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 am a libertarian and I hate what Russia is doing :mad:
Quote from: Tamas on July 21, 2014, 12:42:26 PM
I am a libertarian and I hate what Russia is doing :mad:
But you're a libertarian, not a Libertarian. In the US at least, those are opposites.
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.
And you wonder why you get blasted so often for tribalistic bullshit.
"Libertarians" are not defined by whatever the dumbest, kookiest thing you can find some libertarian saying. Any more than Republicans are defined by Sarah Palin, or Democrats by Michael Moore.
Libertarians became libertarians because the government cracked down on fascism?
Are you really this fucking insane?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia0.giphy.com%2Fmedia%2Frl0FOxdz7CcxO%2Fgiphy.gif&hash=60e1ebd5fecb8b0cd66ba4d8db43aa1e46b8b811)
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.
Uh, interesting take.
Anyway, I'm pretty sure it comes from the isolationist element of libertarianism, where you don't want the bad guys to look quite so bad because you don't want to increase the chances of intervening. Plus I think he also made the point that he thinks our actions have somehow destabilized the region (and that it would be better off without us getting involved).
Quote from: Berkut on July 21, 2014, 12:53:18 PM
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 (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.
And you wonder why you get blasted so often for tribalistic bullshit.
"Libertarians" are not defined by whatever the dumbest, kookiest thing you can find some libertarian saying. Any more than Republicans are defined by Sarah Palin, or Democrats by Michael Moore.
Libertarians became libertarians because the government cracked down on fascism?
Are you really this fucking insane?
Dguller has a point. There are libertarians like you, who actually believe in liberty and libertarians who want to weaken the Federal government because they want to shift power from national elites to the local elites. By happy coincidence they happened to be the local elites. These are the "states rights" libertarians.
Quote from: Berkut on July 21, 2014, 12:53:18 PM
And you wonder why you get blasted so often for tribalistic bullshit.
"Libertarians" are not defined by whatever the dumbest, kookiest thing you can find some libertarian saying. Any more than Republicans are defined by Sarah Palin, or Democrats by Michael Moore.
Libertarians became libertarians because the government cracked down on fascism?
Are you really this fucking insane?
Stand by to be told that there is something wrong with you because you disagree with Gully's point. :cool:
I would note that, really, the
big difference between DGuller and Paul isn't political, but simply that Paul is willing to admit that he might be wrong:
Quote"Of course it is entirely possible that the Obama administration and the US media has it right this time, and Russia or the separatists in eastern Ukraine either purposely or inadvertently shot down this aircraft," he wrote.
Quote from: Berkut on July 21, 2014, 12:53:18 PM
And you wonder why you get blasted so often for tribalistic bullshit.
I don't wonder why you or grumbler claim that. I have a pretty good idea why you do that.
Quote"Libertarians" are not defined by whatever the dumbest, kookiest thing you can find some libertarian saying. Any more than Republicans are defined by Sarah Palin, or Democrats by Michael Moore.
I have seen enough libertarians on the Internet constantly reference RT articles that I feel comfortable drawing a generalization beyond just one kook like Ron Paul.
QuoteLibertarians became libertarians because the government cracked down on fascism?
Are you really this fucking insane?
You missed both "old school" qualifier, as well as the intentional quoting. I don't really think that John Birch Society is in any way truly libertarian, hence the quotes. Yes, I do think that a lot of people started to claim being libertarian when the federal government cracked down on Jim Crow, and they didn't much care for it. The younger libertarians drafted in obviously fit a different mold, but to some extent they do inherit some positions from the old farts without knowing the motivations for those positions.
Quote from: Berkut on July 21, 2014, 12:53:18 PMAnd you wonder why you get blasted so often for tribalistic bullshit.
"Libertarians" are not defined by whatever the dumbest, kookiest thing you can find some libertarian saying. Any more than Republicans are defined by Sarah Palin, or Democrats by Michael Moore.
Libertarians became libertarians because the government cracked down on fascism?
Are you really this fucking insane?
There does seem to be a strain of US libertarianism that has a hard on for strong men like Putin and who seem pretty selective in the way they apply their freedom loving. Ron Paul is one such. It is a funny kind of libertarianism.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 21, 2014, 01:12:46 PM
Dguller has a point. There are libertarians like you, who actually believe in liberty and libertarians who want to weaken the Federal government because they want to shift power from national elites to the local elites. By happy coincidence they happened to be the local elites. These are the "states rights" libertarians.
Those kind of folks generally call themselves libertarian in addition to, but not in preference to conservative.
Yeah, I've considered his post, and clearly he is right - libertarians are really just fascists. That is the only possible conclusion for anyone thinking clearly about what the term means, and what the people who describe themselves as "libertarian" believe.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 21, 2014, 01:12:59 PM
Speesh: nice try to defend the guy, but that was a dumbass comment by Paul.
I wasn't defending him; just explaining what I think motivated his comments.
Quote from: Berkut on July 21, 2014, 01:47:02 PM
Yeah, I've considered his post, and clearly he is right - libertarians are really just fascists. That is the only possible conclusion for anyone thinking clearly about what the term means, and what the people who describe themselves as "libertarian" believe.
Are you really this fucking insane? The big part of why you and grumbler keep calling me tribal, aside from it being your favorite empty insult, is that you do a really good job at reading what you want to read, and not what was actually written.
Quote from: DGuller on July 21, 2014, 02:23:36 PM
Quote from: Berkut on July 21, 2014, 01:47:02 PM
Yeah, I've considered his post, and clearly he is right - libertarians are really just fascists. That is the only possible conclusion for anyone thinking clearly about what the term means, and what the people who describe themselves as "libertarian" believe.
Are you really this fucking insane? The big part of why you and grumbler keep calling me tribal, aside from it being your favorite empty insult, is that you do a really good job at reading what you want to read, and not what was actually written.
Right, I am sure you mean something else entirely when you trotted out how libertarians came about because of the feds cracking down on fascism, and how you "aren't surprised" that libertarians are in bed with fascists.
Not that you aren't surprised Paul is in bed with fascists, but libertarians in general - Paul is, of course, typical of "libertarians".
Of course, you got one part right - this is just your personal, and well known, bias speaking.
Quote from: Berkut on July 21, 2014, 02:37:50 PM
Quote from: DGuller on July 21, 2014, 02:23:36 PM
Quote from: Berkut on July 21, 2014, 01:47:02 PM
Yeah, I've considered his post, and clearly he is right - libertarians are really just fascists. That is the only possible conclusion for anyone thinking clearly about what the term means, and what the people who describe themselves as "libertarian" believe.
Are you really this fucking insane? The big part of why you and grumbler keep calling me tribal, aside from it being your favorite empty insult, is that you do a really good job at reading what you want to read, and not what was actually written.
Right, I am sure you mean something else entirely when you trotted out how libertarians came about because of the feds cracking down on fascism, and how you "aren't surprised" that libertarians are in bed with fascists.
Not that you aren't surprised Paul is in bed with fascists, but libertarians in general - Paul is, of course, typical of "libertarians".
Of course, you got one part right - this is just your personal, and well known, bias speaking.
I may have been sloppy with defining what kinds of quoted libertarians I was talking about in the first post, but I think I elaborated sufficiently by the second post. So you really have no excuse now to keep misrepresenting what I said.
Nothing you said in any subsequent post makes your original post any less idiotically stupid.
Well, yes, the younger fascierrrh, "libertarians" just inherit their fascism, and are of course too stupid to understand where it comes from...
