist. Having studied Libertarianism (and realised it's actually a bad fantasy scenario) I can answer that LIbertarianism does not make value judgements about individuals. Fascism does; Nazi race theories are the most obvious form, but all Fascism, as all Communism, requires an enemy in order to blind the populace to the reality of their plight.

Your only defence is going to be "But but... the rich really are superior and the poor really are inferior, while the Germans and the Jews weren't like that at all. We're not like the fascists because we are right and they were wrong." Heh.

No. Superiority or inferiority of human beings is a fallacy of the stupid.

It's easy to say "I don't think the world is divided into superior and inferior people." It's not so easy to hide how you feel about specific groups of people, namely the rich and the poor.

Groups of people - classes, divisions, tribes - are ultimately hollow and unhelpful distinctions. I take people as I find them.


Your idea of fascism seems to be some ridiculous straw man. Fascists and libertarians are very similar in their thinking and their goals; where they differ is only in their means (a bit like the difference between communists and anarchists), and of course in the fact that most libertarians discriminate on a non-racial basis (though there are plenty of racist "white-mans property" libertarians too).

This is nonsensical in the face of stated Libertarian intentions and purposes. Libertarianism is the concept of lack of coercion and the maintenance of that condition; and specifically that application of that concept to all persons, that they should be able to act and work as they choose. There is simply no point to discrimination under a Libertarian system; the system itself is unsupportive of the concept.

As to my depiction of the Fascist system, I only note what they have actually done while in power. Given the lack of a codified fascist handbook (unlike, say, The Wealth of Nations or The Communist Manifesto) we can only go by what they have actually done - and I have portrayed that accurately.

The idea that it is moral for people to receive different rewards in terms of wealth or power for their different levels of talent, ability, and virtue is one of those. It is a defining idea of the political right, and it is reviled by socialists and communists.

Notice the words "it is moral" at the beginning of the idea. Those are important. We on the left may sometimes accept different rewards in terms of wealth or power for different levels of talent, ability, and virtue, but only as a necessary evil. Those of us on the revolutionary left believe there will come a time when this evil will no longer be necessary.

If you believe that different rewards in terms of wealth or power for different people are good and moral, not just a necessary evil, then you are my enemy. In fact I would say that this is the single most important defining characteristic of what I call "the enemy."

Then I am likely not your enemy. I do not see the concept as good or bad; I do not see it as a moral choice.

Necessity goes beyond the moral. In order for humans to be appropriately motivated to do their best and improve both themselves and their world around them, there must be some system of reward. This need not be tangible; in the feudal era, many peoples were motivated by religious zeal and belief in the reward of a happy afterlife (this is what Marx meant by "the Opiate of the People". Communists have ever since been making the fallacy of assuming Communism is Atheistic, when neither Marx nor Engels spoke strongly against Religion as a concept, but merely it's misuse as a controller of the populace. But I digress.)

Without a reward system of some type, labour degrades into what is best described by a worker in the old Soviet Union shortly before it chose to cease to exist: "We pretend to work, and the Government pretends to pay us."

The point is that fascists and libertarians often use the same arguments, talk in the same way, and see the world in the same way. In this case, I was showing that they both use arguments based on notions of individual responsibility.

I don't think individual responsibility is bad. I think individual responsibility is morally neutral, and politically irrelevant. I also think that anyone who sees it as a legitimate political issue is morally and politically suspect.

Well, this is a strange thing for you to say. Is not individual responsibility one of the cornerstones of Communist economic theory? Each person is responsible for doing everything they can for the whole, the State. Likewise, each person is responsible for taking only what they need from the state coffers, and leaving more than enough for everyone else.

Fascism, on the other hand, has no place for individual responsibility. Control by the state of all important means of production through extreme regulation, and control of needs and wants through propaganda and manipulation of the populace are hallmarks of the fascist system.

Libertarianism requires only individual responsibility to the individual. In a very real way, in thsi form, Libertarianism lies halfway between the two extremes.

And lastly...

There is no conspiracy of the capitalist elite, which is what libertarians and fascists both claim. The capitalists aren't all working together in a shadowy organization to oppress the proletariat, like the Jews or the bureaucrats are supposed to in fascist or libertarian conspiracy theories. There is no secret capitalist world government, like the Illuminati or the Masons or "international Jewry" or whatever.

Absolutely true.

Also, "rebirth" is not the same as "revolution." The point is that fascists and libertarians claim to restore former glory, to recreate some golden age of the past (again, this is laissez-faire for libertarians, and the ancien regime for fascists). Communists make no such claim, and those semi-communists that try to - such as those calling for the restoration of the Soviet Union - usually end up sliding into fascism (*cough* National Bolsheviks *cough*).

I have no argument here.

Oh, and no communist wants to carry out a revolution against the will of a majority of the population. In fact, such a revolution is impossible. While the majority doesn't have to be actively involved or fighting in the revolution, they have to be at least broadly sympathetic to it.

Undobtedly true. Though some of your fellow communists are not as reasonable about this as you are.

And before anyone gets onto the fact that libertarians claim to be socially-progressive, libertarianism does not grant any social freedoms at all, because libertarians believe that all property should be private and that the owners should be able to discriminate or limit any social freedoms as they see fit on their property. In fact you'll often see libertarians defending the right for a shopowner not to serve immigrants or even people of color, 'because it's his property'...

So, in fact, the level of social freedom in libertarianism is whatever the major landowners want it to be.

You have quite effectively put your finger on one of the (numerous) problems of Libertarianism.

1. The Cult of the Superior Man. Both libertarians and fascists think the world is divided into superior and inferior people, ubermenschen and untermenschen, and they both believe that most of the evil in the world comes from inferior people keeping the superior ones down. They both promise to release the best and the brightest from the shackles placed on them by the unworthy - whether the unworthy happen to be the "lazy poor" or "government bureaucrats" or "dirty Jews" or immigrants.


