Libertarian Fascists for Mother Russia

[Jacob]

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").

No disagreement from me at all on that point.

What I think is happening is that the term has been co-opted; that some people are attracted to libertarianism/ classic liberalism on a surface level, embrace the label without giving up on some of their more authoritarian impulses (in many cases, it seems, on how to deal with 'the other' be they foreigners, other races, criminals, other religions) and rather than address the contradiction by rejecting the authoritarianism they attempt to synthesize the two (unsuccessfully in my view) while hanging on to the "libertarian" label.

I see this happening in two primary ways - 1) people failing to apply sufficient intellectual rigour to their own politics (and this is pretty common across the political spectrum); and 2) various flavours of Conservatives - be they popular media types or politicians - seeing libertarians as a good source of potential supporters and deliberately equivocating to bring them in line.

[Caliga]

I've pointed this out before but it seems to me a lot of libertarians are actually libertines... IOW "I should get to do whatever I want, but I don't give a fuck about anyone else".  A number of the self-proclaimed libertarians I know are only interested in legalizing drugs, getting rid of what little gun control legislation there is, etc. ... things that personally interest and benefit them.

[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.

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.

How do you know they are a scattershot group?  I have never seen any of what you describe.  I have seen plenty of communications from the Libertarian Party and affiliated groups denouncing groups like the Tea Party and other self-labeled "libertarians".  Now, the LP is nuts for other reasons, but every view you have stated is incompatible with the party.

Also, you have not addressed my second point, which is getting close to "affirming the consequent".

[Malthus]

Seems pretty simple - no two people, it appears, can agree on exactly what "libertarians" are; no two people, it appears, can agree on exactly what "fascism" was. So, logically, they might very well be the same thing. 

[Valmy]

Seems pretty simple - no two people, it appears, can agree on exactly what "libertarians" are; no two people, it appears, can agree on exactly what "fascism" was. So, logically, they might very well be the same thing. 

Except the US President is always a fascist dictator but never a libertarian dictator.

[Eddie Teach]

Fascism is defined as the policy of the Liberal Party of Canada.

[Berkut]

Fascism is defined as the policy of the Liberal Party of Canada.

"Fascist" is just a word used by people without much imagination to demonize those who don't slavishly agree with their personal faith/ideology.

You can bend and twist to call *anything* "fascist". Conservatives want to tell women what to do with their bodies - fascists!

Democrats want to take away your guns and your freedom - fascists!

Libertarians are just people who once wrote Jim Crow Laws, and then the federal government cracked down on fascism, so now they still have fascist tendencies!

That last one is a bit laborious, but hey, the ends justify the means.

[crazy canuck]

the ends justify the means.

Fascist!

[Jacob]

Seems pretty simple - no two people, it appears, can agree on exactly what "libertarians" are; no two people, it appears, can agree on exactly what "fascism" was. So, logically, they might very well be the same thing. 

The logic is unassailable.

[Norgy]

Fascism used to be whatever the Phlegms in Belgiums didn't like. How I miss the old days. 

[grumbler]

Seems pretty simple - no two people, it appears, can agree on exactly what "libertarians" are; no two people, it appears, can agree on exactly what "fascism" was. So, logically, they might very well be the same thing.   

Except for one slight flaw, that is great reasoning. 

The flaw is that no one* co-opts fascism as a cover for their real beliefs, while many apparently do so for libertarianism.  Hence, fascism is "the name that none dare speak," while libertarianism is "the name that none dare define."  Not the same thing.

* Outside of Europe and Japan, maybe.  Are there openly fascist parties in Europe?

[Razgovory]

How do you know they are a scattershot group?  I have never seen any of what you describe.  I have seen plenty of communications from the Libertarian Party and affiliated groups denouncing groups like the Tea Party and other self-labeled "libertarians".  Now, the LP is nuts for other reasons, but every view you have stated is incompatible with the party.

Also, you have not addressed my second point, which is getting close to "affirming the consequent".

I know they are scatter shot group because rarely can find that two that agree!  And so you can't say I have never done anything for you, here's a libertarian advocating voluntary slavery.  Now you can't say you haven't seen any of what I describe.

the-libertarian.co.uk/voluntary-slavery/

I found some theorists talking about a couple of years ago.  Started thread on it.

[Maximus]

Seems pretty simple - no two people, it appears, can agree on exactly what "libertarians" are; no two people, it appears, can agree on exactly what "fascism" was. So, logically, they might very well be the same thing. 

On the principle that any two infinite sets must be congruent?

[Admiral Yi]

Do you have a problem with voluntary slavery Raz?  That, and abolition of the public accomodation portions of the Civil Rights Act are very consistent with my interpretation of libertarianism.

[Norgy]

* Outside of Europe and Japan, maybe.  Are there openly fascist parties in Europe?

Minor ones. Golden Dawn in Greece is probably more neo-nazi than fascist. Italy's Forza Nuovo dress up in black shirts and can be considered fascist. Not sure where to place Hungary's Jobbik.

Depending on who you ask, the list may be longer or shorter.
Some proudly declare themselves fascists still. We used to have poster here from Portugal who did.