Whatever Guller - I thought you had kind of unjumped the shark the last year or so, but I see I was clearly mistaken.
I like how you put quotes around "libertarian" but of course NOT around "fascists". So we can be ultra clear what you mean.
Quote from: Berkut on July 21, 2014, 02:47:24 PM
Nothing you said in any subsequent post makes your original post any less idiotically stupid.
Of course not, my original post wasn't that stupid to begin with.
QuoteWhatever Guller - I thought you had kind of unjumped the shark the last year or so, but I see I was clearly mistaken.
With all due respect, you're not in position to express such patronizing disappointment. You're just a peer poster, and one far more prone to bouts of total irrationality than you give yourself credit for.
But, yes, you were mistaken. I never jumped the shark in the first place. What happened in the last year was that you weren't around much to debate politics, so your "the truth is somewhere in the middle" life philosophy and my disdain for that kind of philosophy didn't clash as often. I do in fact think that issue by issue, the truth is often enough way over on one side, and not mildly worded.
No, your characterization of me is so patently ridiculous, it is as bad as calling libertarians closet fascists.
I don't believe the truth is in the middle, I just don't believe any side has a monopoly on it. Sometimes it is in the middle sometimes not.
I've said that a thousand times, and you continue to ignore it and lie about it.
Our contentions are never about my beliefs - sometimes they agree with you (probably more often than not) but rather about you and your tendency to go all and partisan and paint the "others" as being completely insane - like linking libertarians and fascists. It is so patently ridiculous a characterization, but no more so than claiming that I am always in the middle I suppose. Don't let the facts cloud your ideology.
Quote from: Berkut on July 21, 2014, 03:27:18 PM
No, your characterization of me is so patently ridiculous, it is as bad as calling libertarians closet fascists.
I don't believe the truth is in the middle, I just don't believe any side has a monopoly on it. Sometimes it is in the middle sometimes not.
I've said that a thousand times, and you continue to ignore it and lie about it.
Our contentions are never about my beliefs - sometimes they agree with you (probably more often than not) but rather about you and your tendency to go all and partisan and paint the "others" as being completely insane - like linking libertarians and fascists. It is so patently ridiculous a characterization, but no more so than claiming that I am always in the middle I suppose. Don't let the facts cloud your ideology.
I've said I'm not a "tribalist" or "partisan" pretty often as well, and yet you continue to ignore it as well. I guess we both perceive each other somewhat differently than we perceive ourselves.
Quote from: DGuller on July 21, 2014, 03:47:40 PM
Quote from: Berkut on July 21, 2014, 03:27:18 PM
No, your characterization of me is so patently ridiculous, it is as bad as calling libertarians closet fascists.
I don't believe the truth is in the middle, I just don't believe any side has a monopoly on it. Sometimes it is in the middle sometimes not.
I've said that a thousand times, and you continue to ignore it and lie about it.
Our contentions are never about my beliefs - sometimes they agree with you (probably more often than not) but rather about you and your tendency to go all and partisan and paint the "others" as being completely insane - like linking libertarians and fascists. It is so patently ridiculous a characterization, but no more so than claiming that I am always in the middle I suppose. Don't let the facts cloud your ideology.
I've said I'm not a "tribalist" or "partisan" pretty often as well, and yet you continue to ignore it as well. I guess we both perceive each other somewhat differently than we perceive ourselves.
The difference is that me concluding that you are a partisan is simply that - my conclusion based on the evidence provided by you doing things like equating libertarians to fascists. It is an opinion - a well supported opinion, but still just an opinion. I might be wrong, but it is honestly held.
You claiming that I am always in the middle is just demonstrably wrong, and you know it simply is not true. But you have to hold onto it because it is the cornerstone of your defense against being such a partisan shill. But it is a lie, and when you say it, you know full well that it isn't true. There are so many examples of where I've come down firmly on one side or another of an issue it isn't even funny - hell, I come down on a "side" much more often than I ever come down "in the middle". I just don't come down on one side or another based on my allegiance to some group or another - at least outside my allegiance to rationality and objectivity.
And you know this is true, and yet you say the opposite over and over and over again. That is called lying.
It is sad the extent that otherwise decent people will go to defend their own ideological myopia.
Not to mention how often it completely derails discussion. I am starting to wonder if you do it intentionally, like maybe this is your game, to see how many otherwise interesting discussions you can troll into another bullshit debate like this one by blithely coming along and equating libertarians with fascists.
Quote from: Berkut on July 21, 2014, 03:54:15 PM
Quote from: DGuller on July 21, 2014, 03:47:40 PM
Quote from: Berkut on July 21, 2014, 03:27:18 PM
No, your characterization of me is so patently ridiculous, it is as bad as calling libertarians closet fascists.
I don't believe the truth is in the middle, I just don't believe any side has a monopoly on it. Sometimes it is in the middle sometimes not.
I've said that a thousand times, and you continue to ignore it and lie about it.
Our contentions are never about my beliefs - sometimes they agree with you (probably more often than not) but rather about you and your tendency to go all and partisan and paint the "others" as being completely insane - like linking libertarians and fascists. It is so patently ridiculous a characterization, but no more so than claiming that I am always in the middle I suppose. Don't let the facts cloud your ideology.
I've said I'm not a "tribalist" or "partisan" pretty often as well, and yet you continue to ignore it as well. I guess we both perceive each other somewhat differently than we perceive ourselves.
The difference is that me concluding that you are a partisan is simply that - my conclusion based on the evidence provided by you doing things like equating libertarians to fascists. It is an opinion - a well supported opinion, but still just an opinion. I might be wrong, but it is honestly held.
You claiming that I am always in the middle is just demonstrably wrong, and you know it simply is not true. But you have to hold onto it because it is the cornerstone of your defense against being such a partisan shill. But it is a lie, and when you say it, you know full well that it isn't true. There are so many examples of where I've come down firmly on one side or another of an issue it isn't even funny - hell, I come down on a "side" much more often than I ever come down "in the middle". I just don't come down on one side or another based on my allegiance to some group or another - at least outside my allegiance to rationality and objectivity.
And you know this is true, and yet you say the opposite over and over and over again. That is called lying.
It is sad the extent that otherwise decent people will go to defend their own ideological myopia.
Not to mention how often it completely derails discussion. I am starting to wonder if you do it intentionally, like maybe this is your game, to see how many otherwise interesting discussions you can troll into another bullshit debate like this one by blithely coming along and equating libertarians with fascists.
Speaking of fucking insane...
You are right, though, I was clearly wrong to say that you're always in the middle on any issue. That was again a sloppy attempt to avoid writing too much. What I should've said, and have been saying often enough in the past, is that you avoid taking a position that may appear partisan, to an extreme. In fact, you make a very big deal about the your awesome lack of partisanship, and use it as a club to beat others.
The latest example is the thread where you bemoan the influence of money on politics, but somehow manage to fail to identify the influence of Republican party and their appointed justices as a pretty significant factor in destroying legal barriers to more money in politics. Worse than that, you go into your usual Drazi diatribe when I bring that up. I often get the feeling that appearing to be non-partisan is far more important to you than trying to understand how issues come about.
I'm trying to think of an ideology more diametrically opposed to libertarianism than fascism, and coming up blank. The idea that they are equivalent, or that one could slide from one to the other, is laughable on its face. I wonder: did the tribal who came up with that idea want to cast aspersions on fascism, or on libertarianism, with that whopper?
