Are Libertarians Fascist Apologists?

Page 3 of 6 [ 81 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

marshall
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

06 Sep 2011, 10:48 pm

JakobVirgil wrote:

He is also the idiot the proposed the utterly tone deaf theory that any critique of capitalism is based in envy.

That's just as good as saying any defense of capitalism is based on selfishness and greed.

91
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,063
Location: Australia

06 Sep 2011, 11:10 pm

TheSnarkKnight wrote:

Which brings me to the Tea Party. The Teabaggers have this idealized concept of what it means to be truly American. They believe that the only people who count are Judeo-Christian, heterosexual, English-speaking, middle class suburbanites. They view free market capitalism as an institution that protects this identity just as much as the military, and so they oppose any government intervention and shrug off (if not flat out deny) any problems that might stem from this institution. At the same time, they desire government intervention in issues they feel threaten their identity, such as gay rights, abortion, education, multiculturalism, and drug policy. The Tea Party is thus, a fascist ideology.

Even if the ridiculous stereotype of the Tea Party were true how would their views qualify as fascist? Fascism is inherently anti-conservative and with very few exceptions anti-clerical. Its my view that the Tea Party is mostly short on specifics, representing a broadly held sense of dissatisfaction. Their specific views and leaders seem to be the end result of placing traditional conservatism in a blender with American libertarianism.

_________________
Life is real ! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal ;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.

TeaEarlGreyHot
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Jul 2010
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 28,982
Location: California

07 Sep 2011, 12:13 am

I didn't know I was a fascist Apologist. It's kind of catchy.

"Hey Tea, what party are you?"
"Fascist Apologist!"
"Oh, I didn't know such a party existed. Tell me more!"
*blinks and walks away*

This could be great fun!

_________________
Still looking for that blue jean baby queen, prettiest girl I've ever seen.

Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

07 Sep 2011, 3:09 am

91 wrote:

TheSnarkKnight wrote:

The Tea Party is exactly the type of social movement that can potentially lead to fascism- uninformed, undirected populist anger that can be easily channeled by crude demagogues for their own selfish gain.

_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Arizona

07 Sep 2011, 4:34 am

Orwell wrote:

91 wrote:

TheSnarkKnight wrote:

What social movement do you think Mussolini came from? Certainly not liberalism or conservatism. Fascism is a pretty specific ideology and it doesn't share much of anything with the Tea Party.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

07 Sep 2011, 5:23 am

Orwell wrote:

Nonsense. How does wanting a limited government lead to wanting an over-arching totalitarian State?

ruveyn

JakobVirgil
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Feb 2011
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,744
Location: yes

07 Sep 2011, 7:54 am

ruveyn wrote:

Orwell wrote:

Nonsense. How does wanting a limited government lead to wanting an over-arching totalitarian State?

ruveyn

whisper - :its because they don't really want limited government.:

_________________
?We must not look at goblin men,
We must not buy their fruits:
Who knows upon what soil they fed
Their hungry thirsty roots??

http://jakobvirgil.blogspot.com/

Abgal64
Velociraptor

Joined: 16 Aug 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 408

07 Sep 2011, 9:48 am

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

Abgal64 wrote:

And I agree with you on the problem of democracy and the hypocracy of a libertarian or anarchist who refuses to move to Somalia or, for that matter, to live with the stateless societies of the New Guinean Highlands.

I am not sure I see the hypocrisy though. I mean, with some of them, certainly. But let's take the following beliefs:
1) Anarchy is, all else equal, the best organization for society.
2) The best organization for society ought to be implemented.

Nothing about that entails going to Somalia. After all, it isn't as if Somalia is like the US, just without the centralized government. Somalia is a third world African country. It just happens not to have a government. A person can have multiple preferences and politically relevant beliefs.

Why is anarchy the best organization for society? Evidence, please, from real societies?

And BTW, Somalia has plenty of resources, it is at a great location, after all, with resources coveted since the time of Hatshepsut. Why is Somalia so poor if it has the best system of organization; and why is a country with a PRINCE like Liechtenstein, which has almost no natural resources and is not in a strategically important location, doing so much better?

The real anarchist societies are in New Guinea and the Amazon Basin, living with backward customs, such as necrophagy in the case of much of New Guinea, and more often than not with extreme xenophobia to anyone besides them. IMHO, the most anarchist society of all was that of the Aninhdhilyagwa, who were so backward they did not even have words for numbers. All these societies had gift economies, none had a market economy: The Aninhdhilyagwa, for example, had a rule that if anyone was lacking in anything they needed, one was to give them all of their personal endowment of that sort; not very market economy-like if you ask me.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

07 Sep 2011, 9:52 am

JakobVirgil wrote:

whisper - :its because they don't really want limited government.:

Who is They? "They" are not me.

ruveyn

Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Arizona

07 Sep 2011, 10:02 am

Abgal64 wrote:

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

Abgal64 wrote:

Somalia doesn't fair worse than their immediate neighbors in Ethiopia and Kenya, in a lot of ways they're better off especially outside of the southern part of the country around the capital Mogadishu. I'd rather live in the supposed lawless anarchy of Somalia now than the communist dictatorship that it was before it's government collapse.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

07 Sep 2011, 10:09 am

Abgal64 wrote:

[]Why is anarchy the best organization for society? Evidence, please, from real societies?

