News:

And we're back!

Main Menu

Libertarian Fascists for Mother Russia

Started by DGuller, July 21, 2014, 12:39:31 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Berkut

Quote from: Razgovory on July 22, 2014, 09:54:48 AM
Quote from: derspiess on July 22, 2014, 08:34:19 AM


It was worded a bit vaguely.  I took what he said to mean that libertarians like Ron Paul are only libertarians because the federal government clamped down on fascism and it's no longer possible for them to be openly fascist.

Do you think characterizing Jim Crow laws or the Klan as "fascist" is fair?  If not, how would you characterize them?

There is no possible characterization of the term "libertarian" that fairly equates them with fascism.
"If you think this has a happy ending, then you haven't been paying attention."

select * from users where clue > 0
0 rows returned

Razgovory

I've given it serious thought. I must scorn the ways of my family, and seek a Japanese woman to yield me my progeny. He shall live in the lands of the east, and be well tutored in his sacred trust to weave the best traditions of Japan and the Sacred South together, until such time as he (or, indeed his house, which will periodically require infusion of both Southern and Japanese bloodlines of note) can deliver to the South it's independence, either in this world or in space.  -Lettow April of 2011

Raz is right. -MadImmortalMan March of 2017

Razgovory

Quote from: Berkut on July 22, 2014, 09:59:47 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 22, 2014, 09:54:48 AM
Quote from: derspiess on July 22, 2014, 08:34:19 AM


It was worded a bit vaguely.  I took what he said to mean that libertarians like Ron Paul are only libertarians because the federal government clamped down on fascism and it's no longer possible for them to be openly fascist.

Do you think characterizing Jim Crow laws or the Klan as "fascist" is fair?  If not, how would you characterize them?

There is no possible characterization of the term "libertarian" that fairly equates them with fascism.

What makes you say that?
I've given it serious thought. I must scorn the ways of my family, and seek a Japanese woman to yield me my progeny. He shall live in the lands of the east, and be well tutored in his sacred trust to weave the best traditions of Japan and the Sacred South together, until such time as he (or, indeed his house, which will periodically require infusion of both Southern and Japanese bloodlines of note) can deliver to the South it's independence, either in this world or in space.  -Lettow April of 2011

Raz is right. -MadImmortalMan March of 2017

The Minsky Moment

Quote from: DGuller on July 21, 2014, 12:39:31 PM
In the least surprising news ever, Ron Paul supports Russia. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/ron-paul-defends-russia-malaysian-151731466.html.  This may be personal bias talking, but I'm not surprised that "libertarians" are in bed with the fascists.  Mainly because old school "libertarians" like Ron Paul became "libertarians" because federal government finally cracked down on fascism at home.

I see where you went wrong here.
You operated on the premise that Ron Paul is a "libertarian" instead on the more realistic premise that he is "crazy old coot".

Could have saved a whole train wreck of a thread.
The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists.
--Joan Robinson

derspiess

Quote from: Razgovory on July 22, 2014, 10:14:42 AM
Quote from: derspiess on July 22, 2014, 09:57:48 AM
Probably wouldn't call them libertarian.

Not what I asked.

Oh, you're setting a RazTrap.  But I'll play along, what the hell.  The Jim Crow laws don't seem to have a lot to do with what I understand fascism to be.  They were racist (which some fascists are) and authoritarian (which all fascists are).  But they're selectively authoritarian in that they don't limit the freedoms of white people much at all. 

The Klan could be considered a quasi-fascist group, I suppose.  They do have uniforms and want to restrict the rights of certain groups.  But I'm not sure they follow the textbook definition.