Quote from: DGuller on July 21, 2014, 02:23:36 PM
Quote from: Berkut on July 21, 2014, 01:47:02 PM
Yeah, I've considered his post, and clearly he is right - libertarians are really just fascists. That is the only possible conclusion for anyone thinking clearly about what the term means, and what the people who describe themselves as "libertarian" believe.
Are you really this fucking insane? The big part of why you and grumbler keep calling me tribal, aside from it being your favorite empty insult, is that you do a really good job at reading what you want to read, and not what was actually written.
actually you wrote what he said. And you are tribal.
Quote from: Tamas on July 21, 2014, 04:32:41 PM
Quote from: DGuller on July 21, 2014, 02:23:36 PM
Quote from: Berkut on July 21, 2014, 01:47:02 PM
Yeah, I've considered his post, and clearly he is right - libertarians are really just fascists. That is the only possible conclusion for anyone thinking clearly about what the term means, and what the people who describe themselves as "libertarian" believe.
Are you really this fucking insane? The big part of why you and grumbler keep calling me tribal, aside from it being your favorite empty insult, is that you do a really good job at reading what you want to read, and not what was actually written.
actually you wrote what he said. And you are tribal.
I never said that libertarians are fascists. I just said that some of the so-called libertarians are in fact sympathetic to an ideology rather different to libertarianism. They're libertarians only as long as the government doesn't agree with them. And I'm not nearly as tribal as some make me out.
Quote from: grumbler on July 21, 2014, 04:31:47 PM
I'm trying to think of an ideology more diametrically opposed to libertarianism than fascism, and coming up blank. The idea that they are equivalent, or that one could slide from one to the other, is laughable on its face. I wonder: did the tribal who came up with that idea want to cast aspersions on fascism, or on libertarianism, with that whopper?
Some people appear to think that they're two great flavours that go well together - like this random internet blogger who says Libertarians should embrace Pinochet: http://therightstuff.biz/2013/01/23/fascist-libertarianism-for-a-better-world/ - and that hardcore statism is required to implement a Libertarian society (much like Communist totalitarianism was "necessary intermediate step" to reach a socialist utopia).
A little more seriously, it does seem to me that some of the reactionary right has bestowed the label "Libertarian" upon themselves while holding on to various bigotries, esp. racism, and primarily focusing on the freedom of using money and guns to keep other people in line. Calling it fascism is a rhetorical bridge too far, I think, but it is nonetheless seems a curious reactionary kind of libertarianism.
"Using money and guns to keep people in line?" What does that mean?
Quote from: Jacob on July 21, 2014, 04:46:41 PM
Some people appear to think that they're two great flavours that go well together - like this random internet blogger who says Libertarians should embrace Pinochet: http://therightstuff.biz/2013/01/23/fascist-libertarianism-for-a-better-world/ - and that hardcore statism is required to implement a Libertarian society (much like Communist totalitarianism was "necessary intermediate step" to reach a socialist utopia).
Actually, he is arguing against libertarianism because it is so far from what he thinks is needed (fascism). he's simply arguing that libertarians should abandon their libertarian goals and support fascism because libertarianism can't overthrow Evol Society.
QuoteA little more seriously, it does seem to me that some of the reactionary right has bestowed the label "Libertarian" upon themselves while holding on to various bigotries, esp. racism, and primarily focusing on the freedom of using money and guns to keep other people in line. Calling it fascism is a rhetorical bridge too far, I think, but it is nonetheless seems a curious reactionary kind of libertarianism.
Oh, I agree that there are those who misuse the word libertarian, even to describe themselves, just as others misuse "communist" or "liberal." But authoritarian libertarianism is an oxymoron.
Quote from: grumbler on July 21, 2014, 05:02:09 PMOh, I agree that there are those who misuse the word libertarian, even to describe themselves, just as others misuse "communist" or "liberal." But authoritarian libertarianism is an oxymoron.
We're in agreement then, with the addition that there seems to be more of that going around recently; that was my read of what dguller was saying as well.
All threads seem to end up turning into languishites arguing about how they argue. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 21, 2014, 04:48:00 PM
"Using money and guns to keep people in line?" What does that mean?
The position seems to be something like "1) freedom means I and people like me should have access to as much firepower as possible, so we can protect ourselves against the poor and the brown. 2) There should basically be no limit to what one can do with private property, including any kind of discrimination or rigging of the electoral process; there is basically no kind of corruption, racism or other kind of prejudice that cannot be rendered acceptable through an appeal to concepts of private property."
Quote from: Jacob on July 21, 2014, 05:12:55 PM
The position seems to be something like "1) freedom means I and people like me should have access to as much firepower as possible, so we can protect ourselves against the poor and the brown. 2) There should basically be no limit to what one can do with private property, including any kind of discrimination or rigging of the electoral process; there is basically no kind of corruption, racism or other kind of prejudice that cannot be rendered acceptable through an appeal to concepts of private property."
"Keeping people in line" certainly does cover a lot of ground. :hmm:
Quote from: Tonitrus on July 21, 2014, 05:12:37 PM
All threads seem to end up turning into languishites arguing about how they argue. :rolleyes:
The root of the problem is that some people are out to score points. Couple that with the competitive nature, and the incentive to subconsciously misinterpret a point becomes too great.
In this particular case, I can sort of see how if you set aside common sense, you can interpret what I said as "libertarianism = fascism". I didn't clearly define the significance of quotation marks in my short first post, so if you really wanted to, you could read it as a blanked accusation against an ideology rather than calling out a subset of its adherents as essentially fakes. However, by the second post, it should be clear what was intended. But, no, some people keep on forming long foaming posts with the starting assumption that I equated libertarianism with fascism, because that scores points.
Keep in mind that Grumbler leans libertarian, so he's naturally sympathetic and can't see how a libertarian could also have authoritarian tendencies. It's a bit like how a communist can't fathom how a communist state could have inequality.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 21, 2014, 05:37:49 PM
Keep in mind that Grumbler leans libertarian, so he's naturally sympathetic and can't see how a libertarian could also have authoritarian tendencies. It's a bit like how a communist can't fathom how a communist state could have inequality.
Even ignoring deliberate misrepresentations, I think the more basic fallacy at play is the assumption that everyone claiming to be a libertarian is actually in any way consistently adhering to the principle of libertarianism. Everyone agrees with some of them, so if lack of strong consistency in beliefs is not a bar to being called a libertarian, almost everyone can be one.
I think I hold some libertarian beliefs as well, it's just that for me a very major point of departure is the assumption that the federal government is the only entity that individuals should be protected from. I think that entities with strong economic power can be a danger to individual liberties as well. I do realize that it is a pretty major departure from the mainstream understanding of the ideology, though, however fuzzy it is, so I don't go around claiming to be one. I do think that some authoritarians/reactionaries/fascists aren't as particular, though.
Quote from: Jacob on July 21, 2014, 05:06:19 PM
Quote from: grumbler on July 21, 2014, 05:02:09 PMOh, I agree that there are those who misuse the word libertarian, even to describe themselves, just as others misuse "communist" or "liberal." But authoritarian libertarianism is an oxymoron.
We're in agreement then, with the addition that there seems to be more of that going around recently; that was my read of what dguller was saying as well.
This one guy is not "more of that going around lately." There are a few internet blog entries about "fascist libertarianism" or "libertarian fascism," but they are all this same guy, or else leftists trying to pull a DGuller. Didn't we have somebody here at languish that used to talk about "fascist libertarianism"?
