Liberal Fascism

[tinyp3nis]

It's on your mind, just do it man whatever everyone else says. You can have discussion in a new thread about it, or you can keep trying here but it will keep failing.

[Patroklos]

Failing? You shouldn't go through life trying to "win" threads, the futility should be obvious.

Though you can point out obvious wrongs, like you saying I agree with this guy when I plainly said I do not

[tinyp3nis]

I am not talking about winning or losing, I am talking about failing with trying to make the topic something totally different, you can set the topic by making a new thread.

[Patroklos]

I idealist I see. That will pass in time...

[Agathon]

Originally posted by C0ckney

authoritarian libertarians

They're the Ayn Rand types who see a libertarian manifesto as a way for the strong to triumph in a Darwinian fashion over the weak.

You can usually sort them out by asking this question: would you prefer a libertarian society where everyone happened to end up having approximately the same amount of wealth and influence, or would you prefer a libertarian society where there were vast disparities in wealth and influence?

The authoritarians will tend to opt for the latter, while the anti-authoritarians either won't care or will opt for the former. The anti-authoritarians are the "every man's home is his castle" type, while the others are the the "my castle is bigger than yours" type.

[Patroklos]

There is a difference between what you want to happen and what you think will happen. If you think that it will naturally turn out that way (haves and have nots) then that isn't authoritarian. If you intend to make it that way regardless, then it is and you are not a libertarian anyway.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Patroklos
There is a difference between what you want to happen and what you think will happen. If you think that it will naturally turn out that way (haves and have nots) then that isn't authoritarian. If you intend to make it that way regardless, then it is and you are not a libertarian anyway.

Don't change the question. The question has nothing to do with what will happen, but just measures ethical preferences as they track over possible scenarios.

Someone might believe that things will turn out one way, but would be equally happy if it did not. That would demonstrate that the person assigned equal value to both. In this case, an anti-authoritarian libertarian would not have a preference for inequality, whilst an authoritarian would.

Both could still claim adherence to the libertarian principle, since libertarianism by itself says nothing about the proportional distribution of wealth. Your mistake is to assume that if someone believes it will turn out that way, it means they aren't an authoritarian. That is not true. Someone may believe it will turn out that way, but still have no problem with assigning equal value to an alternative hypothetical scenario. The authoritarian generally believes it will turn out that way and won't assign equal value to the alternative scenario. No mention is made of anyone trying to make it that way, because that is irrelevant to the case.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Patroklos
That probably has something to do with you bieng a lunitic of the same level.

Your point of view has more to do with you being as heartless and militaristic as a fascist, therefore enjoying the disinformation presented in this stupid book.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by tinyp3nis
The fascism entry in wiki is also good, but what I'm trying to say is that fascist state doesn't have to use totalitarian means to control the population if they can do it by other ways.

A country so militaristic and nationalistic doesn't need to control it's people to be fascist. They are more fascist than countries with totalitarian governments. Still, it's pretty stupid to make claims like the 60's radicals were fascists. That really makes no sense at all.

edit: "country" should be govt in the first sentence. There is a lot of non-govt manipulation in these types of countries.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Patroklos
There is a difference between what you want to happen and what you think will happen. If you think that it will naturally turn out that way (haves and have nots) then that isn't authoritarian. If you intend to make it that way regardless, then it is and you are not a libertarian anyway.

[tinyp3nis]

Originally posted by Kidicious


A country so militaristic and nationalistic doesn't need to control it's people to be fascist. They are more fascist than countries with totalitarian governments. Still, it's pretty stupid to make claims like the 60's radicals were fascists. That really makes no sense at all.

edit: "country" should be govt in the first sentence. There is a lot of non-govt manipulation in these types of countries.

But wouldn't both goverment and non-govt really be under the same power under fascism.

[Patroklos]

Your point of view has more to do with you being as heartless and militaristic as a fascist, therefore enjoying the disinformation presented in this stupid book.

I like how your use of the word fascist pretty much just proved Orwell's point, bravo Kid. Please explain how a fascist would want private gun ownership rights. Thanks.

Homework for Kid; Provide examles of me being

1.) Heartless.

2.) Militaristic.

3.) Agreeing with anything this guy says.

I expect this assignment to meet the same end as similar ones do when given to Oerdin, i.e. a long series of waffling statments followed by personal attacks and not one single quote.

Off to work with you Kid

[Sandman]

Please explain how a fascist would want private gun ownership rights.

Fascists would want private gun ownership in a democracy teetering on collapse to enable them to form private armies to overthrow the state.

Even once they've taken control, they may still want to keep the firearms around to allow them to easily create paramilitary forces for general repression work. Using the regular armed forces for this is a waste of professional soldiers. They could employ semi-professional repression police/paramilitaries for this, but it's often too costly. Not to mention the infighting between this group and the regular armed forces.

Private gun ownership would also strengthen the nation against invasion, make conscription more efficient and inculcate martial values into the population. All things fascists would approve of.

That's not to say that a fascist state would always want private gun ownership, of course.

Edit: grammar

[Arrian]

I like how your use of the word fascist pretty much just proved Orwell's point

It pretty clearly has become "that which we do not like." Doubleplusungood.

-Arrian

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Arrian




It pretty clearly has become "that which we do not like." Doubleplusungood.

-Arrian

It's everything liberals don't like. I wouldn't necessarily say "we."