Why must everyone abuse Nietzsche? Is it cause it was so awesome he lost his mind?

I guess that might be because of Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, the Axis, mass murder, genocide, injustice and oppression.

Which we tend to view as also bad things.



Stalin wasn't a Fascist. He was a communist. Hitler and Mussolini are the Axis, minus Hirohito, who wasn't a Fascist. Mass Murder and Genocide are also the same thing.

By the way, Communism isn't nearly as "Evil" as Fascism to most people, when Stalin killed approximately 30 million people. Lenin also starved millions intentionally, and Mao killed many more. Hitler killed 12 million people in his Holocaust. By the way, not all Fascists are Hitlerists.

Franco was a fascist, and he didn't commit genocide.



If by "some sense" you mean none at all, you're right. Even if your point - which is unfalsifiable, unless you've developed magic telepathy powers - was correct, that doesn't translate to fascism.



You hate someone. It's impossible not to, unless you've lived a completely sheltered life where you don't communicate with anyone besides those who pamper you. Which you haven't.


Yeah, see, fascism is not "disliking someone." Do you really think that's what fascism is? Dislike?


No. Gentler words simply prevent people from obsessing over my choice of wording. Apparantly, that didn't work.


More instability? Well. The US has lasted over 200 years. How long did Mussolini's Italy or Hitler's Germany survive again?

You could describe any government as a "watered down form of anarchy."
Interesting and colorful term but meaningless.

If it's a form of government, it's not anarchy, by definition.



The U.S. has been protected by large oceans for its entire existence. It also wasn't the victim of a massive invasion, now was it? Had the Nazis invaded Britain instead of the Soviet Union when they did, they most likely would still be around. The fall of Italy and Germany was caused by foreigners, not by internal problems.


So your contention is the ACW was caused by the South disagreeing with Lincoln's election?

Really?


If the US had been ruled by a Federalist line of dictators, I don't believe that the Civil War would've happened. Slavery was legal until Abraham Lincoln came around.


It leads to an inconsistent policy, but that doesn't translate to anarchism. Or fascism...


Anarchists claim that they want each person to rule themselves as they want. Democracy is the idea that the people rules themselves, and the government serves them and protects them. Technically, it's supposed to be like Anarchy with manservants.


Yeah, 60 million dead people in WWII might disagree with you, if they could.


Only 12 million people AT MOST were killed in Hitler's Holocaust. The Soviet Union killed about 30 million people. Let's not forget the Purges.

The rest of the people who died were simply casualties of war, not Holocaust victims.

We aren't obsessed with violence. We simply must do what we can to eliminate whoever it is bogging society down, and violence is the easiest way.


Maybe you personally don't strive for violence, but you don't seem to know what fascism even is, so it's hard to take you as a better example of fascism than, say, Mussolini.


And you've actually spoken with Mussolini, I suppose?

Do you really think anyone likes to risk losing their nation to a bunch of hypertolerant people who are led by someone who cares about nothing except their public image?


Just because you want guns doesn't make you a fascist.

That was my response to the OP's "Fascists and Libertarians love their guns" line. Obviously, wanting guns doesn't make someone a Fascist.

From the libertarians that I know, in as much as they like to claim that they don't make value judgments, they are also the one who are quick to blame someone for what they get. They also tend to accept Social Darwinism.

Removing the power of government simply means leaving any other power completely unchecked. Sure technically things are equal "under the law" when you take out law entirely. Doesn't mean people will be in any shape or form more free. It just means they will be oppressed by the new laws enforced by the new power, which would most likely be from the employers. It will result in something like the Stanford University Prison Experiment where the privileged continues to be privileged while the underprivileged continues to blame each other for things that's happening around them.

more information on the experiment is located at.
http://www.prisonexp.org/

Imagine what will happen if there isn't a experimenter to pull the plug and just let this self perpetrating system of oppression continue. This seems to fit the libertarian mentality pretty well.

So, regardless of rather or not libertarians are consciously admitting that they are supporting a superiority/inferiority system, their hindsight bias are surely quick in place blames.

Stalin wasn't a Fascist. He was a communist.


Fine. A communist dictator with fascistic policies.

By the way, Communism isn't nearly as "Evil" as Fascism to most people, when Stalin killed approximately 30 million people. Lenin also starved millions intentionally, and Mao killed many more. Hitler killed 12 million people in his Holocaust.

I don't care much for pissing contests about which is more evil. There's a point where it's all evil and doesn't become qualitatively different just because a higher body count is involved. Evil comes in all sizes.


You hate someone. It's impossible not to

Nonsense. Again, your point depends on these types of unfounded accusations which you cannot possibly prove, again unless you have magic telepathy powers you'd like to show.

, unless you've lived a completely sheltered life where you don't communicate with anyone besides those who pamper you. Which you haven't.


Hating doesn't logically flow from living life.

Even if it did, fascism is a bit more than that anyway.

No. Gentler words simply prevent people from obsessing over my choice of wording. Apparantly, that didn't work.

Why don't you quit dithering and define what you think fascism is.


The U.S. has been protected by large oceans for its entire existence.

Irrelevant. You said fascist states were more stable than democratic ones.

They aren't. Not even close.

It also wasn't the victim of a massive invasion, now was it?

Gosh, why would that be? Could it be because fascist, racist, nationalist ideology doesn't tend to make democratic states try to conquer the world by force, leading to their inevitable and righteous smack-down?


If the US had been ruled by a Federalist line of dictators, I don't believe that the Civil War would've happened.

That isn't answering the question.

Anarchists claim that they want each person to rule themselves as they want. Democracy is the idea that the people rules themselves, and the government serves them and protects them. Technically, it's supposed to be like Anarchy with manservants.

Yeah, if we accept the anarchists definition of anarchism. I don't, because for the most part, anarchists are just as irrational and deluded as some others I won't name.

Only 12 million people AT MOST were killed in Hitler's Holocaust. The Soviet Union killed about 30 million people. Let's not forget the Purges.