I think that Ron Paul was talking about the US government, not the Russian government. I'd need to see some evidence that he likes the Russian style of government before I would believe it.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 21, 2014, 05:16:59 PM
"Keeping people in line" certainly does cover a lot of ground. :hmm:
What do you mean?
Quote from: DGuller on July 21, 2014, 06:09:58 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 21, 2014, 05:37:49 PM
Keep in mind that Grumbler leans libertarian, so he's naturally sympathetic and can't see how a libertarian could also have authoritarian tendencies. It's a bit like how a communist can't fathom how a communist state could have inequality.
Even ignoring deliberate misrepresentations, I think the more basic fallacy at play is the assumption that everyone claiming to be a libertarian is actually in any way consistently adhering to the principle of libertarianism. Everyone agrees with some of them, so if lack of strong consistency in beliefs is not a bar to being called a libertarian, almost everyone can be one.
I think I hold some libertarian beliefs as well, it's just that for me a very major point of departure is the assumption that the federal government is the only entity that individuals should be protected from. I think that entities with strong economic power can be a danger to individual liberties as well. I do realize that it is a pretty major departure from the mainstream understanding of the ideology, though, however fuzzy it is, so I don't go around claiming to be one. I do think that some authoritarians/reactionaries/fascists aren't as particular, though.
I agree that "Libertarian", is fairly fuzzy because they are such a mixed bag. One person might want to curb the government because they think they are cahoots with Aliens and another might just wants to smoke pot. Others are so concerned about taxes and welfare programs that they seriously talk about restricting franchise to prevent it. If you seriously believe that the government giving out "Free Money" is such a danger that it will cause a collapse in society and that poor people will inevitably vote themselves "free money", then you must come out against popular democracy.
A few year ago I had a poll question here. Would you rather be poor in a country with with all your political rights, or rich in a country with heavily restricted political rights. Most people chose to be rich. Grumbler didn't find the question "Interesting". It's not one that libertarians can feel smug about. He preferred the old "safety vs freedom".
Quote from: Razgovory on July 21, 2014, 06:29:41 PM
A few year ago I had a poll question here. Would you rather be poor in a country with with all your political rights, or rich in a country with heavily restricted political rights. Most people chose to be rich. Grumbler didn't find the question "Interesting". It's not one that libertarians can feel smug about. He preferred the old "safety vs freedom".
To be fair, that's a loaded question, especially if you take morality out of equation. If you're rich in a country with restricted rights, you tend to not have your rights restricted all that much. In fact, you're probably enjoying power that can only come with the general populace not having rights. Of course, the downside is that it's a tenuous existence, you're one wrong political move or one shift of political winds away from oblivion, but different people have different levels of risk aversion.
Quote from: DGuller on July 21, 2014, 06:39:02 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 21, 2014, 06:29:41 PM
A few year ago I had a poll question here. Would you rather be poor in a country with with all your political rights, or rich in a country with heavily restricted political rights. Most people chose to be rich. Grumbler didn't find the question "Interesting". It's not one that libertarians can feel smug about. He preferred the old "safety vs freedom".
To be fair, that's a loaded question, especially if you take morality out of equation. If you're rich in a country with restricted rights, you tend to not have your rights restricted all that much. In fact, you're probably enjoying power that can only come with the general populace not having rights. Of course, the downside is that it's a tenuous existence, you're one wrong political move or one shift of political winds away from oblivion, but different people have different levels of risk aversion.
It was inspired by Mono's disinterest in Democracy. I don't think it's unfair though, it goes right to the core of a lot libertarian impulses. Do you want power, wealth and privileged at the expense of the rights of your fellow citizens?
Quote from: Jacob on July 21, 2014, 06:18:29 PM
What do you mean?
I mean it seems to range from activity that most Americans find perfectly unobjectionable (protecting your life and property) to activity that is universally abhorred, like corruption.
There certainly are some false libertarians out there, but claiming Ron Paul is a closet fascist is absurd.
Quote from: derspiess on July 21, 2014, 07:38:38 PM
There certainly are some false libertarians out there, but claiming Ron Paul is a closet fascist is absurd.
I'd say there are more "false libertarians" then real ones. Also Dguller didn't say he was one, just that he got in bed with one.
Quote from: DGuller on July 21, 2014, 04:05:52 PM
Quote from: Berkut on July 21, 2014, 03:54:15 PM
Quote from: DGuller on July 21, 2014, 03:47:40 PM
Quote from: Berkut on July 21, 2014, 03:27:18 PM
No, your characterization of me is so patently ridiculous, it is as bad as calling libertarians closet fascists.
I don't believe the truth is in the middle, I just don't believe any side has a monopoly on it. Sometimes it is in the middle sometimes not.
I've said that a thousand times, and you continue to ignore it and lie about it.
Our contentions are never about my beliefs - sometimes they agree with you (probably more often than not) but rather about you and your tendency to go all and partisan and paint the "others" as being completely insane - like linking libertarians and fascists. It is so patently ridiculous a characterization, but no more so than claiming that I am always in the middle I suppose. Don't let the facts cloud your ideology.
I've said I'm not a "tribalist" or "partisan" pretty often as well, and yet you continue to ignore it as well. I guess we both perceive each other somewhat differently than we perceive ourselves.
The difference is that me concluding that you are a partisan is simply that - my conclusion based on the evidence provided by you doing things like equating libertarians to fascists. It is an opinion - a well supported opinion, but still just an opinion. I might be wrong, but it is honestly held.
You claiming that I am always in the middle is just demonstrably wrong, and you know it simply is not true. But you have to hold onto it because it is the cornerstone of your defense against being such a partisan shill. But it is a lie, and when you say it, you know full well that it isn't true. There are so many examples of where I've come down firmly on one side or another of an issue it isn't even funny - hell, I come down on a "side" much more often than I ever come down "in the middle". I just don't come down on one side or another based on my allegiance to some group or another - at least outside my allegiance to rationality and objectivity.
And you know this is true, and yet you say the opposite over and over and over again. That is called lying.
It is sad the extent that otherwise decent people will go to defend their own ideological myopia.
Not to mention how often it completely derails discussion. I am starting to wonder if you do it intentionally, like maybe this is your game, to see how many otherwise interesting discussions you can troll into another bullshit debate like this one by blithely coming along and equating libertarians with fascists.
Speaking of fucking insane...
You are right, though, I was clearly wrong to say that you're always in the middle on any issue. That was again a sloppy attempt to avoid writing too much. What I should've said, and have been saying often enough in the past, is that you avoid taking a position that may appear partisan, to an extreme.
Oh, so I take a position, but avoid taking one that would appear partisan.
Yeah, that is called "not being partisan". There are a finite number of positions on most issues, generally and often just two - if I take one of them, then on THAT issue, how would I "avoid appearing partisan"? That doesn't even make any sense.
Appearing partisan is something that happens across multiple issues - the only way to appear partisan on a particular issue is to make it clear that your position is not defined by an evaluation of the issue, but rather based on where your tribe lines up on that issue. That is rather easy to "avoid" doing, and yes, I most certainly do not do that - but it take no effort on my part. I simply don't care what your tribe thinks is the "right" answer, nor do I care what your anti-tribe thinks.
Quote
In fact, you make a very big deal about the your awesome lack of partisanship, and use it as a club to beat others.
Being a partisan shill is worthy of being beat up over.
And making a big deal of you and Hansy being partisan shills is not the same as me making a big deal of not being one - not being one is pretty much the default.
