Libertarianism

[Matty_UK]

Please, please, please don’t be a libertarian.


There are 2 types of Libertarians. The “classical” type believes that the mass of people should not be dependant on or subject to the effects of a wealthy elite searching for profit at any cost, or the repressive state that betrays the people it claims to represent and acts only in the interests of the powerful. They believe industry should be democratised to serve the millions not the millionaires, and government should be heavily federalised rather than centralised and controlled by direct, rather than representative, democracy ensuring the government is controlled from the bottom up and is never separate to the people. Nowadays, the above people call themselves “Anarchists” or “Libertarian Socialists.” These guys are alright. I consider myself one.

However, there is another more recent kind of Libertarian that appropriated the name of the anarchists-probably because it sounds rebellious and appeals to the youth. (just look at the amount of people on facebook claiming to be libertarian without actually knowing what it is) These believe that:

-Only private schools can be allowed.
-Only private hospitals are allowed.
-Roads should be privatised, and their owner can charge people who use them as much as he likes.
-Unemployment benefits should be abolished.
-State pensions should be abolished.
-Employers should be allowed to legally discriminate on age, sex, or race as they please.
-Minimum wage should be abolished. Employers can pay as little as they like.
-Employers can fire workers for no reason.
-Legalisation of private mercenaries. (some believe mercenaries should replace the police and military)
-No council housing for the homeless.
-Businesses should not be legally obliged to protect the environment.
-Essential goods which are too expensive for some people to afford should not have their prices lowered by government subsidies.

You might wonder why anyone would possibly think this is a good thing, or anything to do with “freedom.” This is because Libertarians have a very perverted view on freedom; freedom is associated entirely with property, and you can do anything you want with your property providing you don’t do something with anyone else’s property; in their view, if someone has to work in a sweatshop or Dickensian workhouse it’s a mutually beneficial deal between the millionaire employer and the poverty stricken worker and perfectly sound. This ideology sees things purely from the perspective of a wealthy capitalist, and equates a free society only with the freedom of the capitalist; freedom to do what you like with your property is the only freedom, and being free to use healthcare, get an education, have housing and have a job doesn’t register on their view of freedom. They say paying taxes to fund education and healthcare is theft, but what about profit? Ultimately, profit comes from paying the workers less than the value they produce for you. Even if you don’t accept Marx’s Labour Theory of Value, you can see clearly that low wages=high profits and high wages=low profits. In the mind of the Libertarian, this is ok because the worker can choose to work for the capitalist and agrees on the conditions. In reality, the worker must choose between taking the job or starving to death so in practise this theory doesn’t really work. (neither do they mention the violence and coercion that was involved in creating a property-less working class open to exploitation)

Libertarians justify this with an unshakeable religious conviction in the powers of the free market as a natural force, a bit like the Qi of Chinese mythology or the Force in Star Wars, that binds society together in harmony and only disruptions in the mystical power of the market caused by things like legally required minimum wage or paying taxes to fund pensions and healthcare can possibly make anything go wrong in society. If only the government reduced its role to simply defending the property of the wealthy and stopped giving concessions to the poor, a truly free utopia would emerge.

Ha. Ha.

Libertarianism in Action.

I have 2 points to make in this section; first, their faith in the market is silly and secondly the only form a “libertarian” society can take is that of a totalitarian military dictatorship.

Pinochet’s Libertarian Despotism in Chile was brought into power through a coup plotted by commercial and political elites in the USA and in Chile who were concerned that Chile, which had recently elected a socialist as president, would become inhospitable for business interests. This coup also brought to power the sinister “Chicago Boys,” free market economists educated by Milton Friedman himself, the grand old man of Libertarianism who was also an advisor and admirer of Pinochet. Pinochet and the gang of Chicago Libertarians started their work by banning trade unions and rounding up dissidents in the Santiago Stadium, where bags were placed over their heads and floodlights shone upon them perpetually and certain dissidents were executed arbitrarily, while 28,000 other dissidents were kidnapped and tortured with a further 3000 being executed. All this was necessary to terrorise the population into accepting Chile as a laboratory for Friedman to test out his economic theories, as no sane working man or woman would ever vote for a Libertarian party. With the populace too terrified to resist, they went on to remove the minimum wage, privatised the pension system, state industries and banks, and slashed taxes on income and profits.

So what was the effect? The quadrupling of foreign debt; epidemics of typhoid fever and hepatitis because no-one could afford healthcare; the poverty rate doubled; the GDP dropped to almost a quarter of the Latin American average; unemployment went from 4.3% to 22%; real wages declined by 40%; and those without adequate housing went from 27% to 40%. The only thing that prevented the economy from complete economic collapse was that Pinochet neglected to privatise the copper mines that Allende had previously nationalised and were virtually the only source of steady income.
So how do Libertarians respond to this? There are 2 responses. The first one claims that Pinochet did not privatise enough and taxes were not slashed enough. The second response disassociates itself with Pinochet, saying a dictatorship is incompatible with Libertarianism so it’s nothing to do with them.

Clearly, the first response isn’t worth dealing with and someone who insists that is clearly too deluded to bother arguing with. The second response however is more interesting to discuss; it’s obvious Libertarian claims that a truly free market would give workers higher wages is complete idiocy, so to keep back minimum wages and wage increases (that interfere with the market magic) making trade unions illegal is completely necessary. And to ensure wildcat strikes don’t take place instead, the right to organise is therefore necessarily removed.
Furthermore, Libertarian policies are so insane no-one would want them apart from corporate elites and their military friends who profit. Therefore, they can only ever be enforced by a state made up of an alliance between military and business, with no democracy involved. Not only that, but Libertarian ideology is inherently undemocratic. They believe that capitalists should not be obliged to act in a socially responsible way; any plans to make the rich and powerful act in a way that benefits society is a whole is denounced as “collectivism” and infringing on the individual rights on those poor, oppressed millionaire entrepreneurs. But isn’t democracy an inherently “collectivist” system? The individual must compromise with what the mass of people want, which is exactly what the Libertarians hate.

Their contempt for democracy is even seen in their tactics; Nigel Meek from the think-tank “Libertarian Alliance” discusses at http://www.libertarian.co.uk/lapubs/tactn/tactn022.pdf the failure of Libertarians to perform well at elections and says;

“…the authors of Strategy and Purpose of the Libertarian Alliance surely had it right all those years ago: it will take a great deal of time, direct appeals to the ordinary electorate are wasteful ,and we need to concentrate our efforts towards the key opinion-formers in areas such as the media, politics, industry, organised labour, academia, and the arts.”

Essentially, Libertarians know that they will never win substantial support from any sector of society other than the elite; their tactic is to win the support of the elites who are capable of bringing in a Libertarian society without having to win any elections.

And this is why Libertarianism is dangerous; it has a contempt for social responsibility, democracy, and freedom for anyone but the most privileged, but most dangerously it has powerful friends who could bring it into action. It is no more than an expression of the interests of wealthy capitalists who are interested only in increasing profit at any human cost and all notions of “individual freedom” is only a means of the capitalist morally justifying his position to himself.

[pusher robot]

Burn, strawman, burn!

[RedAnarchist]

Very well written, although I think a small minority of those "Facebook Libertarians" are actual Libertarians (the socialist kind) rather than American-style "Libertarians", because Facebook has shitty political options.

[IcarusAngel]

"Peter Kropotkin described Anarchism as the extreme left wing of socialism - a view with which I completely agree. One of my deepest concerns today is that the libertarian socialist core will be eroded by fashionable, post- modernist, spiritualist, mystic individualism." --Bookchin

This should be made a sticky. Very good analysis. Couldn't have said it better myself and I've been debating with "Libertarians" for years where here in the US they claim to be the "third largest party" (technically the Greens have more registered party members).


Libertarian-socialism, however, should be studied in-depth, regardless of whether you consider yourself a "Marxist." More later.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 06:18 pm
Essentially, Libertarians know that they will never win substantial support from any sector of society other than the elite; their tactic is to win the support of the elites who are capable of bringing in a Libertarian society without having to win any elections.

And this is why Libertarianism is dangerous; it has a contempt for social responsibility, democracy, and freedom for anyone but the most privileged, but most dangerously it has powerful friends who could bring it into action. It is no more than an expression of the interests of wealthy capitalists who are interested only in increasing profit at any human cost and all notions of “individual freedom” is only a means of the capitalist morally justifying his position to himself.
VERY well said.

It is high time the left realized the grave danger posed by libertarianism. In fact, I will go as far as to say that libertarians are more dangerous than fascists. Why? Because the ruling classes in imperialist nations are highly suspicious of fascism today. After all, fascism severely backfired the last time they tried to use it, and they are not eager to repeat the experience. Deprived of ruling class funding and support, fascist movements stand no chance of actually gaining power.

Libertarianism, on the other hand, is gaining increasing support among the ruling classes (while remaining a fringe ideology among ordinary people, of course). Libertarian ideology justifies not only the destruction of every single gain made by the working class movement over the last 150 years, but it also promotes contempt for democracy and universal suffrage. The ideal libertarian government is essentially the government of Augusto Pinochet.

[Axel1917]

While I will agree that the initial post makes a relatively good attack on libertarianism, I must say that I do not think it is a threat at all. It is a lunatic ideology that only exists on the Internet, and we must point out that not even the bourgeoisie are insane enough to adopt such nonsense. It would bring capitalism to its knees, as it would exacerbate the class struggle by instantly destroying unions, minimum wage, workplace safety guidelines, etc. Libertarianism is a reactionary utopia; the class struggle will prevent it from being achieved. The bourgeoisie are not stupid. There is a reason why they are not doing an all-out assault on all unions at once. They are picking them apart here and there. They need to tread with caution not to provoke the class struggle.

