Libertarianism and totalitarian themes

[Salyut]

This stems from conversations with an American friend of mine and this interesting blog (http://spaceramblings.blogsome.com/2007/03/13/starship-troopers-robert-heinlein-libertarianism-and-fascism/). He is a Libertarian Party member but as of late he’s been following this really odd political path (he's a big fan of Jerry Pournelle - who inserts this stuff into his books).
Anyway:

1) Steely eyed frontiersman ideal, to the point where I have seen the genocide of native americans justified ("They didn't have technology/they weren't doing anything with the land, too bad for them."). Hell, one Misean actually proposed blockading Africa (to induce mass starvation) and recolonizing it (after the locals die).
2) Welfare states are evil.
3) Military good, liberals bad.
4) Nativism.
5) L5 Society romance (Ron Paul in spaaaaaaaace).



The trick of it is that Heinlein’s libertarianism did not stem from a belief that individuals were better qualified to make decisions for themselves than governments. It was a purely egotistical belief that he Robert Heinlein and some of those he considered worthy, were better qualified to make decisions for themselves than the idiots in government or the weak minded sheeple of society. Heinlein did not believe in human freedom. He believed in his freedom. For the rest he had no problem prescribing a totalitarian society run by people like himself who were smart enough to force the sheeple down the right path.



Has anyone else noticed this? I keep seeing these themes repeat again and again and again. It's really weird, on one hand they claim to be against tyranny or whatever, but on the other they're fapping to this bizarre libertarian exceptionalist idea.



Also: how the christ do I get my buddy to snap out of it before he goes down the far-right rabbit hole?

[Salyut]

If you really want a good overview of this belief system, go pick up Patriots. (http://www.amazon.com/Patriots-Surviving-James-Wesley-Rawles/dp/156384155X)

This book has evil cannibal CPUSA members.

Who are Maoists.

That eat babies. I am not making this shit up.

[Princess Luna]

most real libertarians are against increased Militarism , to quote Ron Paul (who stands on the border between conservative and libertarian)

"There's nobody in this world that could possibly attack us today... I mean, we could defend this country with a few good submarines. If anybody dared touch us we could wipe any country off of the face of the earth within hours. And here we are, so intimidated and so insecure and we're acting like such bullies that we have to attack third-world nations that have no military and have no weapons."

[#FF0000]

That is definitely true but there's a strange bunch of new libertarians who really don't seem to care about military spending. I know a lot who bent over backwards to justify 4 million civilian deaths in Iraq and about half way through the discussion I realized: "Wait what the fuck, these are libertarians??"

[Property Is Robbery]

That is definitely true but there's a strange bunch of new libertarians who really don't seem to care about military spending. I know a lot who bent over backwards to justify 4 million civilian deaths in Iraq and about half way through the discussion I realized: "Wait what the fuck, these are libertarians??"
Yeah since Ron Paul is a big Libertarian leader people go with his isolationist views.

[Salyut]

That is definitely true but there's a strange bunch of new libertarians who really don't seem to care about military spending. I know a lot who bent over backwards to justify 4 million civilian deaths in Iraq and about half way through the discussion I realized: "Wait what the fuck, these are libertarians??"

I don't think its something new - just a undercurrent thats kept itself out of view for the last fifty years.

[Havet]

What you're describing is pretty much paleoconservatism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoconservatism)

[L.A.P.]

Libertarians of course support of totalitarian government except that they want it to be not a "government" in the conventional sense but a corporation.

[MMIKEYJ]

Wow, I cant believe alot of you guys think libertarians support totalitarianism.. Its just the opposite.

I think maybe perhaps both sides (both mine and yours) have had out knowledge of the other side a bit muddled thru reading propaganda..

I know when I first came here I thought ALL communists were totalitarians because of the pictures of the soviets marching in the streets that I used to see as a kid growing up.

I know now that this isnt true... Although there might be exceptions..

There are tea party people out there who are pro-military.. Theyre what we term the 'Sara Palin' wing of the tea party.. Theyre not quite educated on things yet IMO. I also think that the 'Ron Paul' wing of the tea party has its work cut out to educate this other side.