And I will continue to not apologize for actually thinking about issues beyond how it serves my party.
Quote
The latest example is the thread where you bemoan the influence of money on politics, but somehow manage to fail to identify the influence of Republican party and their appointed justices as a pretty significant factor in destroying legal barriers to more money in politics.
More intellectual dishonesty. I very explicitly identify the source (although of course I don't agree with your hysterical ZOMG IT IS ALL THE OTHER GUYS!!!! tribal crap). And I talked extensively about the Republican Party - of course, not enough to satisfy your stance that in this, as in nearly everything thing, it is 99.8% the other teams fault.
But the point is that crowing on and on about who created the problem doesn't solve it, and your proposed solution (Vote for my team!) would not solve it either.
Quote
Worse than that, you go into your usual Drazi diatribe when I bring that up. I often get the feeling that appearing to be non-partisan is far more important to you than trying to understand how issues come about.
No, not being partisan is fundamental to any possible chance of actually solving problems like this, and that is important to me. If it is turned into just another Us Vs Them battle, nothing will ever happen. It will just be another entrenched issue that one side supports and the other side rejects on the prcinciples that you and Hans hold ever so dear - My Party, Right Or Wrong!
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 21, 2014, 05:16:59 PM
Quote from: Jacob on July 21, 2014, 05:12:55 PM
The position seems to be something like "1) freedom means I and people like me should have access to as much firepower as possible, so we can protect ourselves against the poor and the brown. 2) There should basically be no limit to what one can do with private property, including any kind of discrimination or rigging of the electoral process; there is basically no kind of corruption, racism or other kind of prejudice that cannot be rendered acceptable through an appeal to concepts of private property."
"Keeping people in line" certainly does cover a lot of ground. :hmm:
That's why they need to automatic weapons. Interlocking fields of fire can cover a lot of ground.
Quote from: Berkut on July 21, 2014, 08:18:31 PM
No, not being partisan is fundamental to any possible chance of actually solving problems like this, and that is important to me. If it is turned into just another Us Vs Them battle, nothing will ever happen. It will just be another entrenched issue that one side supports and the other side rejects on the prcinciples that you and Hans hold ever so dear - My Party, Right Or Wrong!
I'm a little burned out at this from being tag teamed by you and grumbler in heat, so I'll just address this last point without conceding any of the other points (if you need cliff notes, I still think that you're full of shit on them, and you think I'm full of shit on them. We won't resolve it, and I don't care to at this point.)
So, about this last point. Sometimes at the core of the issue, and what makes it an issue in the first place, is a concerted political campaign. The drive to increase the role of money in politics is one such thing. I would say that 80% of the gains of money in the war of money vs. democracy is directly attributable to a strategy executed by Republicans. It may be a wise diplomatic tactic to avoid fingerpointing in order to avoid defensive reactions, but sometimes it's just so obviously bullshit that it's not going to work anyway. You may disagree with my 80% argument, but to disagree with it in the way you did is going straight for ad homs, bypassing any debate. Minsky disagreed with me as well, but he did it without being disagreeable; that's something he is very good at, and you and grumbler are extremely poor at.
As for the very last sentence, that's just utter bullshit. You've done a very good job defining me and the source of my views, and I give you credit for it, but that's still a lie. I've said it plenty of times before that the reason I regard Republican party with extreme hostility is because I perceive them to conduct war on democracy in favor of crony capitalism. I feel freely admit to that. Being very hostile to the Republican Party does not make me an ardent Democrat. Judging by the sheer amount of positions you attributed to me over the years that I actually leaned the opposite way on, just on the assumption that I would go with a Democrat position, I'm sure this will go right past your ears, and you'll go back to scoring intellectually dishonest points, but that's still true. I'm not an ardent Democrat, I'm an ardent anti-Republican. And I will argue that I have damn good rational reasons to be that way.
Quote from: DGuller on July 22, 2014, 01:24:36 AM
Quote from: Berkut on July 21, 2014, 08:18:31 PM
No, not being partisan is fundamental to any possible chance of actually solving problems like this, and that is important to me. If it is turned into just another Us Vs Them battle, nothing will ever happen. It will just be another entrenched issue that one side supports and the other side rejects on the prcinciples that you and Hans hold ever so dear - My Party, Right Or Wrong!
I'm a little burned out at this from being tag teamed by you and grumbler in heat, so I'll just address this last point without conceding any of the other points (if you need cliff notes, I still think that you're full of shit on them, and you think I'm full of shit on them. We won't resolve it, and I don't care to at this point.)
So, about this last point. Sometimes at the core of the issue, and what makes it an issue in the first place, is a concerted political campaign. The drive to increase the role of money in politics is one such thing. I would say that 80% of the gains of money in the war of money vs. democracy is directly attributable to a strategy executed by Republicans. It may be a wise diplomatic tactic to avoid fingerpointing in order to avoid defensive reactions, but sometimes it's just so obviously bullshit that it's not going to work anyway. You may disagree with my 80% argument, but to disagree with it in the way you did is going straight for ad homs, bypassing any debate. Minsky disagreed with me as well, but he did it without being disagreeable; that's something he is very good at, and you and grumbler are extremely poor at.
Minsky has more patience than I do, and is more careful in his maneuvering.
What I found fascinating about the entire exchange was that you were so hysterically upset that I wasn't willing to focus only on who was to blame - even after I agreed with the basics of your position, if I was not willing to frame my entire view on the subject solely around "OMG TEH REPUBLICANS ARE EVOL!!!" I was some kind of anti-partisan asshole. Like I said - this was AFTER I agreed with you - but that wasn't enough, I had to agree with you *and* agree that the entire topic was only interesting to the extent that it meant we should "vote for the 98% against the 99%" - the only interest it had was how it might influence who "wins" the next battle between Purple and Green. Yawn.
It is so very much like religion with you - you didn't display a fraction of the vehemence at the actual Republicans in the thread saying it was all just fine - but someone who had the audacity to challenge the basic premise that this, along with every other issue of import, is not necessary to be framed as more of your partisan crap, THAT is worthy of true hostility and anger to the point that you are willing to trot out the standard lies you know are simply not true.
I am sure you simply cannot see it, but this is *exactly* how fanatical religious people view atheists - there is no such thing for them as people who just don't care - you are either one of them, are you are are against them. They (and you) simply cannot imagine someone who just rejects the entire framework of "party" as pointless. You cannot handle someone who doesn't share your tribalism - even the "enemy" tribal fanatics are vastly preferable to someone who rejects the entire thing out of hand.
I am not anti-partisan Guller - I am a-partisan. I think that really bothers you, which really is rather amusing, and even fascinating. You are clearly incredibly smart, yet just as clearly unable to use that intelligence in a meaningful manner when it comes to anything touching on politics, since you have this rabid insistence that first and foremost the overriding principle must be partisanship, even if your partisanship is defined as being against one tribe rather than in favor of another. A distinction that I am sure is very meaningful to you, but completely lost (or maybe the better word is uninteresting) to those who do not share your obsession.
I really do find this fascinating, and a little depressing, since I suspect it is the basic foundation behind how impossible it is to actually get anything accomplished. You are exactly the kind of person who would rather make sure the other side fails that get anything done and risk the "enemy" being perceived as successful.
Quote from: Berkut on July 22, 2014, 01:57:53 AM
Quote from: DGuller on July 22, 2014, 01:24:36 AM
Quote from: Berkut on July 21, 2014, 08:18:31 PM
No, not being partisan is fundamental to any possible chance of actually solving problems like this, and that is important to me. If it is turned into just another Us Vs Them battle, nothing will ever happen. It will just be another entrenched issue that one side supports and the other side rejects on the prcinciples that you and Hans hold ever so dear - My Party, Right Or Wrong!