The libertarian way did not seem to be fully implemented in Pinochet's Chile, given that the copper mines were still nationalized. I think that Pinochet had to back away from some stuff (I will read a bit to make sure my memory does not betray me here) as well later on.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by Axel1917+October 30, 2007 07:10 am--> (Axel1917 @ October 30, 2007 07:10 am) While I will agree that the initial post makes a relatively good attack on libertarianism, I must say that I do not think it is a threat at all. It is a lunatic ideology that only exists on the Internet [/b]
Actually, the fact that it has such a powerful internet presence is precisely the reason why it is dangerous. The number of internet users is increasing exponentially, and it will continue to do so in the forseeable future. More and more people are getting their political information primarily or exclusively from the internet.

The internet is the future. Don't dismiss it so lightly. The political landscape of the internet will become the political landscape of the real world in 20-30 years.


Originally posted by [email protected]
and we must point out that not even the bourgeoisie are insane enough to adopt such nonsense.
Of course they'd never fully implement libertarian policies, but the point is that they use libertarian ideology to justify all their attacks on the working class.

We can consider fascism dangerous if fascist ideas begin to influence "mainstream" governments, correct? Likewise, we can consider libertarianism dangerous if libertarian ideas begin to influence "mainstream" governments. And they certainly are doing just that.


Axel1917
It would bring capitalism to its knees, as it would exacerbate the class struggle by instantly destroying unions, minimum wage, workplace safety guidelines, etc. Libertarianism is a reactionary utopia; the class struggle will prevent it from being achieved. The bourgeoisie are not stupid. There is a reason why they are not doing an all-out assault on all unions at once. They are picking them apart here and there. They need to tread with caution not to provoke the class struggle.
Yes, well, gradualist libertarianism is still libertarianism.

[pusher robot]

Of course they'd never fully implement libertarian policies, but the point is that they use libertarian ideology to justify all their attacks on the working class.

Yet it's among that working class the libertarianist ideals have some measure of popularity. Why?

Because the working class feels more oppressed by the state than they do by their employers. They're tired of ever more of their income confiscated away to be wasted on things they'll never know or care about. They're tired of being forced to participate in byzantine bureaucracies. They're tired of being told the park is closed, there's no drinking on the beach, soda has been banned from the cafeteria, smokers must stand 100 yards from the building. Marijuana is illegal, paying for sex is illegal, guns are illegal, fishing is illegal, watering your lawn is illegal, anything is illegal if the officer says it's disorderly. You can't burn leaves, you can't burn wood, you can't burn paper, you can't have a barbeque. Property taxes are up, sales taxes are up, income taxes are up, fees are up. Yet somehow the libraries are broke, the schools are broke, the parks are broke, the fire department is broke. You can't have good gas, you can't have good booze, you can't have good porn, you can't have good food. It's the incessant creep of the do-gooders, the nanny-staters.

Libertarians offer them an alternative. Communists offer to introduce yet more rules and restrictions.

[ComradeR]

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 30, 2007 06:45 am

Of course they'd never fully implement libertarian policies, but the point is that they use libertarian ideology to justify all their attacks on the working class.

Yet it's among that working class the libertarianist ideals have some measure of popularity. Why?

Because the working class feels more oppressed by the state than they do by their employers. They're tired of ever more of their income confiscated away to be wasted on things they'll never know or care about. They're tired of being forced to participate in byzantine bureaucracies. They're tired of being told the park is closed, there's no drinking on the beach, soda has been banned from the cafeteria, smokers must stand 100 yards from the building. Marijuana is illegal, paying for sex is illegal, guns are illegal, fishing is illegal, watering your lawn is illegal, anything is illegal if the officer says it's disorderly. You can't burn leaves, you can't burn wood, you can't burn paper, you can't have a barbeque. Property taxes are up, sales taxes are up, income taxes are up, fees are up. Yet somehow the libraries are broke, the schools are broke, the parks are broke, the fire department is broke. You can't have good gas, you can't have good booze, you can't have good porn, you can't have good food. It's the incessant creep of the do-gooders, the nanny-staters.

Libertarians offer them an alternative. Communists offer to introduce yet more rules and restrictions.
Libertarianism is not the answer to any of that, as bad as things are now it would be absolute hell under in a capitalist Libertarian society. All the gains we earned through our struggles over the last century would be thrown out the window, it would be a dystopia where the workers have no voice or rights in anything and would be completely dependent on the "good will" of their bosses (far more so then now). It's truly sad to see any working class people be duped by this rubbish, but luckily anarco-capitalism is an impossibility thanks to the very nature of capitalism.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 30, 2007 08:45 am

Of course they'd never fully implement libertarian policies, but the point is that they use libertarian ideology to justify all their attacks on the working class.
Yet it's among that working class the libertarianist ideals have some measure of popularity.
Really? Where? Care to give an actual example?

"Purist" libertarian parties have failed disastrously in every country where they've attempted to stand for election. And watered-down versions of libertarianism (read: classical liberal parties) usually poll somewhere around 10% at best, with nearly all their support coming from the upper middle class (not the rich, mind you - the upper middle class - that is to say, those people who want to be rich and are willing to risk social collapse in order to achieve their dream; the rich themselves don't vote libertarian because they have too much to lose).

There is no danger of libertarianism propagating among the working class, mostly because the core message of libertarian ideology is "fuck the workers, they're all lazy subhuman scum" (Ayn Rand pretty much says that flat out). The danger is that libertarianism might propagate among the ruling classes and make them far more reactionary than they are today. There is also a related danger of libertarianism propagating among intellectual circles and infecting many bright minds (to use Dawkinsian language) that might have otherwise considered joining our side in the class struggle.

The reason why libertarianism might seduce potentially progressive people is because it wraps itself in the language of freedom, while promoting the most ruthless tyranny of property.

[Matty_UK]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 05:10 am
While I will agree that the initial post makes a relatively good attack on libertarianism, I must say that I do not think it is a threat at all. It is a lunatic ideology that only exists on the Internet, and we must point out that not even the bourgeoisie are insane enough to adopt such nonsense.
There are 22 Libertarian think tanks in existence. Someone's funding them, and it ain't nerdy teenage internet geeks.

[Demogorgon]

Well most Libertarians you will actually encounter are of the spotty teanage variety polluting internet forums (we commies aren't the only one with that difficulty). It is based on various stary eyed views on the world with no understanding of context, history, economics etc. If you want to see it in action witnes the current cult of Ron Paul.

More frightening of course is real "Libertarianism" in action. The description of it being more dangerous than fascism would be entirely correct if it weren't for one small pedantic detail: Libertarianism is fascism.

I have very rarely seen any serious advocacy for it coming from an indiidual or group without fascist social views. Examples are easy to come up with; Von Mises was cheap adviser to the Minister of Finance during Austria's fasist Government and provided his services for free to certain White Supremist groups up to his death, Murray Rothbard said the two worst things to happen to America were women's sufferage and the ban on child labour (both of which he blamed on "Jewish Lesbians" :lol: ), Milton Friedman helped build the South American dictorships, claimed Hong Kong (a corporativist dictatorship) was an example of what he wanted to achieve and strangely, particularly in his later years became one of Beijing's pet economists.

And bang up to date good old Ron Paul is suspected of being a White Supremist (some of the stuff he wrte while out of Congress is something else) and of course supports every authoritarian social position you can imagine.

Why is this? Libertarianism claims to be about freedom, why does it always come down to this kind of authoritarianism?

The answer of course is in the economics. It seeks to build a society that could be descrbed as oligarchy and plutocracy, a society ruled by a wealthy elite with a Government living int heir pocket (many Libertarians want to re-introduce property qualifications to vote, just to be extra sure of this). Such a society is based on hierarchy, with an elite in power that for obvious reasons won't want to leave. Of course it is authoritarian.

And of course the sort of ideology that promotes authoritarian government and terrible inequality is exactly the sort that appeals tot he sort of people who think "White is right" and that jewish Lesbians are out to impose their will on the world :lol:

[Invader Zim]

Libertarianism is fascism? Not so. Fascism is corporatism; a subtle but important difference.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by Invader [email protected] 30, 2007 02:30 pm
Libertarianism is fascism? Not so. Fascism is corporatism; a subtle but important difference.
Ah, but so is Libertarianism. Ever notice the kind of societies Libertarians praise? Hong Kong is a favourite for example, and one might argue it is the best example on earth of old fashioned corporatism with half the seats in parliament being chosen by the corporations for instance.

And of course, where do you think their economic policies lead anyway?

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Demogorgon+October 30, 2007 03:44 pm--> (Demogorgon @ October 30, 2007 03:44 pm)
Invader [email protected] 30, 2007 02:30 pm
Libertarianism is fascism? Not so. Fascism is corporatism; a subtle but important difference.
Ah, but so is Libertarianism. Ever notice the kind of societies Libertarians praise? Hong Kong is a favourite for example, and one might argue it is the best example on earth of old fashioned corporatism with half the seats in parliament being chosen by the corporations for instance.

And of course, where do you think their economic policies lead anyway? [/b]
Well typically libertarians are pro-choice, anti-imperialism, etc. Fascists aren't necessarily. The key tenet of libertarianism is respecting the rights of others (economic and social) and them respecting yours in turn. Fascists certainly do not believe in social freedom. But in economic terms fascists and libertarians certainly have some close parallels.

The answer to the question on where libertarianism leads, the answer is disaster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_depression).