The rest of the people who died were simply casualties of war, not Holocaust victims.

A war begun by which type of nation-state? Democratic? Oh, no. Fascist. Right.

And you've actually spoken with Mussolini, I suppose?

I don't need to speak with Mussolini to know he's an example of a fascist leader, while you are someone who is apparently very confused as to what fascism is. I don't need to speak with Mussolini to know that he is and always will be a major representative of his ideology, compared to some guy on the internet who thinks that hate = fascism.

Do you really think anyone likes to risk losing their nation to a bunch of hypertolerant people who are led by someone who cares about nothing except their public image?


...wtf?


That was my response to the OP's "Fascists and Libertarians love their guns" line. Obviously, wanting guns doesn't make someone a Fascist.

So why are you taking it up as if it was an actually good point?

I know it's probably just me pouting about being ignored, but why is it that every single time I have brought up the case of Trofim Lysenko, Andaras flees off to Christ knows where?

Fine. A communist dictator with fascistic policies.


Any claim that Stalin is a Fascist is by far the most ridiculous thing about politics I've heard.


I don't care much for pissing contests about which is more evil. There's a point where it's all evil and doesn't become qualitatively different just because a higher body count is involved. Evil comes in all sizes.

Oh, but you Lefties always view the Soviet Union as a lesser evil than Nazi Germany. Same with alot of minor Right-wingers.


Nonsense. Again, your point depends on these types of unfounded accusations which you cannot possibly prove, again unless you have magic telepathy powers you'd like to show.


Hate is a natural form of intense anger expressed towards an entity. I have not heard of or met someone who hasn't felt intense anger towards another human.


Hating doesn't logically flow from living life.


This is essentially a re-wording of your last point, no?

Whether or not we hate something is aside from the point. Either way, you are in denial of wishing a group of people harm.


Why don't you quit dithering and define what you think fascism is.


Fascism is the practice of a totalitarian government in which they enact policies to cause the destruction of a group which is deemed inferior and detrimental to the advancement of a nation. The government goes out of it's way to make life inconvienient for a certain group, be it by basic discrimination (Jim Crow type of laws) or full-fledged Genocide, the government does something that heavily effects a group of people in a negative fashion.


Irrelevant. You said fascist states were more stable than democratic ones. They aren't. Not even close.


That point was merely to support the one that came immediately afterwards.


Gosh, why would that be? Could it be because fascist, racist, nationalist ideology doesn't tend to make democratic states try to conquer the world by force, leading to their inevitable and righteous smack-down?

Do you know how many times over the United States would have been invaded if it didn't have the world's most advanced military and an ocean between it and any other nation that could challenge it? It wouldn't even had existed if the British didn't have to cross the Atlantic during the Revoloutionary War, and during the War of 1812, the British once again had to cross that ocean.

The world should be united under one nation, but there are groups preventing that, and those groups must be destroyed. Obviously, I don't want to get banned by moderators picking sides, so I won't explain which groups need to be dealt with.



That isn't answering the question.


I am claiming that Lincoln announced his anti-slavery stance before his election, and when he was finally elected, the South was quickly angered that an anti-slavery president had been elected. It wasn't the final push into the ACW, but it sure as hell was a major one.


Yeah, if we accept the anarchists definition of anarchism. I don't, because for the most part, anarchists are just as irrational and deluded as some others (You're meaning Fascists. I can see right through your attempt at hiding a flamebait.) I won't name.

That was ridiculous. Completely. I don't even understand how you could have came up with that.



A war begun by which type of nation-state? Democratic? Oh, no. Fascist. Right.


Britain had the choice to stay out of the war. Believe it or not, Hitler actually didn't want to invade Britain, but they were hostile towards Germany, so that kind of gave them no choice.

As for the United States going against Germany, Germany was simply defending an ally. That ally, who wasn't a Fascist, was the one who got the US involved.


I don't need to speak with Mussolini to know he's an example of a fascist leader, while you are someone who is apparently very confused as to what fascism is. I don't need to speak with Mussolini to know that he is and always will be a major representative of his ideology, compared to some guy on the internet who thinks that hate = fascism.

But you're claiming that he automatically loves violence, which he never said.


...wtf?

Put some thought into it. Then respond.




So why are you taking it up as if it was an actually good point?

I was under the impression that the OP was saying that everyone who wants guns is automatically a violence lover.

Trostia, to me, you're nothing but another cookie-cutter Liberal who believes everything leftists throw at them, and is under the common thought that "OMG FASCISTS ARE THE NATZEES WE MUST STOP THEM THEY ARE EBIL!111!1!!!11"

Who is to determine what's humane, and what's not?

I refuse to participate any further with such a bunch of brainwashed bourgeois individuals.

I refuse to participate any further with such a bunch of brainwashed bourgeois individuals.
Does that mean you're finally going to go away and never come back? *Ohpleasepleasepleasepleaseplease*

I refuse to participate any further with such a bunch of brainwashed bourgeois individuals.

So much for introspection and self-criticism.

I refuse to participate any further with such a bunch of brainwashed bourgeois individuals.

What was the point of that post?

And do you ever make posts that don't say "Bourgeois"?

What was the point of that post?

And do you ever make posts that don't say "Bourgeois"?

He usually doesn't get the terms right. So very often he says "Bourgeois", when he means "Bourgeoisie".

Of course, those terms are nothing more than the pompousness of Marx showing through. Never mind that Marx was German, and he wrote the rest of the piece in German, nor that he was writing it in the UK. He just had to use French terms, never mind that German had a perfectly sufficient word meaning the exact same thing. Burgher.

He usually doesn't get the terms right. So very often he says "Bourgeois", when he means "Bourgeoisie".

Of course, those terms are nothing more than the pompousness of Marx showing through. Never mind that Marx was German, and he wrote the rest of the piece in German, nor that he was writing it in the UK. He just had to use French terms, never mind that German had a perfectly sufficient word meaning the exact same thing. Burgher.

