Liberals are corrupt, hateful, immoral and taking the country in the wrong direction

Libertarians are junior high level thinking they want a safe society, they just don't want to have to pay for it.

DD

 

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/libertarianism/

 

Interesting. Didn't read but show me how American libertainiams isn't basically the ideology of maintaining economic and social hierarchies with an inherent wealth divide?

Tell me how modern libertarianism isn't anything more than wealthy people advocating for the means that maintain their social status relative to other groups in society.

 

You really need to leave the United States I don’t think it’s good for your mental well-being I’ve never seen anyone complain about how bad things are here then just leave I mean it’s simple…Everything you post is about how people that try to do the right things are the enemy, people that work hard are the enemy… , People that have a small business and want to focus on simple things and doing the right things and not stealing somehow they’re bad according to you…I can’t imagine anybody really wants to be around you in real life lol

 

Wait are you saying I'm the one who spams 1000 posts a month about how trans people are ruining society?

I feel like those people really hate America.


You want to solve crime or do you want to feel better about yourself? Do you think a privatized healthcare industry helps with crime?

You think price fixing basic human needs like rent helps with crime?

Do you care about crime or feeling better than other people?

I don't see any sincerity in your desire to help small business owners avoid crime. If you aren't demonizing another poorer class of humans then it's not an issue you care about. That says everything about where you come from in these issues.

 

I didn't know there was a political American party, nor that they went to Hungary to fellate Viktor Orban. Hungarian politics don't really impact my life, so they are not of deep interest to me. I also don't get angry at trans people. I have said that I treat them the same as everyone else and don't think there should be any trans specific legislation. So once again, I am quite confused how you reached the conclusion that I support Viktor Orban.

Not really, at all. The difference between libertarians (including those in America) and fascism is essentially everything. The core of fascism is that the state is above all else, as Mussolini said. Everything inside the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state. If you are not propounding the supremacy of the state over all else, you are not talking fascism. Libertarians are the polar opposite of this, we are about the primacy of the individual. That's why you can find a thousand posts on here of me talking about shrinking the size of government, and none talking about subordination of the individual to the state. I already explained all this to you, you must have forgotten. Thankfully my "What is Fascism?" thread was recently bumped, so you can reread it for a refresher.

 

do you notice how your definition of fascism has no indication of how society is ran? It's just generic totalitarianism. Any form of totalitarianism is "through the state".

The Russian Tzarist system wasn't fascist yet everything ran through the state. The last tzar literally was the one who signed off on individual divorce papers. It was that level of control and micromanagement.

So it's a useless statement. How is society organized? Is there a clear stratification of social and economic groups? Who deserves to be at the top? Who deserves to be at the bottom?

What did Mussolini believe about wealth disparities?

Why is it that the wealthy landowner class whenever society falls apart into a communist vs fascist dichotomy, they always chose the fascists?

Why is it always the wealthy social hierarchical group that always supports fascism?

Again, singing praises about liberty and freedom is not a sign someone is truly for individualistic freedom. Anyone will tell you they are for individualistic freedom. Even Nazis. The most prominent American Nazis expressed a decline in individual liberty because of cultural Marxists overtaking society.

 

do you notice how your definition of fascism has no indication of how society is ran? It's just generic totalitarianism. Ant form of totalitarianism is "through the state".

The Russian Tzarist system wasn't fascist yet everything ran through the state. The last tzar literally was the one who signed off on individual divorce papers. It was that level of control and micromanagement.

So it's a useless statement. How is society organized? Is there a clear stratification of social and economic groups? Who deserves to be at the top? Who deserves to be at the bottom?

What did Mussolini believe about wealth disparities?

Why is it that the wealthy landowner class whenever society falls apart into a communist vs fascist dichotomy, they always chose the fascists?

Why is it always the wealthy social hierarchical group that always supports fascism?

Again, singing praises about liberty and freedom is not a sign someone is truly for individualistic freedom. Anyone will tell you they are for individualistic freedom. Even Nazis. The most prominent American Nazis expressed a decline in individual liberty because of cultural Marxists overtaking society.

You care about the size of government only when it comes to not helping those that don't have your privilege. That is the extent of how much you care about small government. Nazis also expressed a desire for small government in that sense. The Turner Diaries and those who follow that type of literature also wax lyrical about limited government. But it's a certain type of limited government. The type that leaves those who have been victims of oppression left hanging dry. That's the type of limited government you want. Nothing more than that.

 

Like don't come at me and tell me that your desire for profiteers to maxamize profit off of illness and disease is what freedom is all about. That's your idea of freedom. It's vapid. It's exploitative. The freedom to exploit is not some grand virtue.

 

https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/08/libertarians-sometimes-become-fascists-heres-why/

Again, even the National Review notices the pipeline is a real thing. They just assume it's because marginal people join marginal belief systems.

