Libertarian Fascists for Mother Russia

[Berkut]

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.

[Razgovory]

Probably wouldn't call them libertarian.

Not what I asked.

[Razgovory]

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?

[The Minsky Moment]

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.

[derspiess]

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.

[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?

[derspiess]

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?

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

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]

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.

[derspiess]

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2014/07/19/strange-bedfellows-silicon-valley-techies-like-conservative-senator-rand-paul/

  #itshappening

[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?

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.

[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 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.

[Jacob]

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]

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]

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").