I'm a little burned out at this from being tag teamed by you and grumbler in heat, so I'll just address this last point without conceding any of the other points (if you need cliff notes, I still think that you're full of shit on them, and you think I'm full of shit on them. We won't resolve it, and I don't care to at this point.)
So, about this last point. Sometimes at the core of the issue, and what makes it an issue in the first place, is a concerted political campaign. The drive to increase the role of money in politics is one such thing. I would say that 80% of the gains of money in the war of money vs. democracy is directly attributable to a strategy executed by Republicans. It may be a wise diplomatic tactic to avoid fingerpointing in order to avoid defensive reactions, but sometimes it's just so obviously bullshit that it's not going to work anyway. You may disagree with my 80% argument, but to disagree with it in the way you did is going straight for ad homs, bypassing any debate. Minsky disagreed with me as well, but he did it without being disagreeable; that's something he is very good at, and you and grumbler are extremely poor at.
Minsky has more patience than I do, and is more careful in his maneuvering.
What I found fascinating about the entire exchange was that you were so hysterically upset that I wasn't willing to focus only on who was to blame - even after I agreed with the basics of your position, if I was not willing to frame my entire view on the subject solely around "OMG TEH REPUBLICANS ARE EVOL!!!" I was some kind of anti-partisan asshole. Like I said - this was AFTER I agreed with you - but that wasn't enough, I had to agree with you *and* agree that the entire topic was only interesting to the extent that it meant we should "vote for the 98% against the 99%" - the only interest it had was how it might influence who "wins" the next battle between Purple and Green. Yawn.
It is so very much like religion with you - you didn't display a fraction of the vehemence at the actual Republicans in the thread saying it was all just fine - but someone who had the audacity to challenge the basic premise that this, along with every other issue of import, is not necessary to be framed as more of your partisan crap, THAT is worthy of true hostility and anger to the point that you are willing to trot out the standard lies you know are simply not true.
I am sure you simply cannot see it, but this is *exactly* how fanatical religious people view atheists - there is no such thing for them as people who just don't care - you are either one of them, are you are are against them. They (and you) simply cannot imagine someone who just rejects the entire framework of "party" as pointless. You cannot handle someone who doesn't share your tribalism - even the "enemy" tribal fanatics are vastly preferable to someone who rejects the entire thing out of hand.
I am not anti-partisan Guller - I am a-partisan. I think that really bothers you, which really is rather amusing, and even fascinating. You are clearly incredibly smart, yet just as clearly unable to use that intelligence in a meaningful manner when it comes to anything touching on politics, since you have this rabid insistence that first and foremost the overriding principle must be partisanship, even if your partisanship is defined as being against one tribe rather than in favor of another. A distinction that I am sure is very meaningful to you, but completely lost (or maybe the better word is uninteresting) to those who do not share your obsession.
I really do find this fascinating, and a little depressing, since I suspect it is the basic foundation behind how impossible it is to actually get anything accomplished. You are exactly the kind of person who would rather make sure the other side fails that get anything done and risk the "enemy" being perceived as successful.
I wasn't upset with you, I just thought that you were so reluctant to identify the primary cause of something you were complaining about as the primary cause, that your whole thread was just like bitching about bad weather. Yeah, that money problem just went and happened, where the fuck did it come from? And your solution of changing the system? Yeah, that is so much more practical.
And the bit about me being more accepting of Republican fanatics than of you? :lol: That's another one of your pet theories that is so divorced from reality that I don't even know how to parry that. It was lolbad nutty the first time you trotted it out many years ago, and it's still nutty now. The reason I get into scraps with you and grumbler is not because you're the moderates I'm trying to destroy as a fanatic; I get into scraps with the two of you because you are extremely, and I'm not using that word lightly or hyperbolically, unpleasant to argue with. It is much more pleasant to vehemently disagree with Hansmeister than it is to even unconditionally agree with you. Don't take it as a criticism of you as a person, you're are not an unplesant person (grumbler is, though); you're just unpleasant to debate with or even not debate with.
American kulturkampf hijacks are the new American Civil War hijacks.
Quote from: Warspite on July 22, 2014, 05:46:41 AM
American kulturkampf hijacks are the new American Civil War hijacks.
Things have really escalated over there.
Sometimes I wonder if DGuller can really have so little self-awareness.
Quote from: grumbler on July 22, 2014, 06:34:15 AM
Sometimes I wonder if I can really have so little self-awareness.
Grumbler, you may need to remap your keyboard and the keys are sticking too.
Quote from: mongers on July 22, 2014, 06:45:08 AM
Quote from: grumbler on July 22, 2014, 06:34:15 AM
Sometimes I wonder if I can really have so little self-awareness.
Grumbler, you may need to remap your keyboard and the keys are sticking too.
I haven't followed their "debate" because frankly it is boring but DGuller has been for quite a while almost on Raz levels of just parroting the Democrat party line.
Quote from: mongers on July 22, 2014, 06:45:08 AM
Quote from: grumbler on July 22, 2014, 06:34:15 AM
Sometimes I wonder if I can really have so little self-awareness.
Grumbler, you may need to remap your keyboard and the keys are sticking too.
Hmmm... I just copied and pasted someone else's post, merely changing the subject of the sentence, and you responded. You didn't respond to the first guy who posted it. Double standards much? :lol:
Quote from: Tamas on July 22, 2014, 06:47:04 AM
I haven't followed their "debate" because frankly it is boring but DGuller has been for quite a while almost on Raz levels of just parroting the Democrat party line.
You are wise, because it isn't really a debate at all. DG doesn't really "get" intellectual discourse, I don't think. To him, it all seems very personal and emotional.
Quote from: grumbler on July 22, 2014, 06:59:22 AM
Quote from: mongers on July 22, 2014, 06:45:08 AM
Quote from: grumbler on July 22, 2014, 06:34:15 AM
Sometimes I wonder if I can really have so little self-awareness.
Grumbler, you may need to remap your keyboard and the keys are sticking too.
Hmmm... I just copied and pasted someone else's post, merely changing the subject of the sentence, and you responded. You didn't respond to the first guy who posted it. Double standards much? :lol:
I'm not taking part in the debate, I'm commenting on your behaviour here, you come across as a grade one arsehole.
Grumbler is high on tiger blood and winning.
Quote from: grumbler on July 22, 2014, 07:03:02 AM
Quote from: Tamas on July 22, 2014, 06:47:04 AM
I haven't followed their "debate" because frankly it is boring but DGuller has been for quite a while almost on Raz levels of just parroting the Democrat party line.
You are wise, because it isn't really a debate at all. DG doesn't really "get" intellectual discourse, I don't think. To him, it all seems very personal and emotional.
You are some guy to talk about that.
Quote from: Tamas on July 22, 2014, 06:47:04 AM
Quote from: mongers on July 22, 2014, 06:45:08 AM
Quote from: grumbler on July 22, 2014, 06:34:15 AM
Sometimes I wonder if I can really have so little self-awareness.
Grumbler, you may need to remap your keyboard and the keys are sticking too.
I haven't followed their "debate" because frankly it is boring but DGuller has been for quite a while almost on Raz levels of just parroting the Democrat party line.