I am of the 'Ron Paul' variety personally.

[Revolution starts with U]

His point was the totalitarian nature of the corporation, and most current business models tho Mike. I understand and respect your sentiments (Paulites are by far the only right wingers I have ever been able to get along with). But "we" (meaning anarchist/libertarian leftists) see this as a giant, glaring, cognitive dissonance amongst the right-wing libertarian movement.
Public tyrannies are terrible, private tyrannies are good and healthy... is how many of us see the positions of right libertarians.

[Salyut]

What you're describing is pretty much paleoconservatism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoconservatism)

Paleolibertarianism?

[Havet]

Paleolibertarianism?

According to Rockwell, there seems to be a difference:


The libertarian faction of the [paleo] movement saw that far too many compromises were being made to accommodate Buchanan's increasingly idiosyncratic and statist political views. His anti-free market, pro-trade union bias was now out of the bag; indeed, it became a central theme of his campaign. The idea behind the paleo turn was to decry ideological sellout, not follow some ambitious politician down the same road![12]

But if you ask me, they're pretty much the same, except paleolibertarians put a slightly more emphasis on economic "freedom"

[Dean]

Wow, I cant believe alot of you guys think libertarians support totalitarianism.. Its just the opposite.

I think maybe perhaps both sides (both mine and yours) have had out knowledge of the other side a bit muddled thru reading propaganda..

Absolutely not. Libertarians support the reign of private property, which allows for control over your fellow man. Communists, of course, do not support this flagrantly totalitarian model.

I've argued with libertarians since ~2002. So I am very well versed in all the different ideas.


There are tea party people out there who are pro-military.. Theyre what we term the 'Sara Palin' wing of the tea party.. Theyre not quite educated on things yet IMO. I also think that the 'Ron Paul' wing of the tea party has its work cut out to educate this other side.

I am of the 'Ron Paul' variety personally.
Ron Paul is another corporate welfare-ist who supports state control over marriage (aka big gov't), opposes gay rights in general and opposes abortion rights.

Ron Paul on the Issues (http://www.ontheissues.org/tx/ron_paul.htm)

[mikelepore]

Absolutely not. Libertarians support the reign of private property, which allows for control over your fellow man. Communists, of course, do not support this flagrantly totalitarian model.


The so-called "Libertarians" don't understand the concept of economic compulsion. For example, for every person who feels inhibited from doing or saying something out of fear of being indicted by the government, there are a thousand people who feel inhibited from doing or saying something out of fear of being fired from a job, blacklisted by employers, evicted by a landlord, etc. And yet the "Libertarians" recognize only the regimentation imposed by government, and cannot see the worse conditions imposed by business owners.

They think that workers freely agree to their working conditions. After all, no one actually needs a job to survive, they say. All the people who now have jobs could choose instead to start businesses mowing each others lawns and shoveling each other's snow, and then they would all be business owners. Having established that no one really needs to get a job in order to live, it follows that people who take jobs must be in full agreement with their working conditions.

How can anyone carry on a conversation with people who have such an impaired ability to tell whether an idea is workable in practice?

I throw the Libertarian style of reasoning back at them. When the workers abolish capitalism, no one would be actually stopping the capitalst from practicing capitalism altogether. All we would be doing is adding a practical obstable that the capitalist can't do it on earth. The capitalist would still be perfectly free to practice capitalism on some other planet. This would meet all of the the Libertarian criteria for freedom: only practical considerations, and not complete legal prohibition, would stop the capitalist. Now, how do they like the sound of their own reasoning?

[Salyut]

According to Rockwell, there seems to be a difference:



But if you ask me, they're pretty much the same, except paleolibertarians put a slightly more emphasis on economic "freedom"

Rockwell was also racist right? I seem to recall something about police being empowered to "met out instant punishment" or something.

Or was that Rothbard? :confused:

[Revolution starts with U]

It was on LRC, but most likely written by Rothbard