Meh, it's a bit odd to call Marx pompous for exhibiting the francophillic tendencies that European intellectuals had been exhibiting for a long time. It's like saying Tolstoy was a prick for writing large chunks of his works in French; it's just how lots of the educated circles ran in Europe.

Don't think I've ever seen a thread that was Godwinned in the first post.

I think it's clear enough, save that you are in denial.

Yes, we are done.

It is my opinion that libertarianism is not used as an excuse to support social stratification. What about those who are libertarians because they simply do not believe in a strong centralized government? Are they part of some fascist conspiracy to oppress your precious proletariat? Just because a person does not support high taxation and is willing to receive fewer governmental benefits in return is not an inherently evil thing. It is a fundamentally different view of the government to public relationship.

I refuse to participate any further with such a bunch of brainwashed bourgeois individuals.

Quite disappointing. I though we were making progress.

Fascism=Authoritarian

Libertarian=Anti-Authoritarian...

Libertarian=Fascism...?

Crazy....

Personally I like Minarchism... =P

I refuse to participate any further with such a bunch of brainwashed bourgeois individuals.

Jay, Andaras finally found a mirror! :D

You know, it never ceases to amaze me that people actually get into a "discussion" with Andaras.
What's the point? You know you can't change his point of view, you know he won't accept the simplest of truths if they don't match his world view, you know he'll only respond with his own personal propaganda.
So it is interesting to me to know why someone (like Trostia in this thread) does that. Because they can't help it? Because they feel attacked in their moral values? Why? :confused:

I just have one thing to say after reading the full lenght of this topic:
- Pseud-intelectual self-masturbation!

I refuse to participate any further with such a bunch of brainwashed bourgeois individuals.

Yeah, STFU.

Jay, Andaras finally found a mirror! :D

You know, it never ceases to amaze me that people actually get into a "discussion" with Andaras.
What's the point? You know you can't change his point of view, you know he won't accept the simplest of truths if they don't match his world view, you know he'll only respond with his own personal propaganda.
So it is interesting to me to know why someone (like Trostia in this thread) does that. Because they can't help it? Because they feel attacked in their moral values? Why? :confused:

So what, I should shut up? Let what he says stand unchallenged? Because he won't change his mind, I should censor myself?

Fuck that. I'm going to call it like I see it. Hope you don't have a problem with that.

So what, I should shut up? Let what he says stand unchallenged? Because he won't change his mind, I should censor myself?

Fuck that. I'm going to call it like I see it. Hope you don't have a problem with that.

I'm not judging anyone, I'm just curious why someone would even begin to fight such a hopeless battle.

The OP is a paranoid distortion of libertarian views, and even with this straw man, the comparison to fascists is strained and weak.

I'm not judging anyone, I'm just curious why someone would even begin to fight such a hopeless battle.

1) I didn't begin it.

2) Just because he will never admit when he loses doesn't mean that somehow he never loses.

3) People who support mass murder must ALWAYS be challenged.

Oh really? You don't believe that the world is divided into superior and inferior people?

I'm a libertarian. While I grant that there are ranges of IQ, ability, character, etc, in society, probably statistically distributed in bell curves, I do not see any natural division of society into two distinct monolithic groups. And the words "superior" and "inferior" are your own. I don't see libertarians using these words or thinking in this way.

You don't believe that the rich are better and smarter than everyone else

No, I don't. There are stupid rich people, and smart poor people.

that they are intelligent, honest, creative and hardworking, and that they carry the world on their shoulders only to be hindered by the statist demands of the poor, who are stupid, lazy, dishonest, thieving, uncreative parasites?

Productive geniuses do carry the world on their shoulders, and they can be hindered by statist policies, but it is a complete distortion to say that this is a rich versus poor issue, and I would not say, and have never said in any variation or subset, that the poor are "stupid, lazy, dishonest, thieving, uncreative parasites" simply because they are poor.

You clearly don't understand libertarians, and I suspect you don't want to. You'd prefer to have your straw men.

1. The Cult of the Superior Man. Both libertarians and fascists think the world is divided into superior and inferior people, ubermenschen and untermenschen, and they both believe that most of the evil in the world comes from inferior people keeping the superior ones down. They both promise to release the best and the brightest from the shackles placed on them by the unworthy - whether the unworthy happen to be the "lazy poor" or "government bureaucrats" or "dirty Jews" or immigrants.

The only difference between libertarians and fascists is that libertarians don't believe (or they say they don't believe) that superior people should enforce their will on inferior people. But this is a thin line, easily crossed. Once you've convinced yourself that you're better than everyone else, it's easy to justify repressing the ignorant masses, for their own good. Which leads us neatly to the second point...





2. Opposition to democracy. Both libertarians and fascists hate democracy because they don't think inferior people should be able to tell superior people what to do. They both hate democracy because democracy gives power to the "unwashed masses" on the assumption that all people are equal. It's important to note, however, that libertarians and fascists are not necessarily hostile to the masses themselves - in fact they are often populist, from Mussolini to Ron Paul. They are only hostile to the idea of equality among the masses, and most of all to the idea of equality between the masses and the elite. Libertarians and fascists often genuinely believe that they are working to help the people, the masses, but they believe that salvation can only come from above, from the elite. Which leads us to the third point...


3. Belief in Natural Hierarchy. Libertarians and fascists are elitists, and moreover they believe that elitism and hierarchy are part of the natural order of things. The phrase "rebellion against nature" has been used by libertarians and fascists to describe the political views of their enemies - particularly egalitarian views. Libertarians and fascists don't think their kind of society is the best among a number of competing kinds of viable societies, they believe their kind of society is the ONLY viable, "natural" kind of society. Libertarians and fascists tell the masses that they have to subject themselves to hierarchy for their own good, because hierarchy and inequality is the only way to have a civilized society.