The reality is because libertarians and fascists in western nations have the same core raison d'etre:
To continue the current social and economic hierarchy and not let that hierarchy change.

Any form of desires for limited government are to maintain that hiearchy. Just look at all the most prominent causes that center around "limited government " for libertarians and it's about limiting the government's ability to alter social and economic hierarchies for the benefit of those at the bottom of said social and economic hierarchy.

 

https://bbs.clutchfans.net/threads/what-is-fascism.319481/page-3#post-14600832

 

You are poor at analyzing systems because you don't have the ability to analyze things like intent and motivations of different classes and social groups along with applying context of the conditions of those at the top vs those at the bottom. Like why did the dichotomy of fascism vs communism come to be in the 20s?

Again, it's always about class struggle. That is the bedrock of how political ideological movements occur.

When you make a distinct claim that "fascism is inherently religious and communism's is atheist" it shows an inability to analyze systems.

Communism is a collective ideology whose purpose pre revolution is to topple the existing hierarchy. In the 20th century, existing hierarchies had religious bacbones hence for that time period a communist was more likely to go against a religious hierarchy because that's the existing hierarchy.

Fascists compromise the group that is part of the dominant social and/or wealth hierarchy. They want to protect the existing divides in society.

If a modern hiearchy that had immense wealth and social divides had atheists at the top, you'd probably see mostly religious people side with the commies.

There is no set rule that fascists have to be religious or they have to follow one distinct set of economic systems. Their end goal is to keep and maintain the existing hiearchy so that means any tools that can do that will be utilized.

If the free market starts catering and pandering towards entities that aren't party of the existing hierarchy, fascists will abandon free market principles as you can see today with the backlash against companies like Anheuser-Busch.

 

None of this has anything to do with the definition of fascism. You are literally dividing all people into two groups, communists and fascists. That is simply not how political ideologies work. Most political ideologies are also no knee jerk reactions to the currently existing social hierarchy. All of these words you are using have meaning, and you are failing to use them properly. Fascism is not simply whatever aligns with the current status quo. Communism is not simply whatever aligns against the current status quo. You are hung up on motivations and intent of the people joining different political groups at a certain point in time, but that is not what defines a political ideology, it is the policies. Communism is not whatever goes against the existing hierarchy, it is a stateless society in which there is no private property, all the means of production are held in common, and political and economic decisions are made collectively by the proletariat workers. Fascism is not just whatever supports the status quo (and in fact has been implemented to overthrow existing hierarchies those few times it was implemented). It requires a totalitarian society in which everything is subsumed to the state. If your political philosophy doesn't include a totalitarian, all-encompassing state, it cannot be fascist (even if poor people remain poor).

 

You have to give credit to @StupidMoniker for debating in good faith. Hes probably the only right leaning member who's not a disingenuous loser like the rest. He backs up his talking points with real substance. We don't have to agree on everything but it would be nice if the other low life right leaning trolls would be more like you.

 

I see problems with economic libertarianism, but I've never connected it with fascism


Even trying to half ass skim yalls back on forth on this one is exhausting

 

I am not fond of the implication that I am a low life right leaning troll, but thank you.

 

You're not a troll at all.

 

Sorry. You're not a troll. You took what I wrote differently. We have different viewpoints but I respect you debating with facts and substance. You don't do any cheap trolling and actually believe what you believe. I respect you. @Os Trigonum @Salvy @AroundTheWorld folks should take note.

I enjoy reading your viewpoints even though we differ.

 

@AroundTheWorld
There are real wokies and there are fake ones

the real ones serve coffee during the day and then try to slash tires in the night in the name of global warming

the fake ones are fat people who sit in their castle tweeting they support it while they drive their kids to school in an Escalade

 

Communism vs fascism is the dichotomy most modern nation states since the 20th century that are at the end of their stable run end up with as the leading factions.

A working class fed up with exploitation of labor vs the ownership class wanting to maintain the social hiearchy. The ownership class has a specific inn with the social ethnic/religious class who ate also working class. They want to convince those people that they are on their side and the reason for their working class struggles is because social hiearchy is being upended by groups of people outside of their social and ethnic class.

That has been the dichotomy nations have faced since the 20th century when their country is destabilized politically.


Again it's a vapid approach to understanding political ideologies when you just completely ignore intent and material conditions of the time that make people chose sides. Ignoring this makes your analysis empty.

No, communions has nothing inherently to do with atheism. No, fascism isn't inherently religious.

If the current social hierarchical group at the top are wealthy atheists, and the politariate was religious, the communist revolution would be lead by religious folks and the fascists would be led by atheists. It's the power dynamic that shapes who are fascists and who are communists, not religious ideology.