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by Invader Zim+October 30, 2007 02:50 pm--> (Invader Zim @ October 30, 2007 02:50 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 03:44 pm

Invader [email protected] 30, 2007 02:30 pm
Libertarianism is fascism? Not so. Fascism is corporatism; a subtle but important difference.
Ah, but so is Libertarianism. Ever notice the kind of societies Libertarians praise? Hong Kong is a favourite for example, and one might argue it is the best example on earth of old fashioned corporatism with half the seats in parliament being chosen by the corporations for instance.

And of course, where do you think their economic policies lead anyway?
Well typically libertarians are pro-choice, anti-imperialism, etc. Fascists aren't necessarily. The key tenet of libertarianism is respecting the rights of others (economic and social) and them respecting yours in turn. Fascists certainly do not believe in social freedom. But in economic terms fascists and libertarians certainly have some close parallels.

The answer to the question on where libertarianism leads, the answer is disaster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_depression). [/b]
Hang on? Libertarians believe in personal freedom? Come on! In their book of fairytales they do, but they simply define persoanl freedom in solely economic terms. Things like abortion and the like are pretty controversial for them with some of them supporting it and others opposing.

As for imperialism, well if you read their forums (not recommended shortly after eating) they tend to be soem of the loudest proponents of things like "the war in terror" out there. Some oppose it of course, but a good bit of jingoism is very popular with them.

Basically it is my belief that after 1945 when fascism came spectacularly unstuck and it proved to be a disaster, the fascists looked for a new outlet and Libertarianism was precisely the answer. Pretty much all of the earliest proponents had been fascists before the war after all.

[Invader Zim]

Libertarians believe in personal freedom?

Yup; thats what they say.

I don't think the attempt to group them with fascists will stick; at all. Individuals such as Friedman, while associated with fascists (of a sort) such as Pinochet, argued that by introducing a 'free market' would result in an increase in political/social freedoms. Of course he was wrong, but I have no doubt he and other libertarians believed it.

It also must be noted, that while fascist regimes were corporatist by nature, they did not oppose market restriction/intervention or creating a restrictive war economy. Libertarians by definition oppose both the above; which incidentally is why they tend not to favour imperialism. After all if you place an embargo on a country, you restrict trade with that country, which automatically counts as intervention into the market; a libertarian no no.

Don't get me wrong, there are elements of libertarianism which distinctly stink of proto-fascism; but as an ideology it is certainly seperate from fascism. But fascism and nationalism go hand in hand, fascism cannot exist without nationalism; but nationalism is not fundermental or even a necessary element of libertarianism.

And early libertarians such as Hayek, for all their other faults, were not fascists or Nazis. Hayek, after the Nazis took Austria, refused to move back.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by Invader [email protected] 30, 2007 04:50 pm
Well typically libertarians are pro-choice, anti-imperialism, etc.
They only pay lip service to such things. Libertarians almost never campaign for abortion rights or an end to imperialist aggression; they spend all their time promoting their reactionary economic agenda and only ever mention their pro-choice or anti-imperialist stances when it helps them gain popular support.

Oh, and the Ayn Rand Institute, for one, supports the mass murder of Iraqi civilians (http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?id=10478&page=NewsArticle).

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by Invader [email protected] 30, 2007 05:44 pm

Libertarians believe in personal freedom?

Yup; thats what they say.

I don't think the attempt to group them with fascists will stick; at all. Individuals such as Friedman, while associated with fascists (of a sort) such as Pinochet, argued that by introducing a 'free market' would result in an increase in political/social freedoms. Of course he was wrong, but I have no doubt he and other libertarians believed it.

It also must be noted, that while fascist regimes were corporatist by nature, they did not oppose market restriction/intervention or creating a restrictive war economy. Libertarians by definition oppose both the above; which incidentally is why they tend not to favour imperialism. After all if you place an embargo on a country, you restrict trade with that country, which automatically counts as intervention into the market; a libertarian no no.

Don't get me wrong, there are elements of libertarianism which distinctly stink of proto-fascism; but as an ideology it is certainly seperate from fascism. But fascism and nationalism go hand in hand, fascism cannot exist without nationalism; but nationalism is not fundermental or even a necessary element of libertarianism.

And early libertarians such as Hayek, for all their other faults, were not fascists or Nazis. Hayek, after the Nazis took Austria, refused to move back.
Well if you believe their fairy tales, that is the case. But if you actually watch them in action, you will rapidly realise what they are really up to. I don't think I have ever seen a Libertarian make much of persoanl freedom when it comes to anything other than the freedom of a businessman to do as he pleases to his workers.

And watch how they behave when they have power. Pinochet was quite the defender of personal freedom, wasn't he? And moreover we can look at their political causes. Throughout the seventies and eighties for example, the biggest Libertarian cause was to defend apartheid in South Africa. Anders Lange, for example, the Norwegian Libertarian leader (who had previously served in Quisling's government but wormed his way out of war crimes charges) bluntly said "anyone who opposes apartheid is a traitor to the white race". And that was pretty standard fare from them.

Don't be fooled by their talk of "freedom". Freedom to them means something very different than it does to normal people. To them it means two things, the first being unrestrained capitalism with no welfare measures, and secondly it means restraining any form of lifestyle or behaviour incompatible witht heir prejudices. This basically manifests itself in two ways. The first is Western Supremacy. They want to stamp out non Western behaviour. Hence the reason why many support the invasion of Iraq, and secondly they want to see the most draconian form of law and order imaginable. Many for example wish to see wide application of the death penalty or life inprisonment for petty theft and so on.

On that note, they love whining about taxes, but very often they want the Governemnt to do very expensive things indeed, like maintain a huge army or a massive prison system or whatever else. Of course they don't want to pay for it, so that is why they have no trouble with regressive taxation. In other words they have us pay high taxes for our own exploitation while they build themselves a tax haven. Nice.

[pusher robot]

Oh, and the Ayn Rand Institute, for one, supports the mass murdeOh, and the Ayn Rand Institute, for one, supports the mass murder of Iraqi civilians.

So? They also don't claim to be libertarians.

"Mainstream" libertarianism doesn't follow the ARI or the extremist policies laid out in the OP.


Libertarianism is fascism.

Nonsense.

It simply calls for decreased statist interference across the board. The extreme version of libertarianism is the same as your stateless communism. with the minor detail that it accepts the legitimacy of property rights. To what extent is a point of debate, of course - does IP count? Should legitimate market failures be corrected by some mechanism? Should commons be owned in trust? - but most working class people have a fairly positive opinion of owning property, and so this seems eminently reasonable.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 30, 2007 07:14 pm


The extreme version of libertarianism is the same as your stateless communism. with the minor detail that it accepts the legitimacy of property rights.
http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=71964

Read point 9 please.
:rolleyes:

[Demogorgon]

Fairy tales!

Decreased statist intervention? Who precisely is going to be doing the defending of these property rights, pray? And don't tell me private institutions, beause they will stop defending the property tights the second a higher bidder comes along.

But really, I am sick and tired of hearing these slogans about how Libertarianism is going to solve every problem there is up to and including our inability to be in sixteen different places at once. I am interested in who Libertarians really are and what they really do in the real world as opposed to their fantasy one where the small matters of reality aren't allowed to intrude.

I am talking about the fact that they support every authoritarian government policy imaginable. That they want to raise the taxes I pay so that the extremely well off can pay less, the fact that they want to remove all recourses I have when I am fucked over by work or the bank or whatever, the fact that more often than not their policies on immigration boil down to "keep the niggers out", the fact that whenever they have no support at all for Democracy. You could point to Pinochet or you could go for the bizzarre recent instance in Ontario where the "Freedom Party" there opposed the proportional representation referendum because they said it would lead to more democracy and democracy is the antithesis of freedom :lol:

Don't have the gall to call this freedom.

[Invader Zim]

Well if you believe their fairy tales, that is the case.

It is hardly a 'fairytale'; libertarianism is distinct from fascism ideologically.


But if you actually watch them in action

You can't 'watch' libertarianism in action because libertarianism cannot be implemented; every time supposedly laissez faire capitalism is introduced; the truer it is to the laissez-faire ideal the less stable it becomes. Capitalist economies, by their very nature require a degree of interventionism. The result is that any economy largely governed on laissez faire principals has invariably collapsed.


Pinochet was quite the defender of personal freedom, wasn't he?

If one wishes to be fair to libertarianism; Pinochet is to libertarianism what Stalin is to Marxism. However, while he was himself not a libertarian, he employed libertarians to run his economy and while the system showed initial promise it soon collapsed as the economy became more and more entrenched in laissez faire principals. Which, incidentally, is one of several key examples which confirm my theory that libertarianism is a worthless ideology of failure.

However, i am well aware of all the criticisms of libertarianism (and the ones you level sound less like libertarianism and more like Chadwick’s warped Bethamite principals) and the inherent deep seated contradictions of libertarianism and the fundamental flaw which is that without laws to stop cartelisation and monopoly that is exactly what is going to happen. However libertarianism is not fascism, for the reasons I outlined. The most obvious point is that rabid nationalism is not core to the ideology; while the rabid nationalism is the core tenet of fascism.

[pusher robot]

I am interested in who Libertarians really are and what they really do in the real world as opposed to their fantasy one where the small matters of reality aren't allowed to intrude.


Since you are not willing to listen what they have to say about themselves instead of imposing your own prejudices on them, I have to say I don't believe you.


That they want to raise the taxes I pay so that the extremely well off can pay less

You find me one, single, honest-to-goodness libertarian that supports raising your taxes and I will stop calling strawman on you!

Until then:

STRAWMAN!