Those are the fundamental similarities between libertarian and fascist thinking, but there are also many other, less vital parallels:

4. Belief that the unfortunate get what they deserve. If hierarchy is natural, it follows that those at the bottom of the hierarchy are there through their own fault or their own flaws. Libertarians think the poor deserve to be poor. Fascists think oppressed races deserve to be oppressed. Both libertarians and fascists have voiced support for the "IQ and the Wealth of Nations" thesis - the idea that poor countries in Africa and Latin America are poor because their people are stupid.



It is true that fascists think poor nations are poor primarily for ethnic reasons. But not only for ethnic reasons. Fascists also always made the argument that certain nations - particularly Russia - are poor because of communism:


5. Conspiracy theories. Unlike Marxists, who recognize that different social and economic institutions are appropriate at different stages of history, libertarians and fascists believe that their ideas are always valid, everywhere at all times. The question then arises, if their ideas are so right, and if they've always been right, how come they haven't conquered the world yet? There is only one possible explanation: conspiracy. Libertarians and fascists cannot explain their own failures, so they use all sorts of conspiracy theories to rationalize them. Someone - Jews or evil government bureaucrats - must be conspiring to smear and hide the eternal truth of libertarianism or fascism. New World Order, Federal Reserve controlled by Jews and Communists etc etc.

Right. A conspiracy of Jews is crushing the people in the Nazi case, and a conspiracy of bureaucrats is crushing the people in the libertarian case. The people cannot see their true interests, and it is up to the fascist/libertarian to bring about a glorious rebirth based on old, forgotten values and the practices of the people's heroic ancestors (that's 19th century free marketeers or the "Founding Fathers" for you libertarians, medieval heroes for the fascists). And this is to be done by undemocratic means - because democracy is evil - and against the will of the majority if necessary.

6. The Cult of Righteous Violence. Libertarians and fascists love their guns, and they firmly uphold the use of righteous violence (that's "retaliatory force" in libertarian-speak) against their enemies. They don't see such "righteous violence" as a necessary evil, the way others may view a just war or a revolution. No, they see this violence as a good thing, something to be embraced and celebrated.

Umm, no.

are you a libertarian?
No, I'm a very much pro-government centrist, because I believe that everyone should have the chance to have a decent life. Libertarianism keeps the poor down, realistically, which is why I'm not in favour of it.

A free market regarding goods, yes, regarding people, no.

I just have one thing to say after reading the full lenght of this topic:
- Pseud-intelectual self-masturbation!
Welcome to NSG, you'll be seeing a lot more of it.

No, I'm a very much pro-government centrist, because I believe that everyone should have the chance to have a decent life. Libertarianism keeps the poor down, realistically, which is why I'm not in favour of it.

A free market regarding goods, yes, regarding people, no.

Libertarianism keeps the poor down?

What have I missed? I thought they just didn't want the government interfering while people competed for the highest (paying) positions in society.

Libertarianism keeps the poor down?

What have I missed? I thought they just didn't want the government interfering while people competed for the highest (paying) positions in society.
Become poor in a Libertarian society because your boss can't run a business properly and you're fucked through no fault of your own. If that's the only employer in the area, things will go south for you very quickly. Private charity is a joke of a cop-out for its proponents.

Become poor in a Libertarian society because your boss can't run a business properly and you're fucked through no fault of your own. If that's the only employer in the area, things will go south for you very quickly. Private charity is a joke of a cop-out for its proponents.

Though, theoretically, if you can do what the business you were working for is doing, but better (and thus with higher wages), you can force them out of the market (by taking their customers and employees) and move up the class pyramid (by becoming the boss yourself). Of course, it's not that easy in the real world, but it does occur relatively often in a free market system.

Though, theoretically, if you can do what the business you were working for is doing, but better (and thus with higher wages), you can force them out of the market (by taking their customers and employees) and move up the class pyramid (by becoming the boss yourself). Of course, it's not that easy in the real world, but it does occur relatively often in a free market system.
Uhu, on the other hand, if the only business in your area is something like tree logging, and the construction industry is just completely fucked due to the credit crunch, or if you work in a mine but the ore runs out - not actually anything you can do about that. Not to mention that trying to get finance for the exact same kind of business that has just failed in your area would be difficult.

1. The Cult of the Superior Man. Both libertarians and fascists think the world is divided into superior and inferior people, ubermenschen and untermenschen, and they both believe that most of the evil in the world comes from inferior people keeping the superior ones down. They both promise to release the best and the brightest from the shackles placed on them by the unworthy - whether the unworthy happen to be the "lazy poor" or "government bureaucrats" or "dirty Jews" or immigrants.


...or those evil bourgeois right? Your political theories are not exempt from this.


The only difference between libertarians and fascists is that libertarians don't believe (or they say they don't believe) that superior people should enforce their will on inferior people. But this is a thin line, easily crossed. Once you've convinced yourself that you're better than everyone else, it's easy to justify repressing the ignorant masses, for their own good. Which leads us neatly to the second point...


Again, so extremely like your theories, where it becomes too easy to violently attack a man in a suit simply for seeming to be part of the exploiting bourgeois.


2. Opposition to democracy. Both libertarians and fascists hate democracy because they don't think inferior people should be able to tell superior people what to do.

False.


They both hate democracy because democracy gives power to the "unwashed masses" on the assumption that all people are equal.

Just like you hate real democracy because you feel that the bourgeois don't deserve to have a say, only the proletariat. Except that I've never, in my life, met a libertarian who says that 'ignorant' people shouldn't be allowed to vote, since that would be rather counter to libertarian thinking.


Libertarians and fascists tell the masses that they have to subject themselves to hierarchy for their own good, because hierarchy and inequality is the only way to have a civilized society.


RIGHT (not left) libertarians feel that it's not in the governments place to try and artificially create equality by egalitarian laws like affirmative action. Their philosophy is not based on anything to do with the idea that hierarchy is good in itself.


Libertarians think the poor deserve to be poor.

Complete rubbish, generally they tend to think that if a person is capable of working but refuses, then the state does not have a positive obligation to provide for them. Completely different from thinking they 'deserve' to be poor.