Nonsense. You are far too hung up on a few subjects where I definitely agree with Democrats much than than with real libertarians, such as economics, and you're extrapolating it to all of the issues.
Quote from: grumbler on July 22, 2014, 07:03:02 AM
Quote from: Tamas on July 22, 2014, 06:47:04 AM
I haven't followed their "debate" because frankly it is boring but DGuller has been for quite a while almost on Raz levels of just parroting the Democrat party line.
You are wise, because it isn't really a debate at all. DG doesn't really "get" intellectual discourse, I don't think. To him, it all seems very personal and emotional.
Some intellectual discourse that was. Here are the latest two opening salvos from you two:
Quote from: grumbler on July 19, 2014, 01:45:08 PM
:lol: You and Hans are practically twins in your thinking. Only your tribal allegiances differ; your contempt for opinions other than your own, and your over-use of hyperbole, are identical.
I don't want to discourage you (or Hans), but I want to help the rest of the forum see how funny you guys are.
Quote from: Berkut on July 21, 2014, 12:53:18 PM
And you wonder why you get blasted so often for tribalistic bullshit.
"Libertarians" are not defined by whatever the dumbest, kookiest thing you can find some libertarian saying. Any more than Republicans are defined by Sarah Palin, or Democrats by Michael Moore.
Libertarians became libertarians because the government cracked down on fascism?
Are you really this fucking insane?
How in the world could I take such masterpieces of rational "intellectual discourse" personally? :blink:
This thread:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.comedycouch.com%2Fimages%2Finterview_photos%2Fyakov2.jpg&hash=d4f86f15f24c66c21941b32627e198d9207e6d2d)
You start by accusing libertarians of being fascists, or motivated by fascists, or in bed with fascists (ior whatever ridiculous equating to fascism you are currently pretending was your intent all along), and then you are all butthurt that someone calls you insane?
You don't get to accuse those you don't like of being fascists, THEN demand "rational" discourse.
Quote from: DGuller on July 22, 2014, 01:35:45 AM
Clearly Obama is going to regret making that clever comment he made during the debate, if he isn't already.
Doubt he's losing much sleep over it.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 21, 2014, 08:02:37 PM
[I'd say there are more "false libertarians" then real ones.
I bet you would. I suppose it depends on how high of a bar you set. I don't agree with every single position the Libertarian Party takes, but would 75% be enough for me to call myself libertarian? Or can I call myself a libertarian-conservative? Or can I say I'm a conservative with libertarian tendencies? Or should I make you guys happy by putting on a black shirt and calling myself a fascist? :P
QuoteAlso Dguller didn't say he was one, just that he got in bed with one.
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.
Quote from: mongers on July 22, 2014, 07:28:18 AM
I'm not taking part in the debate, I'm commenting on your behaviour here, you come across as a grade one arsehole.
Yes, of course I do! That's what I set out to do by copying the posts of grade-one assholes! I just find it interesting in a stalkerish way that you only call me out for posting imitation grade-one assholish things, and ignore the original author when he creates the grade-one asshole post. Once would be a coincidence, but this isn't the first time (nor the first time I have called you on it). Double standard much?
Quote from: Tamas on July 22, 2014, 07:55:12 AM
You are some guy to talk about that.
I am, indeed. You won't find me engaging in
ad homs and hysterical hyperbole. I am enjoying puncturing the ego balloons, but it isn't personal, and I wouldn't expect anyone else to much enjoy it. It's rather like taking a satisfying dump; only one person ever gets any satisfaction out of it! :lol:
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.
What was interesting (and illuminating) about the exchange was that he said something that sure as hell sounded like he was calling libertarians (and not even Libertarians, but the generic kind) fascists.
Then when he got blasted for it, he says "Oh noes, *that* isn't what I meant! I meant that they just love fascists, or the young libertarians have fascist ideas but don't know it, or some such babble like this in an effort to pretend like I didn't just say that" (and yes, I am paraphrasing).
But he is STILL insisting he has every right to feel offended that he got blasted for calling libertarians fascists...even after he has admitted that supposedly that wasn't really what he meant. So if it isn't what he meant, then why would he be upset at the response, since it clearly would not actually apply to him, but rather his badly worded opening salvo?
I suspect that it is exactly what he meant, despite the subsequent attempts to pretend like it isn't what he said - otherwise, this would never have gone anywhere. He would have said what appeared to be equating libertarians with fascists, he would have caught some grief for saying something so stunningly ignorant and self serving, he would have then said "Ooops! Sorry - my apologies, that isn't what I meant at all, and I can understand you calling me insane if I had something that amazingly douchebag! My bad! Here is what I was trying to say..."
But no - he just insisted he didn't mean that, not *exactly* that anyway, but something a lot like that....but also insisted that he still has the right to feel all put upon at the response.
Quote from: Berkut on July 22, 2014, 08:26:21 AM
You start by accusing libertarians of being fascists, or motivated by fascists, or in bed with fascists (ior whatever ridiculous equating to fascism you are currently pretending was your intent all along), and then you are all butthurt that someone calls you insane?
You don't get to accuse those you don't like of being fascists, THEN demand "rational" discourse.
This is why it's so extremely unpleasant to discuss things with you. I clarified exactly what I meant, to remove any ambiguity in my intent that could be present in my first post. After all the further discussion where my intent was clarified again and again, you still go back and attribute something to me that I definitely did not intend to convey. I did not mean to equate libertarian ideology as being in any way affiliated to fascism in general.
Essentially, you're implying that I'm flat out lying about clarifying my point, and that I walked back my comment under the guise of clarifying it. How exactly are you supposed to maintain rational discourse that's not at all personal when you keep questioning my honesty and choosing to define what I said? Yes, my post was the flashpoint of this thread derailment. But it is absolutely your extreme belligerence that actually derailed it.
It's distressing how much it takes to get you to finally admit that your first several posts on the subject were utterly ridiculous and talking out of your ass, but at least we finally go there - that is something.
"I did not mean to equate libertarian ideology as being in any way affiliated to fascism in general."
That statement is not a possible "explanation" for multiple posts explaining how libertarians and fascists are linked, but I appreciate that you are willing to admit how ridiculous you were when bludgeoned about long enough.
And your insistence that it is still those who called you out in it's fault for any "belligerence" after you called them fascists (completely mistaken of course, you actually meant something that was not in any way connected to fascism, even though you used the term over and over and over and over again).
Oh right - I think you were not saying they were fascists, just that they supported fascist ideas because they were too stupid to understand that the genesis of the party came from fascism? Was that were we ended up? I honestly don't really know...
It is "extremely unpleasant" for you to discuss THIS PARTICULAR topic (your own intolerance and bigotry towards those who do not agree with you) because having people point out how intolerant and close minded you are is painful. Which is a small mark in your favor - it would be worse if you did NOT find that unpleasant.
But we can and have had plenty of discussions that are not so painful, when you sometimes, rarely, decide to NOT turn every single topic into a jihad against those who do not share your 100% absolute faith in the rightness of you conclusions.
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.
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 22, 2014, 08:25:25 AM
This thread:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.comedycouch.com%2Fimages%2Finterview_photos%2Fyakov2.jpg&hash=d4f86f15f24c66c21941b32627e198d9207e6d2d)
I... I don't know what's going on.
Quote from: HVC on July 22, 2014, 09:48:35 AM
I... I don't know what's going on.
Not enough news from Ukraine, evidently. :hmm:
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?
Probably wouldn't call them libertarian.
Quote from: HVC on July 22, 2014, 09:48:35 AMI... I don't know what's going on.