I am talking about the fact that they support every authoritarian government policy imaginable.

STRAWMAN!


they want to remove all recourses I have when I am fucked over by work or the bank or whatever

STRAWMAN!


the fact that more often than not their policies on immigration boil down to "keep the niggers out"

STRAWMAN!



the fact that whenever they have no support at all for Democracy.

STRAWWWWWWWWMANNNNNNNNNN!

Seriously, find me a single libertarian who takes any of these positions and I'll gladly retract.




Don't have the gall to call this freedom.

There's that authoritarian impulse!

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 30, 2007 08:10 pm

You find me one, single, honest-to-goodness libertarian that supports raising your taxes and I will stop calling strawman on you!

Milton Freidman. Of course given he is dead it is more a case of wanted rather than wants, but you know what I mean.

It was partly on his advice that Thatcher raised VAT from 6% to 17.5% for example

You only asked for one, butfeel free to ask for more if your position suddenly changes on that one.

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by Demogorgon+October 30, 2007 08:54 pm--> (Demogorgon @ October 30, 2007 08:54 pm)
pusher [email protected] 30, 2007 08:10 pm

You find me one, single, honest-to-goodness libertarian that supports raising your taxes and I will stop calling strawman on you!

Milton Freidman. Of course given he is dead it is more a case of wanted rather than wants, but you know what I mean.

It was partly on his advice that Thatcher raised VAT from 6% to 17.5% for example

You only asked for one, butfeel free to ask for more if your position suddenly changes on that one. [/b]
That is a misrepresentation of Friedman's position. He obviously would have chosen not to raise taxes at all but rather to reduce spending. Given that taxes would be raised - not his preference - he advised the least inefficient method of doing so.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by pusher robot+October 30, 2007 09:46 pm--> (pusher robot @ October 30, 2007 09:46 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 08:54 pm

pusher [email protected] 30, 2007 08:10 pm

You find me one, single, honest-to-goodness libertarian that supports raising your taxes and I will stop calling strawman on you!

Milton Freidman. Of course given he is dead it is more a case of wanted rather than wants, but you know what I mean.

It was partly on his advice that Thatcher raised VAT from 6% to 17.5% for example

You only asked for one, butfeel free to ask for more if your position suddenly changes on that one.
That is a misrepresentation of Friedman's position. He obviously would have chosen not to raise taxes at all but rather to reduce spending. Given that taxes would be raised - not his preference - he advised the least inefficient method of doing so. [/b]
Ah, so while they will happily raise my taxes to their hearts content, they don't really want to do it? :lol: That makes everything all right then. I guess we have found yet another Libertarian excuse for hypocricy.

Perhaps we need an even more clear cut example then? The Economist magazine, the leading Libertarian voice in Britain, if you like published an article around two years ago calling for a flat tax. THe rate they suggested was 26%.

As of April next year, my tax rate will be 0% on income up to my tax allowence and 20% above that. I don't qualify for the upper 40% band being a poor student and all.

This lovely Libertarian plan would mean a 26% tax rise on income up to my tax allowence and a 6% rise on income above it. That is a pretty dramatic tax rise. And I do not appreciate the fact that it would be used to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy (including abolishing tax on share dividends altogether according to the plan). Not to mention it would go along with other pet projects of the economist like abolishing free University tuition and restricting universal healthcare. In other words they would have me pay more taxes for reduced services. Smashing, where do you sign me up?

[Dimentio]

Friedman was a neoliberal. They are like libertarians, only quite non-ideological.

[Demogorgon]

No response to that little example of Libertarians with a hankering for raising taxes?

Well no matter, I would like now to refer to another point, which was that Libertarians are fascists. I do not know the real name of the Libertarian in question here, but I do know he goes by the alias Pusher Robot.

Here he appears to advocate haria law for the west: http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=72456

Violent torture as a punishment for non violent offences? Even using the same justification that proponents of sharia use ("well prison is worse")

Oops

[Nusocialist]

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 29, 2007 05:07 pm
Burn, strawman, burn!
It isn't a strawman. You American style libertarians are the king of strawmen so don't use that term here, particularly incorrectly.

[Libertarian Socialist Movement]

The term libertarianism usually refers to a political philosophy maintaining that all persons are the absolute owners of their own lives, and should be free to do whatever they wish with their persons or property, as long as they allow others the same liberty.



theres your definition of libertarianism
for some reason its considered sort of a right-wing ideology
but i agree, i dont think there is such thing as a libertarian who wants taxes raised
hence the term liberal
typically liber govt. draws money from taxes, but in a completely liberal state
where the population is mostly the proliteriat and has a majority of authority through shear numbers, i doubt they want taxs raised thats just common sence

[Dean]

Originally posted by Invader Zim+October 30, 2007 02:50 pm--> (Invader Zim @ October 30, 2007 02:50 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 03:44 pm

Invader [email protected] 30, 2007 02:30 pm
Libertarianism is fascism? Not so. Fascism is corporatism; a subtle but important difference.
Ah, but so is Libertarianism. Ever notice the kind of societies Libertarians praise? Hong Kong is a favourite for example, and one might argue it is the best example on earth of old fashioned corporatism with half the seats in parliament being chosen by the corporations for instance.

And of course, where do you think their economic policies lead anyway?
Well typically libertarians are pro-choice, anti-imperialism, etc. Fascists aren't necessarily. The key tenet of libertarianism is respecting the rights of others (economic and social) and them respecting yours in turn. Fascists certainly do not believe in social freedom. But in economic terms fascists and libertarians certainly have some close parallels.

The answer to the question on where libertarianism leads, the answer is disaster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_depression). [/b]
Actually, that is a major point of contention now in the Libertarian crowd. It is not too surprising that about half of the party, for instance, DOES support the Iraq war. Libertarianism is about imperialism and fascism.

[Invader Zim]

I'm tired of these tedious misconceptions; some basic facts: -
The Libertarian party opposed the Iraq war.

One of the key tenets of the Libertarian parties national platform is a non-interventionist foreign policy.

The current Libertarian party leadership supports immidiate withdrawl from Iraq.

A lot of even relatively conservative libertarians (ie Ron Paul) were against Iraq.

Typically libertarian (note small 'l') politics are non-interventionist; fascist policy is the exact opposite and absolutely requires interventionist nationalistic policy.

Mussioni: - "Fascism, the more it considers and observes the future and the development of humanity quite apart from political considerations of the moment, believes neither in the possibility nor the utility of perpetual peace. It thus repudiates the doctrine of Pacifism -- born of a renunciation of the struggle and an act of cowardice in the face of sacrifice. War alone brings up to its highest tension all human energy and puts the stamp of nobility upon the peoples who have courage to meet it. All other trials are substitutes, which never really put men into the position where they have to make the great decision -- the alternative of life or death." What is Fascism, 1932

"American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with the world and the defense -- against attack from abroad -- of the lives, liberty, and property of the American people on American soil." - http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml#iv

Anyone else got some misconceptions to get off their chests; misconceptions that do nothing other than dangerously trivialise fascism by suggesting that it is the same as the farcical ideology that is libertarianism?

[Demogorgon]

Why precisely are you repeating libertarianslogans for anyway? They can do that on their own.

That fact is there is huge evidence that Libertarians are imperialist fascists. THis thread alone has demonstrated Libertarians calling for genocide to be used in Iraq, calling for raised taxes on the poor, calling for torture to be used as a punishment for non violent crime, opposing female sufferage etc.

Are we going to start taking the extreme right at their word all the time? Perhaps we should start calling the BNP the party standing up for Britain?

[Dean]

Originally posted by Invader [email protected] 01, 2007 05:50 pm
Anyone else got some misconceptions to get off their chests; misconceptions that do nothing other than dangerously trivialise fascism by suggesting that it is the same as the farcical ideology that is libertarianism?
Libertarianism can be just as dangerous as facism, which in turn can be very innoculous. Just because you think libertarianism is some kind of freedom issue doesn't mean that the libertarian party is not, in fact, very imperialist.

The fact is that it has been a major trend among libertarians to support the Iraq war, something noticable because it goes against so much of their rhetoric. It is also relevant that Liberarians tend to defend U.S. foreign policy, especially if it has to do with finance. The Pinochet regime, for instance, is heavily defended.

[Demogorgon]

Incidentally even if one were to demonstrate that Libertarianism is not fascism (which I reckon is impossible as it has the same sources and same outlook) then you would probably have to acknowledge that it was worse than fascism. It has the same racism, the same desire to restrict civil liberties and the same imperialism combined with an even stronger desire to hammer the poor.

[Invader Zim]

EDIT

[Invader Zim]

(which I reckon is impossible as it has the same sources and same outlook)

But they don't, as I have pointed out. But I grow weary of this (After all; if pointing out that libertarians tend not to be rabidly nationalistic and that it is not a core part of their ideology (which it is for fascism), does not convince you that they are not 'fascists', then nothing will.); I have no idea why I am defending libertarianism among the most idiotic of the ideologies out there - other than the fact that the criticsm that they are fascists is simply a misunderstading/misrepresentation of both ideologies and is ahistoric in the extreme. Other than that I have no issue with slating libertarianism; but you could at least charge them with things they are actually guilty of, and fascism is just not it.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by Invader [email protected] 01, 2007 08:39 pm

(which I reckon is impossible as it has the same sources and same outlook)

But they don't, as I have pointed out. But I grow weary of this (After all; if pointing out that libertarians tend not to be rabidly nationalistic and that it is not a core part of their ideology (which it is for fascism), does not convince you that they are not 'fascists', then nothing will.); I have no idea why I am defending libertarianism among the most idiotic of the ideologies out there - other than the fact that the criticsm that they are fascists is simply a misunderstading/misrepresentation of both ideologies and is ahistoric in the extreme. Other than that I have no issue with slating libertarianism; but you could at least charge them with things they are actually guilty of, and fascism is just not it.
For heaves sake, you could search for days and struggle to find any differences between the two.