Fascists think oppressed races deserve to be oppressed. Both libertarians and fascists have voiced support for the "IQ and the Wealth of Nations" thesis - the idea that poor countries in Africa and Latin America are poor because their people are stupid.


This is just unbelieveably stupid, it depends on who you speak to, but libertarians tend to believe that poor nations are poor due to restrictions on the market.


Fascists also always made the argument that certain nations - particularly Russia - are poor because of communism:


So?


Libertarians and fascists cannot explain their own failures, so they use all sorts of conspiracy theories to rationalize them. Someone - Jews or evil government bureaucrats - must be conspiring to smear and hide the eternal truth of libertarianism or fascism. New World Order, Federal Reserve controlled by Jews and Communists etc etc.


How the hell is it a conspiracy theory to say "libertarian policies have not been properly implemented by governments". Also, most libertarians I've met do not support an immediate transition into a very small government.


6. The Cult of Righteous Violence. Libertarians and fascists love their guns, and they firmly uphold the use of righteous violence (that's "retaliatory force" in libertarian-speak) against their enemies. They don't see such "righteous violence" as a necessary evil, the way others may view a just war or a revolution. No, they see this violence as a good thing, something to be embraced and celebrated.

Irrelevant to libertarianism, not part of their core ideology in any way.

The Jews believe in superior humans based on race ... But no one tells them otherwise.

I bet Andaras hated the movie "The Incredibles"

I'm a libertarian. While I grant that there are ranges of IQ, ability, character, etc, in society, probably statistically distributed in bell curves, I do not see any natural division of society into two distinct monolithic groups. And the words "superior" and "inferior" are your own. I don't see libertarians using these words or thinking in this way.

what are your feelings on the drive towards egalitarianism? does it constitute 'a revolt against nature'?

If you think that's interesting you should check out Jonah Goldberg's book, "Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning."

Here's what the author had to say on the Glenn Beck radio show: http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/196/4199/

Andaras, just give up your baseless argument with Trotia, you sound ridiculous. You have no idea what you are talking about. Have you ever read any politically philosophical books? You cannot defeat an idea by misrepresenting it and then arguing against it, which is a common tactic used by 6 year olds and the demagogues who Shepard the sheeple. Seriously, read both sides of the issue before you reach an opinion.

you should check out Jonah Goldberg's book, "Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning."

i liked it better when the subtitle was 'from hillary clinton to whole foods'

also, haha

Speaking as a Libertarian, the OP is full of shit and has no clue what Libertarians believe, only what his skewed world view tells him they must believe in order to validate his pre-formed opinion.

Though, theoretically, if you can do what the business you were working for is doing, but better (and thus with higher wages), you can force them out of the market (by taking their customers and employees) and move up the class pyramid (by becoming the boss yourself). Of course, it's not that easy in the real world, but it does occur relatively often in a free market system.

Actually, it occurs rather rarely in a free market system. Why? Because, unlike in the utopian world of Ayn Rand, the people already at the top aren't happy to stand aside and let the better person end up taking over. They will do everything in their power, dirty or not, to keep anyone else from even getting a foothold in their field, much less taking over their section of the market.

And they'll also often do everything in their power to hold their workers essentially hostage. In the utopian ideal of a free market, employers pay fair wages because they have to in order to get workers. In the real world, people will work for far less than fair wages because they are desperate and they need something.

Yawn. So many sweeping generalizations and examples only of fascist writings that it's laughable (http://www.chaobell.net/gallery/d/2198-2/failshipment.jpg) to even consider pointing out any other flaws in the OP.

No, I'm a very much pro-government centrist, because I believe that everyone should have the chance to have a decent life. Libertarianism keeps the poor down, realistically, which is why I'm not in favour of it.

A free market regarding goods, yes, regarding people, no.
i didnt think you were. but i couldnt tell if you were being attacked for being "rich" or for being "rich" and libertarian.

i didnt think you were. but i couldnt tell if you were being attacked for being "rich" or for being "rich" and libertarian.

I got the impression that the problem was "rich" and "happy about it." Apparently, if you have money, you should feel bad for exploiting others to get it.

I refuse to participate any further with such a bunch of brainwashed bourgeois individuals.

Well what have we learned here everyone... no matter what your ideology is, be it crazy far right, or crazy far left... when you can't win, troll and call your opponents brainwashed.

i didnt think you were. but i couldnt tell if you were being attacked for being "rich" or for being "rich" and libertarian.
Aye, I actually have very little love for Libertarians, most of whom are even more arrogant than myself. Then again, most self-defined fascist groups are extremely racist, which I also find distateful in the extreme.

1) I didn't begin it.

2) Just because he will never admit when he loses doesn't mean that somehow he never loses.

3) People who support mass murder must ALWAYS be challenged.

i agree.

thank you.

I'm not afraid that I must disagree with the original poster. Beyond pointing out that not one Libertarian source was quoted in the original run, the fact of the matter is that Fascism (or more specifically Nazism as this is the one pointed to) and Libertarianism whatever similarities can be said to exist focus on different things. Fascism is just another state run top to bottom scheme that inevitably leads to the enslavement of its people where as Libertarianism's focus on the individual at very least assumes that everyone has the ownership and responsibility of their own body and then makes a point in saying that without consent, no other person or group of persons have any right in that body and you can stop consenting at any time.

While I disagree with the premise that there are superior people and inferior people, what I do see is those who produce and those who do not. Not all those who are productive are rich and not all those who are not productive are poor so I see no reason to enslave the productive to the unproductive (from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs). To be absolutely honest, the communist and the fascist have more in common than either do with the Libertarian, if only one notices the outcome of their actions and not the similarities in their philosophies or motives.

I study politics.

I don't suppose it'd do any good to point out that communism and fascism are much more closely related to each other than either of them are to..well any other political philosophy.