Now if "fascist" simply means everything contemptible that is not leftwing, then I suppose both are really really fascist.
"If you can play a guitar and harmonica at the same time, like Bob Dylan or Neil Young, you're a genius. But make that extra bit of effort and strap some cymbals to your knees, suddenly people want to get the hell away from you."  --Rich Hall

Razgovory

Not a trap, I'm just walking you through the logic.  Knowing that the Federal laws are in place to prevent things like lynchings, poll taxes, discrimination by private actors ect would it not make sense support the politics that weaken the Federal government the most if you wanted to get rid of those laws?
I've given it serious thought. I must scorn the ways of my family, and seek a Japanese woman to yield me my progeny. He shall live in the lands of the east, and be well tutored in his sacred trust to weave the best traditions of Japan and the Sacred South together, until such time as he (or, indeed his house, which will periodically require infusion of both Southern and Japanese bloodlines of note) can deliver to the South it's independence, either in this world or in space.  -Lettow April of 2011

Raz is right. -MadImmortalMan March of 2017

derspiess

Quote from: Razgovory on July 22, 2014, 10:38:42 AM
Not a trap, I'm just walking you through the logic.  Knowing that the Federal laws are in place to prevent things like lynchings, poll taxes, discrimination by private actors ect would it not make sense support the politics that weaken the Federal government the most if you wanted to get rid of those laws?

I suppose it might.  But authoritarians tend to favor strong centralized gov't. so it's not that clear cut.

Is your working theory that most self-proclaimed libertarians are actually fascists that want to set up state-level fascist governments?
"If you can play a guitar and harmonica at the same time, like Bob Dylan or Neil Young, you're a genius. But make that extra bit of effort and strap some cymbals to your knees, suddenly people want to get the hell away from you."  --Rich Hall

Baron von Schtinkenbutt

Quote from: Razgovory on July 22, 2014, 10:38:42 AM
Not a trap, I'm just walking you through the logic.  Knowing that the Federal laws are in place to prevent things like lynchings, poll taxes, discrimination by private actors ect would it not make sense support the politics that weaken the Federal government the most if you wanted to get rid of those laws?

First, libertarians want to weaken all levels of government in certain ways.  They do not want want to weaken the Federal government while strengthening the state governments.  Second, the laws you mention are laws that most[1] libertarians would support at the Federal level, because protecting the fabric of society and preventing the strong from exploiting the weak is viewed as a legitimate purpose of government.  Yes, libertarians will disagree about levels, but rarely on purpose.

That said, libertarians are far from the only political group who wants to weaken the power of the Federal government.  Libertarians want a weaker Federal government, but not everyone who wants a weaker Federal government is a libertarian.

[1] I say "most" because there are some libertarians who are anarchists or borderline anarchists.

Berkut

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 22, 2014, 10:21:17 AM
Quote from: DGuller on July 21, 2014, 12:39:31 PM
In the least surprising news ever, Ron Paul supports Russia. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/ron-paul-defends-russia-malaysian-151731466.html.  This may be personal bias talking, but I'm not surprised that "libertarians" are in bed with the fascists.  Mainly because old school "libertarians" like Ron Paul became "libertarians" because federal government finally cracked down on fascism at home.

I see where you went wrong here.
You operated on the premise that Ron Paul is a "libertarian" instead on the more realistic premise that he is "crazy old coot".

Could have saved a whole train wreck of a thread.

But then he wouldn't be able to go on jihad against the libertarians, and wrecked the thread.

He didn't go wrong - he went exactly where he wanted to go.
"If you think this has a happy ending, then you haven't been paying attention."

select * from users where clue > 0
0 rows returned

derspiess

"If you can play a guitar and harmonica at the same time, like Bob Dylan or Neil Young, you're a genius. But make that extra bit of effort and strap some cymbals to your knees, suddenly people want to get the hell away from you."  --Rich Hall

Razgovory

Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on July 22, 2014, 10:54:33 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 22, 2014, 10:38:42 AM
Not a trap, I'm just walking you through the logic.  Knowing that the Federal laws are in place to prevent things like lynchings, poll taxes, discrimination by private actors ect would it not make sense support the politics that weaken the Federal government the most if you wanted to get rid of those laws?

First, libertarians want to weaken all levels of government in certain ways.  They do not want want to weaken the Federal government while strengthening the state governments.  Second, the laws you mention are laws that most[1] libertarians would support at the Federal level, because protecting the fabric of society and preventing the strong from exploiting the weak is viewed as a legitimate purpose of government.  Yes, libertarians will disagree about levels, but rarely on purpose.

That said, libertarians are far from the only political group who wants to weaken the power of the Federal government.  Libertarians want a weaker Federal government, but not everyone who wants a weaker Federal government is a libertarian.

[1] I say "most" because there are some libertarians who are anarchists or borderline anarchists.