Lets look at the facts. Advocates of Libertarianism-

Ludwig Von Mises-member of Austria's fascist Government and White Supremist

Anders Lange-Member Of Quisling's puppet Government in Norway and white supremist

Murray Rothbard-Misogynist, sexist and homophobe

Anthony Flew-Chairman of apartheid South Africa's main British advocacy Group

Bang up to date we could use Ron Paul, White Supremist, homophobe and Christian Dominionist.

As for policies. Imperialism? Check Racism? Check Authoritarian social policies? Check Opposition to democracy? Check Desire for a government dominated by corporations? Check

It is little wonder that it is generally the preferred outlook on Stormfront for example.

[Invader Zim]

For heaves sake, you could search for days and struggle to find any differences between the two.

Well you obviously haven't been looking very hard, I have already provided several. But to say it again; you cannot be a fascist without being rabidly nationalistic; you cannot be a fascist without being heavily authoritian; you cannot be a fascist without being opposed to democracy. Libertarians are not necessarily any of those things thus libertarianism is not fascism.



Ludwig Von Mises-member of Austria's fascist Government and White Supremist

You do realise that Von Mises was a Jew who fled the Nazi regime, don't you? I suggest you go to some white supremacist websites and ask them their opinion of jews.

And like I said, as a rule they are anti-interventionalist when it comes to foreign policy in addition to typically heavily pro-democratic position; both of which are the typical platforms which fascists rally against. Indeed these are defining characteristsics of fascism; a lot more so than race (irrelevent to Italian fascism until after Hitler pushed his hand), sexism or homophobia.

In an interesting story when it comes to race and fascism. The Vichy government sent 'jew hunters' around France and when these hunters reached the Italian section of France and demanded that they be allowed to hunt Jews in Italian controlled France, the Italians denied them access and told them that Italians were not barbarians.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by Invader [email protected] 01, 2007 09:12 pm


For heaves sake, you could search for days and struggle to find any differences between the two.

Well you obviously haven't been looking very hard, I have already provided several. But to say it again; you cannot be a fascist without being rabidly nationalistic; you cannot be a fascist without being heavily authoritian; you cannot be a fascist without being opposed to democracy. Libertarians are not necessarily any of those things thus libertarianism is not fascism.



Ludwig Von Mises-member of Austria's fascist Government and White Supremist

You do realise that Von Mises was a Jew who fled the Nazi regime, don't you? I suggest you go to some white supremacist websites and ask them their opinion of jews.

And like I said, as a rule they are anti-interventionalist when it comes to foreign policy in addition to typically heavily pro-democratic position; both of which are the typical platforms which fascists rally against. Indeed these are defining characteristsics of fascism; a lot more so than race (irrelevent to Italian fascism until after Hitler pushed his hand), sexism or homophobia.

In an interesting story when it comes to race and fascism. The Vichy government sent 'jew hunters' around France and when these hunters reached the Italian section of France and demanded that they be allowed to hunt Jews in Italian controlled France, the Italians denied them access and told them that Italians were not barbarians.
For crying out loud, you attempt to say Von Mises wasn't a fascist by saying he was Jewish and then point out that fascism is not necessarilly anti-semitic. Von Mises was chief adviser to the Minister Of Finance and had the ear of the Chancellor pretty much all through the period of Austro-Fascism (the fascist Government that ruled Austria before the Nazis put in an appearance.) After the war he did free work for certain Pan-European organisations. Organisations that believed in a unified fascist (and white) Europe. They were white supremists but in the old fashioned sense that did not target (white) Jews.

What next, you say they are anti-imperialist because a substantial number (though I doubt a majority) oppose the IRaq war and rally against intervention. May I remind you that that is also the policy position of the BNP?

And how on earth are they pro-democratic? Look at their behaviour on that. They call democracy "mob rule" and "tyranny of the majority". They often support re-introducing property qualifications to vote, some like Rothbard strongly advocated abolishing female sufferage. In commonwealth countries in particular they distinguish themselves in their anti-democratic behaviour by always being the loudest voices against proportional representation for example.

Why don't you actually look at their policies rather than their nice slogans about freedom?

[Invader Zim]

you attempt to say Von Mises wasn't a fascist by saying he was Jewish, and then point out that fascism is not necessarilly anti-semitic

No, read again, I said he wasn't a white supremacist; the point you were using as an example of his supposed 'fascism'. I could have told you he wasn't a fascist a result of his repeated lambasting of nationalism and nationalist movements.


They were white supremists but in the old fashioned sense that did not target (white) Jews.

LOL. You do realise that white supremacists have been targeting jews long before the term 'white supremacy' was even coined and certainly before Von Mises was born. Pogrom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pogrom)

Traditional 'white supremacy' is anti-semitism.

But, that aside, the Austrian fascist government, was modelled on Italian fascism which was not inherently racist. And Von Mises, who was an economic advisor (not government minister, which you claimed earlier) during Dollfuss's time in office; Dollfuss was of course assassinated by the Nazis. Incidentally Dollfuss moved towards Italian fascism directly in order to gain support from Mussolini whom he thought was able to provide Austria protection from Germany; which was provided until 1937 when the Italian/German axis was formed.

So in other words, von Mises was nothing more than an advisor on economic matters, largely to do with the depression, and the politics of converting to fascism were entirely to prevent annexation (not that it wasn't an authoritarian regime that placed political enemies in camps) and one that has been described as 'semi-fascist' - though perhaps qusi-fascist is a better description; and the ideology was clearly seperate to that of von mises who left Austria in 1934, the same year he became an advisor.


What next, you say they are anti-imperialist because a substantial number (though I doubt a majority) oppose the IRaq war and rally against intervention.

I'll say it again, fascism cannot exist without rabid nationalism. Italian and German fascism both fundermentally required, it was and is inherent to the ideology, an expansionist foreign policy; something that is diametrically opposed by the non-interventionist Libertarian party. How much more clear cut can it be?


May I remind you that that is also the policy position of the BNP?

I think you will find that the BNP's political agenda when it comes to Iraq is greater concerned with the image of Britain being the 'lap dog' of the USA, than it is with fighting a pointless war in the ME which is at odds with most British people by now. If you look at impeialist issues closer to home, IE the Irish situation they make their expansionist nationalistic tendancies quite plain; they wish to end the troubles by 'inviting' Eire and Ulster to re-join the union and then 'crush' the terrorists. In other words they want to re-annex Ireland.

Oh and they also want to increase the UK&#39;s military budget... for defence of course. <_<

This is of course inline with their new "conservative" (in the BNP&#39;s case; latent fascist agenda) position.



And how on earth are they pro-democratic?

They support the typical brand of &#39;democracy&#39; of the &#39;liberal democracies&#39;; they also claim that the market is &#39;democracy in action&#39;.



Why don&#39;t you actually look at their policies rather than their nice slogans about freedom?

I have quoted one of their policies; I will do so again - "American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with the world and the defense -- against attack from abroad -- of the lives, liberty, and property of the American people on American soil."

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by Invader [email protected] 01, 2007 10:12 pm
No, read again, I said he wasn&#39;t a white supremacist; the point you were using as an example of his supposed &#39;fascism&#39;. I could have told you he wasn&#39;t a fascist a result of his repeated lambasting of nationalism and nationalist movements.


He was a white supremist. He was a member of several white supremist organisations. How much more clear cut can you be? And actually he was a nationalist-a European nationalist. Hence he was invlved so closely with the fascist pan-European organisations.
LOL. You do realise that white supremacists have been targeting jews long before the term &#39;white supremacy&#39; was even coined and certainly before Von Mises was born. Pogrom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pogrom)

Traditional white supremacy is anti-semitism.

But, that aside, the Austrian fascist government, was modelled on Italian fascism which was not inherently racist. And Von Mises, who was an economic advisor (not government minister, which you claimed earlier) during Dollfuss&#39;s time in office; Dollfuss was of course assassinated by the Nazis. Incidentally Dollfuss moved towards Italian fascism directly in order to gain support from Mussolini whom he thought was able to provide Austria protection from Germany; which was provided until 1937 when the Italian/German axis was formed.

So in other words, von Mises was nothing more than an advisor on economic matters, largely to do with the depression, and the politics of converting to fascism were entirely to prevent annexation as opposed to ideological committment; and the ideology was clearly seperate to that of von mises who left Austria in 1934; the same year he became an advisor and four before Anschluss.I am aware that white supremacy often targets Jews, but as anyone who follows what happens in Israel for instance will tell you, this isn&#39;t always the case. Incidentally you are trying to demonstrate than Von Mises was not a Nazi and I agree-he was a fascist in the pre-Hitler style.

I did not say he was a cabinet minister I said he was a member of the government and backed said government (on a side not his economic policies were disastrous you will not be surprised to hear).

I&#39;ll say it again, fascism cannot exist without rabid nationalism. Italian and German fascism both fundermentally required, it was and is inherent to the ideology, an expansionist foreign policy; something that is diametrically opposed by the non-interventionist Libertarian party. How much more clear cut can it be?Well Libertarianism often is rabidly nationalist. Look at the article Capitalist Lawyer posted which i happen to know was written by a so called Libertarian for instance.