I think Boris in the original post there needs to find himself a Natasha, as time apparently weighs heavily on his hands.

Become poor in a Libertarian society because your boss can't run a business properly and you're fucked through no fault of your own. If that's the only employer in the area, things will go south for you very quickly. Private charity is a joke of a cop-out for its proponents.

I am rather inclined toward the libertarian sector of politics, and I set aside 10% of my paycheck each month for charitable contributions. I'm very sorry to see that my effort is a joke. Maybe I'll just buy some luxury items made in China instead of trying to help the needy where I see them in my local community.

Much as I dislike the idea of backing Andaras's latest over-the-top rant, within all that pomposity, he actually had a point. Libertarianism, at least as it's practiced in th U.S., is a very selfish philosophy. I have yet to meet a Libertarian (and that includes the ones on this site) that cared one bit for anything other than themselves. Libertarians claim to be in favor of personal rights. Not quite. The average Libertarian (again, the ones I've met, I'll concede that there may be Libertarians who don't act this way, but none of them are on this site) cares about his personal freedom and rights, and not at all about yours. Indeed many of the Libertarians I've encountered don't seem to feel that anyone but themselves has rights, at least not anyone who has the nerve to disagree with them about something. Or at the very least they seem to feel that what they personally desire supercedes the needs or wants of anyone else, or even society as a whole. Libertarians are, in my experience, selfish bullies.I also find it ironic that much as they rail against the "oppression" of the Federal government, they don't seem to have a problem with state governments restricting rights (if it's for something they don't like; gay marriage, e.g.) nor for business to treat people like cattle. I also agree with the point raised by Yootopia about the private charity cop-out. I've seen more than one person claim that they think that social programs should be abolished in favor of private charity. Bad idea. I don't buy for one second that the reason they don't give to charity is because the Big Bad Government(tm) takes all their money in taxes, and that they'd give if they could (before any of you call me a hypocrite, I do give to charity as I can, and I'm on a fixed income). The words of Libertarians belie that claim. They don't give because they don't care about anyone else's suffering.

Aye, I actually have very little love for Libertarians, most of whom are even more arrogant than myself. Then again, most self-defined fascist groups are extremely racist, which I also find distateful in the extreme.
oh are you arrogant? i have to pay more attention.

I am rather inclined toward the libertarian sector of politics, and I set aside 10% of my paycheck each month for charitable contributions. I'm very sorry to see that my effort is a joke. Maybe I'll just buy some luxury items made in China instead of trying to help the needy where I see them in my local community.
Well that's very good of you indeed, but I would add that many others in the community aren't quite so generous.
oh are you arrogant? i have to pay more attention.
I suppose I am a bit in terms of "look at me, I'm so right, and you're so not".

Not all those who are productive are rich and not all those who are not productive are poor so I see no reason to enslave the productive to the unproductive (from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs).

"In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly -- only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!"

Karl Marx, Critique of the Gotha Program (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm)

The principle does not advocate the forced labor of the productive for the sake of the unproductive. It advocates the disentanglement of labor from the framework of economic necessity for everyone, in the context of making it an enjoyable activity in itself.

Well what have we learned here everyone... no matter what your ideology is, be it crazy far right, or crazy far left... when you can't win, troll and call your opponents brainwashed.

Bravo!

It advocates the disentanglement of labor from the framework of economic necessity for everyone, in the context of making it an enjoyable activity in itself.

Weirdly enough, that almost sounds like something one would expect to hear from a Rand hero...

The thing is though, is that the productive only produce for themselves. Even if they do so out of the kindness of their own hearts for the downtrodden, they do so because it makes them feel good. If you want to do such things it is within your rights, to force anyone else to follow that line and into a labor division they do not freely consent to belong in is slavery and enslavement even when it would be the best for the individual involved.

Also who decides where the economic necessity for everyone ends. The individual is more likely to know what needs he has than some outside body regardless whether it comes from his family or from government. I might desire to have steak of the highest quality three times a day for the rest of my life. I would therefore place a much greater economic need on making that available to myself, not to mention my family. It might have been easier to make the ends meet by becoming a strict vegetarian, but that does not mean that I must become one, nor should I just because it would be easier.

I am the best in understanding what my economic needs are and no one can truly be said to care one iota for the economic necessity for anyone else. This holds true even if you also provide for someone else. Until the age of consent is reached, your children's needs, economic or otherwise, are also to be considered in your needs. If you marry, then both you and your spouse must determine together the economic needs of the both of you together and what they must in tell. If you take in a relative or a friend it continues that it factors into your economic needs as well. All of these are done by pure consent. You marry by consent, your children are brought about by your consensual decision to have them where abortion is legal and even if you did not wish to have children and did not want to have an abortion there is adoption which exists due to consent. Taking in a relation or friend means that you consent to have them share your space and they consent to let you do so.

But where is the consent in Communism or Fascism? In the end you inevitably are owned and enslaved by people you can not consent to. And in the end all states act this way as well, not just communist or fascist ones or at least all existing states do.

And furthermore, most people work because they need to and this will likely always be the case. Those who can afford to not work by necessity and will do so are welcome as well, but in practice by a communist or fascist system those who do so somehow interfere with another's need to work and thus can not be suffered to do so.

I might not be perfect even in my arguments, but this much I do know. According to the way communism has been practiced and how I at least suspect that fascism has been practiced, I am little more than a slave without just ownership of my own body and therefore can not possible own anything I produce. I'd much rather have the freedom to die because I cannot produce and therefore merit nothing than enslave or be enslaved because someone else says it is better.

i liked it better when the subtitle was 'from hillary clinton to whole foods'

also, haha

LOL!!! That would have made a great subtitle!

Seriously, though, what Goldberg has to say makes so much sense it's scary. I really want to read the whole book simply because it's a really interesting theory that, should it catch on, I believe could change the pace of American politics. But what do I know... I hate politics.