Strongly disagree.  How do you measure what "most" libertarians want?  They are pretty scattershot group.  I've seen libertarians advocate the Confederacy, voluntary slavery, and the repeal of the 1964 civil rights act.  I sense a "no true Scotsman" moment coming.
I've given it serious thought. I must scorn the ways of my family, and seek a Japanese woman to yield me my progeny. He shall live in the lands of the east, and be well tutored in his sacred trust to weave the best traditions of Japan and the Sacred South together, until such time as he (or, indeed his house, which will periodically require infusion of both Southern and Japanese bloodlines of note) can deliver to the South it's independence, either in this world or in space.  -Lettow April of 2011

Raz is right. -MadImmortalMan March of 2017

Razgovory

Quote from: derspiess on July 22, 2014, 10:46:54 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 22, 2014, 10:38:42 AM
Not a trap, I'm just walking you through the logic.  Knowing that the Federal laws are in place to prevent things like lynchings, poll taxes, discrimination by private actors ect would it not make sense support the politics that weaken the Federal government the most if you wanted to get rid of those laws?

I suppose it might.  But authoritarians tend to favor strong centralized gov't. so it's not that clear cut.

Is your working theory that most self-proclaimed libertarians are actually fascists that want to set up state-level fascist governments?

No.  I don't know if "most libertarians" agree on what they want.  If I were to guess most don't want to be painted into a corner of one political party or the other.  I would say that people who desire policy that would be unacceptable beyond the local level would naturally work to weaken power at the national level.  Take for instance a person who wants creationism taught in school, they demand local control of schools and possibly the end of the department of education.  Thus they make common cause with the libertarian impulse of attacking the federal government.  The more clever amongst them only talk about local control and ending the department of education, that way you attract people who aren't necessarily interested in creationism but are hostile to Federal power.
I've given it serious thought. I must scorn the ways of my family, and seek a Japanese woman to yield me my progeny. He shall live in the lands of the east, and be well tutored in his sacred trust to weave the best traditions of Japan and the Sacred South together, until such time as he (or, indeed his house, which will periodically require infusion of both Southern and Japanese bloodlines of note) can deliver to the South it's independence, either in this world or in space.  -Lettow April of 2011

Raz is right. -MadImmortalMan March of 2017

Jacob

Quote from: derspiess on July 22, 2014, 09:34:53 AM
Quote from: DGuller on July 22, 2014, 09:01:33 AM
I did not mean to equate libertarian ideology as being in any way affiliated to fascism in general.

Funny thing is you got Raz & Jacob to pretty much agree with that point, inadvertent as it was.

I can't speak for Raz, but he got me to agree with his intended point - that some reactionaries like to use libertarian rhetoric to dress up their reactionary positions - but not with the straw man position that was the genesis for this so very languish thread.

Jacob

Quote from: derspiess on July 22, 2014, 10:28:17 AM
Oh, you're setting a RazTrap.  But I'll play along, what the hell.  The Jim Crow laws don't seem to have a lot to do with what I understand fascism to be.  They were racist (which some fascists are) and authoritarian (which all fascists are).  But they're selectively authoritarian in that they don't limit the freedoms of white people much at all. 

This is actually a very good description of the phenomenon I'm talking about. Racists who are selectively authoritarian, but who apply libertarian rhetoric and reasoning when it comes to the freedoms of white people.

grumbler

Quote from: Jacob on July 22, 2014, 01:56:40 PM
I can't speak for Raz, but he got me to agree with his intended point - that some reactionaries like to use libertarian rhetoric to dress up their reactionary positions - but not with the straw man position that was the genesis for this so very languish thread.

As I pointed out, authoritarianism is the antithesis of libertarianism, and I don't think that you can find reactionaries who are not authoritarian (if we accept the term reactionary to mean those advocating a return to a previous set of moral or political principals).  I am sure some reactionaries use the language of libertarianism in their credos, but any system which coerces except to redress lawbreaking is antithetical to what I understand to be libertarianism (also called "classical liberalism").
The future is all around us, waiting, in moments of transition, to be born in moments of revelation. No one knows the shape of that future or where it will take us. We know only that it is always born in pain.   -G'Kar

Bayraktar!