Partisan posters denying being partisan posters by partisan posters accused of being partisan posters.
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.
Quote from: derspiess on July 22, 2014, 09:57:48 AM
Probably wouldn't call them libertarian.
Not what I asked.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2014/07/19/strange-bedfellows-silicon-valley-techies-like-conservative-senator-rand-paul/
:w00t: #itshappening
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.
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.
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.
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.
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").
Quote from: grumbler on July 22, 2014, 02:11:07 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 22, 2014, 12:10:59 PM
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.
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".
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. :D
Quote from: Malthus on July 22, 2014, 02:49:42 PM
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. :D
Except the US President is always a fascist dictator but never a libertarian dictator. :hmm:
Fascism is defined as the policy of the Liberal Party of Canada.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 22, 2014, 02:52:21 PM
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.
Quote from: Malthus on July 22, 2014, 02:49:42 PM
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. :D
:lol:
The logic is unassailable.
Fascism used to be whatever the Phlegms in Belgiums didn't like. How I miss the old days. :cry:
Quote from: Malthus on July 22, 2014, 02:49:42 PM
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. :D
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?
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on July 22, 2014, 02:44:31 PM
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.
Quote from: Malthus on July 22, 2014, 02:49:42 PM
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. :D
On the principle that any two infinite sets must be congruent?
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.
Quote from: grumbler on July 22, 2014, 03:35:31 PM
* 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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 22, 2014, 03:44:19 PM
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.
I have a host of problems with libertarianism, however I agree that both abolition of public accommodations and voluntary slavery is consistent with libertarianism as I understand it.
Quote from: Norgy on July 22, 2014, 03:47:10 PM
Quote from: grumbler on July 22, 2014, 03:35:31 PM
* 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.
The NDP in Germany seems to be a bit fascist. Not a huge party but they're there.
Quote from: grumbler on July 22, 2014, 03:35:31 PM
* Outside of Europe and Japan, maybe. Are there openly fascist parties in Europe?
Golden Dawn in Greece? Italy has one as well, doesn't it?
Quote from: derspiess on July 22, 2014, 05:04:20 PM
Quote from: Norgy on July 22, 2014, 03:47:10 PM
Quote from: grumbler on July 22, 2014, 03:35:31 PM
* 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.
The NDP in Germany seems to be a bit fascist. Not a huge party but they're there.
I would say they are a fascist party, but they wouldn't define themselves that way, I think.
The ÖVP in Austria was always a bit brownshirty in their fringes.
The Sweden Democrats probably would deny being fascist, but have a neo-nazi past. Parties change over time, no doubt, so I give them the benefit of the doubt on this day when a self-proclaimed fascist extinguished the lives of public servants and Labour Youth members alike three years ago.
I think DGuller's very wrong in the opening post of this thread. Fascism sometimes go hand in hand with right-wing populism. Demagogues on the left are also opportunists, populists and sometimes closet fascists. They offer quick, often dramatic solutions to complex issues and while rarely winning elections certainly make a dent in the vote.
Quote from: Norgy on July 22, 2014, 05:24:35 PM
I would say they are a fascist party, but they wouldn't define themselves that way, I think.
The ÖVP in Austria was always a bit brownshirty in their fringes.
The Sweden Democrats probably would deny being fascist, but have a neo-nazi past. Parties change over time, no doubt, so I give them the benefit of the doubt on this day when a self-proclaimed fascist extinguished the lives of public servants and Labour Youth members alike three years ago.
The key here is openly fascist, like openly "libertarian." If one tries to hide fascist tendencies, then they are not like those who, as Jacob notes, steal liberal ideals for their non-liberal doctrine.
And the key to libertarianism is that one owns ones own self (and that ownership of property comes from self-ownership). Voluntary slavery isn't comparable with that, unless self-slavery is not actually slavery at all.
Unless i don't understand libertarianism at all. Someone with more knowledge about it can feel free to correct this statement.
Quote from: Caliga on July 22, 2014, 02:40:44 PM
"I should get to do whatever I want, but I don't give a fuck about anyone else".
:hmm:
Quote from: grumbler on July 22, 2014, 05:58:30 PM
Quote from: Norgy on July 22, 2014, 05:24:35 PM
I would say they are a fascist party, but they wouldn't define themselves that way, I think.
The ÖVP in Austria was always a bit brownshirty in their fringes.
The Sweden Democrats probably would deny being fascist, but have a neo-nazi past. Parties change over time, no doubt, so I give them the benefit of the doubt on this day when a self-proclaimed fascist extinguished the lives of public servants and Labour Youth members alike three years ago.
The key here is openly fascist, like openly "libertarian." If one tries to hide fascist tendencies, then they are not like those who, as Jacob notes, steal liberal ideals for their non-liberal doctrine.
I agree.
Some populist parties hide behind Thatcherite economics while retaining much of their illiberal ideology in other areas. They usually have "Freedom", "Progress", "Democratic" or "People's" in their names.
Quote from: Norgy on July 22, 2014, 06:14:34 PM
I agree.
Some populist parties hide behind Thatcherite economics while retaining much of their illiberal ideology in other areas. They usually have "Freedom", "Progress", "Democratic" or "People's" in their names.
I thought "Peoples'" had been thoroughly discredited by now. Are there still "Peoples'" parties in Europe? I know there are fake "Freedom" and "Progress" parties.
I am still uncertain (even after all these years! :lol: ) if Thatcherism was liberal or conservative.
Quote from: grumbler on July 22, 2014, 06:26:46 PM
Quote from: Norgy on July 22, 2014, 06:14:34 PM
I agree.
Some populist parties hide behind Thatcherite economics while retaining much of their illiberal ideology in other areas. They usually have "Freedom", "Progress", "Democratic" or "People's" in their names.
I thought "Peoples'" had been thoroughly discredited by now. Are there still "Peoples'" parties in Europe? I know there are fake "Freedom" and "Progress" parties.
I am still uncertain (even after all these years! :lol: ) if Thatcherism was liberal or conservative.
I'm so not the right person to ask about Thatcher. :ph34r:
Yeah, there are still "People's" parties. Some genuine, like the Swedish one. Some are right-wing populists like The Danish People's Party and the ÖVP in Austria.
Proportional representation elections makes for some strange parties being represented.
What are the determinants of a "genuine people's party?" Fairly honest question.
Used to be a left thing but now volks/folks is very much a right-wing populist thang.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 22, 2014, 07:19:43 PM
What are the determinants of a "genuine people's party?" Fairly honest question.
The Swedish Folkpartiet is an old social-liberal party. In English it's "The People's Party".
A lot of these populist "People's parties" or "Freedom Parties" have sprung up like fungii during the past few decades. They mostly represent neither.
Quote from: derspiess on July 22, 2014, 07:33:19 PM
Used to be a left thing but now volks/folks is very much a right-wing populist thang.
Spot on.
Quote from: grumbler on July 22, 2014, 06:03:09 PM
And the key to libertarianism is that one owns ones own self (and that ownership of property comes from self-ownership). Voluntary slavery isn't comparable with that, unless self-slavery is not actually slavery at all.
Unless i don't understand libertarianism at all. Someone with more knowledge about it can feel free to correct this statement.
I am someone with more knowledge and you are wrong. If someone owns something, then they should be able to sell it. Therefore, if someone owns them selves they should be able to sell themselves.
I do thank you for giving me the opportunity to set you right. I just know you won't argue with me over this like you did with Guller. :)