In a "real Anarchist society" there would soon evolve an entity that had a preponderance of force (if not an outright monopoly of force) that would keep order. It might not call itself a government but it would be performing the main task we assign to governments, which is to keep order and peace in the society.

See Thomas Hobbes -Leviathan-

ruveyn

AspieRogue

07 Sep 2011, 10:11 am

ruveyn wrote:

JakobVirgil wrote:

whisper - :its because they don't really want limited government.:

Who is They? "They" are not me.

ruveyn

So are you or aren't you a teabagger? If you aren't why are you trying to defend these rubes???

How naive of you to believe that teabaggers actually want "limited government". Where were they when Bushco was in office, eh? Libertarians are nothing but idealists.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

07 Sep 2011, 10:33 am

AspieRogue wrote:

ruveyn wrote:

JakobVirgil wrote:

whisper - :its because they don't really want limited government.:

Who is They? "They" are not me.

ruveyn

1. Am an not a member of any political party or movement.

2. The "tea party" was started by people of a libertarian inclination who want to restore Constitutional Government. When movement succeeded in overthrowing the Democrat majority in the House of Representatives, the movement was -hijacked- by ultra Conservative Republics. So you may be sure I do not support that.

I want limited government as was intended by the Founders who had plenty of experience with an overbearing government run by a self appointed Elite (the then government of Great Britain). The Founders did not intend that we reproduce that on our shores, but, alas, that is how it turned out.

I assure you I want no part of a party or movement that can put the likes of Michelle Bachmann or Rick Perry in a top slot. Perish forbid! I have no wish to be governed by bat-sh*t crazy Jesus freaks.

ruveyn

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

07 Sep 2011, 11:50 am

Abgal64 wrote:

Why is anarchy the best organization for society? Evidence, please, from real societies?

Abgal64, your response is stupid. I was pointing out that there was no contradiction between two premises. I don't have to defend EITHER of the premises as true to defend the notion that they do not contradict. Please learn to read.

Quote:

And BTW, Somalia has plenty of resources, it is at a great location, after all, with resources coveted since the time of Hatshepsut. Why is Somalia so poor if it has the best system of organization; and why is a country with a PRINCE like Liechtenstein, which has almost no natural resources and is not in a strategically important location, doing so much better?

How long would you want the list to be? Somalia is so different than any Western nation that the very idea that the two can be compared to evaluate Somalia's current anarchism is downright idiotic. Not all else is equal in any meaningful sense. Somalia wasn't even lacking a government for large stretches of this period of time, nor is the presence or absence of a government really the only variable involved here given the massive network and regional effects involved with Europe.

Quote:

The real anarchist societies are in New Guinea and the Amazon Basin, living with backward customs, such as necrophagy in the case of much of New Guinea, and more often than not with extreme xenophobia to anyone besides them. IMHO, the most anarchist society of all was that of the Aninhdhilyagwa, who were so backward they did not even have words for numbers. All these societies had gift economies, none had a market economy: The Aninhdhilyagwa, for example, had a rule that if anyone was lacking in anything they needed, one was to give them all of their personal endowment of that sort; not very market economy-like if you ask me.

I don't actually know what the hell you are even trying to argue, say, or rebut. You make no sense, and your response has no relationship to anything I've stated.

Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

07 Sep 2011, 10:34 pm

Jacoby wrote:

Orwell wrote:

91 wrote:

TheSnarkKnight wrote:

What social movement do you think Mussolini came from? Certainly not liberalism or conservatism. Fascism is a pretty specific ideology and it doesn't share much of anything with the Tea Party.

Jacoby, professed ideologies are irrelevant. The masses are f*****g ret*d, and the typical Tea Party rally attendee has no clear conception of what they believe. Even the more intelligent conservatives I know are mostly incoherent when actually pressed about their stances. What matters is that there are angry and misinformed people facing economic crisis who desperately need a scapegoat and someone who will give them simple answers to complicated questions. Look at the Tea Party already- they are quite easily duped into voting for politicians who are going against their interests. All that is necessary is for a slightly crazier demagogue to take advantage of them. And if you look into Perry and Bachmann, with their ties to the radical anti-American Dominionist movement, they aren't too far off.

_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

91
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,063
Location: Australia

07 Sep 2011, 11:26 pm

Orwell wrote:

Jacoby, professed ideologies are irrelevant. The masses are f***ing ret*d.

Perhaps this is where you are going wrong in your assertion. Your distaste for democracy seems to trace back to this sentiment. Perhaps as Ruveyn indicated, you are ignoring some key factors.

'All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome.'
-George Orwell

_________________
Life is real ! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal ;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.

Page 3 of 6 [ 81 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next

Jump to:

Are Libertarians Fascist Apologists? Post Reply New Topic

Are Libertarians Fascist Apologists?