I think you will find that the BNP&#39;s political agenda when it comes to Iraq is greater concerned with the image of Britain being the &#39;lap dog&#39; of the USA, than it is with fighting a pointless war in the ME which is at odds with most British people by now. If you look at impeialist issues closer to home, IE the Irish situation they make their expansionist nationalistic tendancies quite plain; they wish to end the troubles by &#39;inviting&#39; Eire and Ulster to re-join the union and then &#39;crush&#39; the terrorists. In other words they want to re-annex Ireland.

Oh and they also want to increase the UK&#39;s military budget... for defence of course. <_<

This is of course inline with their new "conservative" (in the BNP&#39;s case; latent fascist agenda) position.
I never siad they were anti-imperialist. I was pointing out that simply opposing the iraq war is not anti-imperialist. While a great deal of Libertarians do oppose this particular war they are still imperialists.
They support the typical brand of &#39;democracy&#39; of the &#39;liberal democracies&#39;; they also claim that the market is &#39;democracy in action&#39;.
But like I say they even oppose the democratic parts of "liberal democracy" such as proportional representation. And come on you don&#39;t need to look far to see what thy think. Read a few more threads in OI for example.
I have quoted one of their policies; I will do so again - "American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with the world and the defense -- against attack from abroad -- of the lives, liberty, and property of the American people on American soil."That is the policy of a single small Libertarian entity which is disagreed with by many of its members. You might as well say we must believe something because some obscure Communist party advocates it. Look what the think tanks say, the other Libertarian parties, our Libertarian members here think etc.

And again read (if you can stomach it) that thing Capitalist Lawyer posted. The source of that was a Libertarian.

[Invader Zim]

He was a white supremist.

Well, this is getting tedious; proof?


Incidentally you are trying to demonstrate than Von Mises was not a Nazi and I agree-he was a fascist in the pre-Hitler style.

Which was non-racist. But not that he was; his ideology was clearly, in part defined by anti-interventionism; something that directly contradicted Italian fascist principals. A point I note you have still not come to grips with.


I did not say he was a cabinet minister

"Ludwig Von Mises-member of Austria&#39;s fascist Government"



Well Libertarianism often is rabidly nationalist.

Well the policies of the Libertarian party fundermentally disagree with that supposition. As does the CATO (http://www.cato.org/foreignpolicy/) institute bunch of idiots (the libertarian online resource), etc.

And of course Hayek on conservatism: -

"Connected with the conservative distrust if the new and the strange is its hostility to internationalism and its proneness to a strident nationalism. Here is another source of its weakness in the struggle of ideas."

Source (http://hem.passagen.se/nicb/cons.htm)


While a great deal of Libertarians do oppose this particular war they are still imperialists.

So they oppose the war, they oppose foregin policies based on intervention; yet they are imperialists and nationalists? Sorry, that boat sinks in the harbour.


That is the policy of a single small Libertarian entity

You mean the largest single libertarian political unit in the entire US, who are pretty much representative of libertarians; not conservatives with free market/small government leanings, but actual libertarians; except when it comes to the issue of abortion?



And again read (if you can stomach it) that thing Capitalist Lawyer posted

Which one? If it is that Ralph Peters one; guess again if you think that neo-con (who describes some US democrats as &#39;hard left&#39; and supports neo-con republican McCain) army vet is a libertarian.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by Invader [email protected] 01, 2007 11:03 pm
Well, this is getting tedious; proof?


Right I will say this one more time in response to his racism and if you disagree with it after that, feel free. He was involved with the pan-European movement which was (is?) a pre-Hitler fascist movement seeking to build a united fascist Europe.

The racism part comes in where its position n cultural matters is that Europeans must sperate themselves from other cultures, in other words racial segregation.

If you think I am wrong there, fair enough, I am not going to ush the point because whether or not this particular fascist movement as it is racist is secondary to the fact it is still a fascist movement&#33;
Which was non-racist. But not that he was; his ideology was clearly, in part defined by anti-interventionism; something that directly contradicted Italian fascist principals. A point I note you have still not come to grips with.
Saying Italian fascism was not raist is a bit on the dubious side. It didn&#39;t persecute Jews, but it did say Africans were savages incapable of governing themselves.

Anyway Von mises was certainly an economic non-interventionist. But his foreign policy is much more dubious. You have to seperate what he said in his philosophy and whatt he supported in poractice after all.
"Ludwig Von Mises-member of Austria&#39;s fascist Government"
And indeed he was. Chief Adviser to the Minister of Finance and unofficially adviser to several other members of the Cabinet. You don&#39;t need a ministerial portfolio to be a member of a Government. Particularly one like Dolfuss&#39;s which involved a lot of Cronyism and unofficial positions

You mean the largest single libertarian political unit in the entire US, who are pretty much representative of libertarians; not conservatives with free market/small government leanings, but actual libertarians; except when it comes to the issue of abortion?
No they aren&#39;t. The biggest Libertarian political entity in the US is the Republican liberty Caucus with several dozen members of congress and a modest number of senators. With the exception of Ron Paul and a few others they are largely pro-war.

Which one? If it is that Ralph Peters one; guess again if you think that neo-con (who describes some US democrats as &#39;hard left&#39; and supports neo-con republican McCain) army vet is a libertarian.It is all over the Libertarian sites, particularly the Randroid ones, which I think he has connections with.

[Invader Zim]

I don&#39;t think so; he slates the idea of a Europe wide superstate with imperialistic notions.

You can read all about it here: -

http://www.mises.org/liberal/ch3sec9.asp

The concluding paragraph; which says it all really: -

"The movement in favor of the formation of a federation of European states has arisen from a correct recognition of the untenability of all forms of chauvinistic nationalism. But what the supporters of this movement wish to set in its place is impracticable because it lacks a vital basis in the consciousness of the people. And even if the goal of the Pan-European movement could be achieved, the world would not be in the least the better for it. The struggle of a united European continent against the great world powers outside its territory would be no less ruinous than is the present struggle of the countries of Europe among themselves."

I have no doubt he may have been in favour of some kind of loosely federalised Europe, and I recall reading long ago he worked on the single currecy idea; but his sentiments regarding the certainly hard right wing leaning elements of the pan-European movement are quite plain, as the above quote shows.


Saying Italian fascism was not raist is a bit on the dubious side.

While taking your point regarding colonial views on Africa (no doubt a throwback to the European attitude towards slaves which existed across Europe), i think branding Italian fascists as &#39;racist&#39; is perhaps unwarrented; they were no more so than those who led the &#39;liberal democracies&#39; at that point. they certainly were not racist when compared to Germany, Poland, etc.

To expand Italian fascism was largely in favour of its Jewish community which had some leading members in senior banking positions and various other corporate bodies; which of course the fascist corporatism found favourable. Not just that but some of the financial contributions were made by Jews to fascists such as Ferrara. Then later on Finizi, a jew, was in the government and a not insubstancial portion of Italian jews supported the PNF. Also there was little anti-semitism in Italy to begin with; Mussolini only changed his position once he began falling &#39;into line&#39; behind Hitler in 1938 as well as requiring a scape goat following his mishaps in Spain. Hell Mussolini even had a Jewish mistress at one point. Even once anti-Semitic laws were put in place they were not as virulent as those in Germany and nor did they find much support from italians or the Church, though the latter could have done much more; Pius XII was of course a hard right wing quisling bastard when it came to the entire issue of fascism in Europe.


But his foreign policy is much more dubious.

I wasn&#39;t talking about his economics; but rather his ideas on foreign policy.


You don&#39;t need a ministerial portfolio to be a member of a Government.

Government advisors are not part of the government, they advise members of the government. But this semantic argument is of course irrelevent, I know what you mean.


particularly the Randroid ones

Randoids&#39; (i like it), have their own ludicrous philosophical ideals that place them well outside of the &#39;standard&#39; libertarian camp. Indeed if you had narrowed this from &#39;libertarian&#39; to &#39;objectivists&#39;, i would certainly agree there are elements of quasi-fascism - they, after all do support nationalistic wars once they start (though not necessarily starting them in the first place - like Rand&#39;s view on Vietnam, bad idea to go in but once in destroy the opposition using any means necessary to stop &#39;appeasment&#39;); they do agree with eliminating all resistance through brute force; they are in many cases overtly racist to a high degree, but one only has to read some of Rand&#39;s works to note that these people are radical nuts.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by Invader [email protected] 02, 2007 01:25 am
I don&#39;t think so; he slates the idea of a Europe wide superstate with imperialistic notions.

You can read all about it here: -

http://www.mises.org/liberal/ch3sec9.asp

The concluding paragraph; which says it all really: -

"The movement in favor of the formation of a federation of European states has arisen from a correct recognition of the untenability of all forms of chauvinistic nationalism. But what the supporters of this movement wish to set in its place is impracticable because it lacks a vital basis in the consciousness of the people. And even if the goal of the Pan-European movement could be achieved, the world would not be in the least the better for it. The struggle of a united European continent against the great world powers outside its territory would be no less ruinous than is the present struggle of the countries of Europe among themselves."

I have no doubt he may have been in favour of some kind of loosely federalised Europe, and I recall reading long ago he worked on the single currecy idea; but his sentiments regarding the certainly hard right wing leaning elements of the pan-European movement are quite plain, as the above quote shows.


Again it is pretty words, but once again look atwhat he did. There was plenty of talk of "cultural routes" and other suspect stuff coming from him.

However we are not going to reach concensus here. How about Murray Rothbard (anti-Semitism) and Anders Lange (quite literally every form of prejudice you can think up)?

