Libertarian Fascists for Mother Russia

[Jacob]

"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."

[Admiral Yi]

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. 

[DGuller]

All threads seem to end up turning into languishites arguing about how they argue.

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.

[Razgovory]

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.

[DGuller]

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.

[grumbler]

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.

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.

[Jacob]

"Keeping people in line" certainly does cover a lot of ground. 

What do you mean?

[Razgovory]

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".

[DGuller]

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.

[Razgovory]

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?

[Admiral Yi]

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.

[derspiess]

There certainly are some false libertarians out there, but claiming Ron Paul is a closet fascist is absurd.

[Razgovory]

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.

[Berkut]

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.

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.

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.

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!

[Razgovory]

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. 

That's why they need to automatic weapons.  Interlocking fields of fire can cover a lot of ground.