Oh really? You don't believe that the world is divided into superior and inferior people? You don't believe that the rich are better and smarter than everyone else, that they are intelligent, honest, creative and hardworking, and that they carry the world on their shoulders only to be hindered by the statist demands of the poor, who are stupid, lazy, dishonest, thieving, uncreative parasites?



.

How dare you call statist stupid, lazy, dishonest, thieving, and uncreative. Governments have to power to affect people in a positive way all they need is people who are willing to work and not depend on welfare and people who will not be apathetic when it comes to government.

Much as I dislike the idea of backing Andaras's latest over-the-top rant, within all that pomposity, he actually had a point. Libertarianism, at least as it's practiced in th U.S., is a very selfish philosophy.

OK,I'll have a go at replying to this. First off, what is wrong with a philosophy being directed toward the individual? Any such philosophy is inevitably going to be seen as selfish, but, if it allows the same rights and freedoms to each and every individual then it is not, nor can it be selfish, in the common usage of the term. It is not about my having any particular pre-established advantage over you, it is about both you and I having the right to act in our own best interests. Anything else is, as far as I can see, either self deceit or pure stupidity. Are you really proposing that the other should have more rights and freedoms than yourself?


I have yet to meet a Libertarian (and that includes the ones on this site) that cared one bit for anything other than themselves. Libertarians claim to be in favor of personal rights. Not quite. The average Libertarian (again, the ones I've met, I'll concede that there may be Libertarians who don't act this way, but none of them are on this site) cares about his personal freedom and rights, and not at all about yours.

See above. I think I have already addressed this. But, I'll add a codaçil - Why should I care about your rights, that is for you to do? I'll be concerned that my rights are not being restricted to provide additional rights to others. I do not wish to be short changed in this deal. However that does not mean that I am out to cheat you of your rights. You are as entitled as I am to defend yourself, and this will be respected.



Indeed many of the Libertarians I've encountered don't seem to feel that anyone but themselves has rights, at least not anyone who has the nerve to disagree with them about something. Or at the very least they seem to feel that what they personally desire supercedes the needs or wants of anyone else, or even society as a whole.

I can only say that you have met a very deluded group if those that object to the right of others to have and hold their own opinion call themselves libertarian.
I must though, question how you determine the 'wants' of 'society as a whole'. Who decides what society wants?
What I desire has equal status with what you desire, on the condition that neither desire restricts the freedoms of others. Whether we obtain our desires will depend upon our abilities, and in most cases both desires will be satisfied. In the case of mutually exclusive desires, then there has to be negotiation and offsetting of preferences etc.




Libertarians are, in my experience, selfish bullies.I also find it ironic that much as they rail against the "oppression" of the Federal government, they don't seem to have a problem with state governments restricting rights (if it's for something they don't like; gay marriage, e.g.) nor for business to treat people like cattle.
No true libertarian would object to gay marriages. What others do is their business.
AS to businesses treating people like cattle - at least you have the option to seek other employment or to create your own. Governments don't give you that option.


I also agree with the point raised by Yootopia about the private charity cop-out. I've seen more than one person claim that they think that social programs should be abolished in favor of private charity. Bad idea. I don't buy for one second that the reason they don't give to charity is because the Big Bad Government(tm) takes all their money in taxes, and that they'd give if they could (before any of you call me a hypocrite, I do give to charity as I can, and I'm on a fixed income). The words of Libertarians belie that claim. They don't give because they don't care about anyone else's suffering.
OK - this is where I have my personal doubts. Private charity does not work, as history has clearly shown us. However community based support networks do work - again as history has shown us. Keep it local, keep it real, keep it manageable in scale and social welfare can both work and be of benefit to all in the community. Where it goes wrong however, is when it gets to be centralised and bureaucratic. - Big government is inherently inefficient, small local government is a benefit.

Welcome to NSG, you'll be seeing a lot more of it.
Haha...Thanks!

Clearly whoever wrote this has no understanding of Libertarianism.


"It's painfully obvious to me that you haven't the slightest fucking idea who you're dealing with."

-Points for whomever gets that reference.

Clearly whoever wrote this has no understanding of Libertarianism.


"It's painfully obvious to me that you haven't the slightest fucking idea who you're dealing with."

-Points for whomever gets that reference.

Swearingen, Deadwood.

Swearingen, Deadwood.
"God rest the souls of that poor family...

And pussy's half price for the next fifteen minutes."

What a man, what a show!

Much as I dislike the idea of backing Andaras's latest over-the-top rant, within all that pomposity, he actually had a point. Libertarianism, at least as it's practiced in th U.S., is a very selfish philosophy.
I don't think anyone is denying libertarianism is about individual rights. Whether or not wanting to decide what to do with one's own justly acquired property is more or less selfish than wanting to forcibly dictate what other people do with theirs can be debated, but fascism is most certainly not about individual rights, or 'selfishness' - indeed, the entire ideology is based around selfless subservience to an authority, based around a collectivist racial or national group, rather than individuals.

Swearingen, Deadwood.

Nope, sorry :)

1. Libertarianism is the antithesis of authoritarianism.
2. But the structure of libertarianism is such that over time, it will develop into authoritarianism.
3. Curiously, the exact same thing is true of Communism! How can this be?
4. It can be, because Human Beings are self serving and incredibly clever opportunists, who will quickly work out the exploits and cheats available in any given social or political structure. What a 10 year old figures out in a year of playing on line games is nothing compared to what an ambitious 50 year old has figured out in 30 years of playing politics.

Therefore, the most "perfect" system of social, political, and economic organization is one that rejects a fixed ideological principle and instead wallows about pseudo-randomly, constantly changing and adapting, putting actual real world performance above theoretical absolutes and arbitrary principles.

Sounds about right, yes. You've got a point there, Mott Haven.

Let me sum up for Andaras...

Everything, including anarchy, is fascism, if it isn't the form of Communism he adores.

Oh you forgot,

Democracy= Dictatorship

But...

Dictatorship + Communism= Freedom + Democracy + YAY!!! ;)