While taking your point regarding colonial views on Africa (no doubt a throwback to the European attitude towards slaves which existed across Europe), i think branding Italian fascists as &#39;racist&#39; is perhaps unwarrented; they were no more so than those who led the &#39;liberal democracies&#39; at that point. they certainly were not racist when compared to Germany, Poland, etc.

To expand Italian fascism was largely in favour of its Jewish community which had some leading members in senior banking positions and various other corporate bodies; which of course the fascist corporatism found favourable. Not just that but some of the financial contributions were made by Jews to fascists such as Ferrara. Then later on Finizi, a jew, was in the government and a not insubstancial portion of Italian jews supported the PNF. Also there was little anti-semitism in Italy to begin with; Mussolini only changed his position once he began falling &#39;into line&#39; behind Hitler in 1938 as well as requiring a scape goat following his mishaps in Spain. Hell Mussolini even had a Jewish mistress at one point. Even once anti-Semitic laws were put in place they were not as virulent as those in Germany and nor did they find much support from italians or the Church, though the latter could have done much more; Pius XII was of course a hard right wing quisling bastard when it came to the entire issue of fascism in Europe.Well you have to remember the Liberal Democracies were very racist themselves. You may not call racism Italian fascism&#39;s defining characteristic, but it was certainly there, and as you probably know the fascist parties still existing in Itally (Alexandra Mussollini&#39;s lot) are
racist.

Also while again you might say that Italian racism did not stand out against say British racism, the same was true of German anti-semitism until 1938. Chamberlain after all said he agreed entirely with Hitler&#39;s Jewish policy up to Kristallnacht when he finally admitted things were going to far. But I don&#39;t think we would dismiss anti-semitism in Germany as normal before then.

As for Italian fascism not being particularly anti-semitic, no it wasn&#39;t, nor was Spanish fascism for that matter or Japanese fascism (if you ever want to read something truly bizarre look up what the Japanese Government thought of Jews).

Anyway we are drifting miles from the point which is that not all racism is anti-semitic.

Government advisors are not part of the government, they advise members of the government. But this semantic argument is of course irrelevent, I know what you mean.
Not that this will get us anywhere but Government advisers usually receive Government salaries...

Randoids&#39; (i like it), have their own ludicrous philosophical ideals that place them well outside of the &#39;standard&#39; libertarian camp. Indeed if you had narrowed this from &#39;libertarian&#39; to &#39;objectivists&#39;, i would certainly agree there are elements of quasi-fascism - they, after all do support nationalistic wars; they do agree with eliminating all resistance through brute force; they are in many cases overtly racist to a high degree, but one only has to read some of Rand&#39;s works to note that these people are radical nuts.You certainly have the measure of Rand and her cult, but I don&#39;t think you are giving them enough credit for their influence. Ron paul for example worryingly sites her as an even bigger influence than Von mises and I am told by soem Libertarians (I admit I don&#39;t think everyone assosciated with the party or movement is a fascist*) have told me her ideas have serious influence amongst a lot of Libertarians.

*Libertarians of the right wing sort come in two varieties, the first is the type I am lambasting, the second are simply right leaning Liberals who in the American context vote Libertarian when the Democratic candidate is either guaranteed to win or has no chance anyway. While I have my own extensive disagreements with them, I don&#39;t think they are anything like as bad as the other type.

But it should be pointed out it is the other type we keep encountering in OI and I bet you most of them like Rand.

[Lenin II]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 05:11 pm
Very well written, although I think a small minority of those "Facebook Libertarians" are actual Libertarians (the socialist kind) rather than American-style "Libertarians", because Facebook has shitty political options.
Yeah, really. Mine is currently set to "other," of course. There is no Marxist or Communist, not even a socialist political setting on facebook. Blasphemy&#33;

[Tungsten]

Matty_UK

Essentially, Libertarians know that they will never win substantial support from any sector of society other than the elite;
What % of the "elite" vote libertarian?

their tactic is to win the support of the elites who are capable of bringing in a Libertarian society without having to win any elections.
As in...revolution? Get outa town. Who advocates this?

And this is why Libertarianism is dangerous; it has a contempt for social responsibility, democracy,
And for reasons you daren&#39;t question. It&#39;s hardly surprising anyone showing contempt for something as poorly defined as "social responsibility", and viewing democracy as some kind of social and economic panacea is naive to say the least.
I posted an interesting link on this a while ago about the absurdity of the socialist conception of freedom. You might want to look it up.

but most dangerously it has powerful friends who could bring it into action.
How terrible.
It is no more than an expression of the interests of wealthy capitalists who are interested only in increasing profit at any human cost and all notions of “individual freedom” is only a means of the capitalist morally justifying his position to himself.
We&#39;ll see how cocky you are when the libertarian black helicopters pick you up.

pusher robot

Burn, strawman, burn&#33;
Not so much a straw man but a political ink-blot test. What kind of a system is a person who considers "do whatever you want providing you don&#39;t infringe on the rights of others" to be "dangerous" likely to advocate in real world? Not a pleasant one, I&#39;ll bet.

[Dean]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 03:32 pm
pusher robot

Burn, strawman, burn&#33;
Not so much a straw man but a political ink-blot test. What kind of a system is a person who considers "do whatever you want providing you don&#39;t infringe on the rights of others" to be "dangerous" likely to advocate in real world? Not a pleasant one, I&#39;ll bet.
That concept in itself isn&#39;t dangerous; contrarily, it is an essential part of communsit ideology. It is the false interpretation of it that capitalists have that is dangerous.

[Lenin II]

The Libertarian ideology&#39;s final words are: anarchy, deregulation and capitalism must rule, corporations are good, the rich must be the ones who wok hard for their money and must not have it taken away, and anarcho-capitalism is surely the best system. Corporate guilds for manufacture, elitist relations in distribution and agriculture.

It is nothing more than reactionary, utopian anarchism for rich people, a way to make sure the forces who would stand against a capitalist oligarchy are forever burst asunder. They care not for the exploitation of man by man or exploitation of environment by man. The Libertarian Party is chiefly inhabited by the deluded, hypocritical economic apologists and those with money. They are highly desirous of redressing social crimes in order to secure the continued existence of the system which allows them to plunder without limit or permission.
Libertarianism requires that the insolent workers should bow and keep silent, to remain within the bounds of existing society and caste away all hateful ideas about their bourgeoisie taskmasters. Despite their name, they are not all-around liberators, only liberators from bourgeoisie states, and not of free trade.

[mak2675]

what the hell?&#33; You people seem to really misunderstand American libertarianism. The first post fallaciously mentioned all the worst parts of it - misconstruing it - without showing the other side of the coin. Yes state pensions, minimum wage, unemployment benefits, etc are out the window but that is completely a distorted view without considering the overall picture. First of all, most libertarians believe in a transitional phase where the things that we are most dependent on are left to be abolished later. First we need to lower taxes for everyone, abolish the IRS and Federal Reserve which will stop inflation which we attribute to be the cause of the increasing standard of living and heavy recessions (unemployment, including). End the war on drugs to put minorities out of jail and shrink the prison system. Cut wasteful spending especially overseas. We want to remove the obstacles that CAUSE people to need these government benefits so they won&#39;t need to have dependency on statist entitlements and programs in the first place. Libertarians do not believe in just cutting peoples benefits suddenlyand leaving them to hang out to dry. Rather, its a gradual and careful process where the private sector and non-coercive groups slowly take control of the things the government handles inefficiently. Even if you don&#39;t agree with libertarians, people here should be more genuine and portray some of this (maybe try refuting it too) before labeling them as fascists which btw they are quite the antithesis of although anarchists are more so.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 09:50 am
We want to remove the obstacles that CAUSE people to need these government benefits so they won&#39;t need to have dependency on statist entitlements and programs in the first place.
So you believe that before those benefits were introduced - that is to say, during the 19th century and the first quarter of the 20th - the world was a wonderful place and everyone was happy and rich?

In that case, you need to start reading some real history books, right now.

If you are serious about removing the cause of poverty, help us bring down capitalism.

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by Edric O+November 07, 2007 08:24 am--> (Edric O @ November 07, 2007 08:24 am)
[email protected] 07, 2007 09:50 am
We want to remove the obstacles that CAUSE people to need these government benefits so they won&#39;t need to have dependency on statist entitlements and programs in the first place.
So you believe that before those benefits were introduced - that is to say, during the 19th century and the first quarter of the 20th - the world was a wonderful place and everyone was happy and rich?

In that case, you need to start reading some real history books, right now.

If you are serious about removing the cause of poverty, help us bring down capitalism. [/b]
Yet ANOTHER thread where I have to point out that correlation is not causation.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 07, 2007 08:31 pm
Yet ANOTHER thread where I have to point out that correlation is not causation.
True. However, if we are to adhere by that principle consistently, we may never use real-world historical examples to support or critique any ideology (since any society is constantly under the influence of many things besides the ideology of the government, and there is no way to determine the ceteris paribus effects of a given ideology or social system).

Thus we would have to conclude that the effects of any social/economic system are unknown and unknowable. That tends to reduce political debate to the level of "my axioms are better than yours."

[pusher robot]

However, if we are to adhere by that principle consistently, we may never use real-world historical examples to support or critique any ideology (since any society is constantly under the influence of many things besides the ideology of the government, and there is no way to determine the ceteris paribus effects of a given ideology or social system).

No, all it requires to adhere to the principle is to establish a prima-facie causal mechanism by something other than mere supposition based on the existence of a correlation. If the OP had perhaps offered some explanation about exactly how one thing caused the other, or a description of the mechanism by which it might do so, it would be an acceptable argument, if not a very strong one.

Merely establishing the existence of a correlation as proof of a causal relationship, however, remains a fallacy. It&#39;s the logical equivalent to using the established fact that more horses are used to pull greater weights to conclude that attaching more horses to something makes it heavier.

[mak2675]

first of all, i think the burden of proof is on the people in the thread that are saying something around the effect of libertarianism being some sort of fascist conspiracy. I myself wasn&#39;t trying to PROVE anything - rather, i was saying that the left-wing assertions on this thread should be backed with some sound proof.


I dont know how to cite the quotes that well, but basically by (Edric O @ October 30, 2007 04:57 am)


Libertarian ideology justifies not only the destruction of every single gain made by the working class movement over the last 150 years, but it also promotes contempt for democracy and universal suffrage.

again, you seem to only show how we remove all these cherished benefits without addressing how we simultaneously believe in removing or alleviating what we feel is the cause of needing these benefits. I don&#39;t have to PROVE this causality relationship. Im just imploring the opposition to acknowledge that this is our position and basing their analysis of our entire position - not a distorted version - and THEN labeling us as tyrants or whatnot through an impartial proof. I myself don&#39;t have to prove that inflation and inefficient spending is the cause of these things - its not my burden of proof. Im not making the assertions. I&#39;m stating my opinion. YOU have to prove that you are showing both sides of the coin before you call conclude we are fascists because you are the one that is trying to prove a point - namely that we are tyrants or whatnot. Im sorry if i can&#39;t pull logic terminology out of my ass, but i think your side is the one thats fallacious.

BTW, The first poster began with a rant saying, listing all the benefits that would be unallowed including public hospitals, public schools, unemployment benefits, state pensions, council housing etc. First of all, if anybody even glanced at the Federalist Papers they would know that you can&#39;t confuse "unallow" with "vote against" (see factionalism). Libertarians arent putting a gun in front of peoples heads and saying "you better not go to that public hospital". Now that happens to be my opinion - its not proof - its just a point and now im not going to call everyone else in here anti-factionalism-whatever-the-term-is.


"So you believe that before those benefits were introduced - that is to say, during the 19th century and the first quarter of the 20th - the world was a wonderful place and everyone was happy and rich?"

Ok, i&#39;m not saying that before the Federal Reserve, life was perfect BUT there is substantial claims from Bernanke and Friedman and other monetarists themselves - not just Austrian-school and old-school economists - that the great depression had to do with mismanagement of the money supply. I think it is at least a valid claim that a lot of these entitlements which we are so beholden to, began around that time and so it isnt that absurd for someone to suppose some causality - especially when they are not trying to "prove" it. Again, i did not attempt to proof - i was just stating the different facets of the Libertarian ideology that i felt should have been addressed that had to with its economic policies before concluding that Libertarians are whatever foul thing you say they are. As far as proofs go, my proof was merely that the opposition was distorting my side by not mentioning our platform fairly. I am appealin to common knowledge. I think the positions i mentioned were common knowledge - everyone knows thats what American Libertarians believe in their belief of how the government is the cause of poverty and unemployment, etc. Just go read some Lew Rockwell or watch Ron Paul. I am not claiming to be an expert. Seriously - am i saying anything insane? I&#39;m really trying to be honest with you guys.

[Overman]

Libertarianism is yet another conceptual idol of the present society. The only difference between the egalitarian utopia of the masses and the commerce utopia of the "rich" is that both are equally unrealizeable dreams. The libertarian scheme would simply lead to the inevitable ugly truth in a much sooner time. Which altogether is not an entirely bad outcome.

[mak2675]

Whatever results from any attainable, functioning system of government that is decentralized and that allows each man to as independently and "noncoercive"-ly as possible exercise his free will, i feel will allow humankind to maximize its potential. I would strive for a society where all humans function with this maximum operation and so that we - firstly, me - transcend to a plane from which we would never desire to regress. A plane from which when we look behind we point and say, "though these were great times, today these people would be backwords". That being said, there is this banality of saying libertarianism is noncoercive and "better for everyone" as if some sort of permanent utopia, because ultimately segments or factions will collide and the system will eventually expire and become decadent if not completely collapse. Even as i strive for noncoercion and voluntarism, there will probably always exist a system or order or hierarchy. Yet all i strive for is that, for all we can do now, we push the envelope as far as maximum utility and overall betterment is concerned, each striving for a vision that to the best of their knowledge will reach this goal..... for the time being, before we have to renew our efforts in a new system and maybe the communists envision something like this in what they call class warfare.

[Tungsten]

Overman

The only difference between the egalitarian utopia of the masses and the commerce utopia of the "rich" is that both are equally unrealizeable dreams.
This is pretty rich coming from one of the "robots will do all the work = utopia" crowd.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 06:19 pm
Overman

The only difference between the egalitarian utopia of the masses and the commerce utopia of the "rich" is that both are equally unrealizeable dreams.
This is pretty rich coming from one of the "robots will do all the work = utopia" crowd.
In any of his four posts did he say anything like that?

[Overman]

The only difference between the egalitarian utopia of the masses and the commerce utopia of the "rich" is that both are equally unrealizeable dreams.

This is pretty rich coming from one of the "robots will do all the work = utopia" crowd.

The only problem with your presumption that I envision an utopia for everybody from Mr. and Mrs. "El Stupido" to the technical geniuses that made life so comfy for everybody including those who never contributed anything into making all the modern technological gadgetry is that I don&#39;t have an utopian plan for everybody, but only those who have at least the brain potential for being productive and useful in the coming future society after the present one crumbles into chaos, ecologial disaster and violent barbarism.

Do I wish to include people who can&#39;t even understand highschool math and science into a new society that absolutely depends on technical competence for its smooth functioning and further progress and not on whether or not you could swindle your way to the top of the political power pyramid? Take a wild guess what my position is.

The fastest growing type of "work" out there is prostitution, gambling, warfare, narcotics and identity fraud. And it is no coincidence that they are growing so rapidly as what we are witnessing is a slow motion collapse of society. What happens when all this lucrative "work" get so out of hand that some strong authority (like the government) needs to step in to restore law and order?

Who do I choose as being a potential useful member of the new society when the governments of the world declares martial law and form and dictatorships, but they all eventually collapse because people being who they are will eventually rebel and the center of power crumbles? In the violent jungle of every person for himself, who do I consider to be the most valuable among the many thousands of walking sheeple? Investment bankers? Industrialists? Shopkeepers?

What do I buy that&#39;s worth buying with your worthless "promissary" notes? Perhaps someone else who is more useful as in having the knowledge and skills to build useful items would be a better choice. Those are the people we currently refer to now as technicians, engineers and scientists.

[Overman]

The only difference between the egalitarian utopia of the masses and the commerce utopia of the "rich" is that both are equally unrealizeable dreams.

This is pretty rich coming from one of the "robots will do all the work = utopia" crowd.

The only problem with your presumption that I envision an utopia for everybody from Mr. and Mrs. "El Stupido" to the technical geniuses that made life so comfy for everybody including those who never contributed anything into making all the modern technological gadgetry is that I don&#39;t have an utopian plan for everybody, but only those who have at least the brain potential for being productive and useful in the coming future society after the present one crumbles into chaos, ecologial disaster and violent barbarism.

Do I wish to include people who can&#39;t even understand highschool math and science into a new society that absolutely depends on technical competence for its smooth functioning and further progress and not on whether or not you could swindle your way to the top of the political power pyramid? Take a wild guess what my position is.

The fastest growing type of "work" out there is prostitution, gambling, warfare, narcotics and identity fraud. And it is no coincidence that they are growing so rapidly as what we are witnessing is a slow motion collapse of society.

Who do I choose as being a potential useful member of the new society when the governments of the world declares martial law and form dictatorships, but they all eventually collapse because people being who they are will eventually rebel and the center of power crumbles? In the violent jungle of every person for himself, who do I consider to be the most valuable among the many thousands of walking sheeple? Investment bankers? Industrialists? Shopkeepers?

What do I buy that&#39;s worth buying with your worthless "promissary" notes? Perhaps someone else who is more useful as in having the knowledge and skills to build useful items would be a better choice. Those are the people we currently refer to now as technicians, engineers and scientists.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Yet it&#39;s among that working class the libertarianist ideals have some measure of popularity. Why?

Because the working class feels more oppressed by the state than they do by their employers. They&#39;re tired of ever more of their income confiscated away to be wasted on things they&#39;ll never know or care about. They&#39;re tired of being forced to participate in byzantine bureaucracies. They&#39;re tired of being told the park is closed, there&#39;s no drinking on the beach, soda has been banned from the cafeteria, smokers must stand 100 yards from the building. Marijuana is illegal, paying for sex is illegal, guns are illegal, fishing is illegal, watering your lawn is illegal, anything is illegal if the officer says it&#39;s disorderly. You can&#39;t burn leaves, you can&#39;t burn wood, you can&#39;t burn paper, you can&#39;t have a barbeque. Property taxes are up, sales taxes are up, income taxes are up, fees are up. Yet somehow the libraries are broke, the schools are broke, the parks are broke, the fire department is broke. You can&#39;t have good gas, you can&#39;t have good booze, you can&#39;t have good porn, you can&#39;t have good food. It&#39;s the incessant creep of the do-gooders, the nanny-staters.

Libertarians offer them an alternative. Communists offer to introduce yet more rules and restrictions.

Your last statement is false, and the paragraph above it is irrelevant. I&#39;ll explain.

The very nature of the socialist revolution will require the workers to rise up by themselves against their employers and tax men and politicians to solidly reject their services. Communism is self-liberation. Libertarian capitalists may want to limit the extent of the state when it&#39;s not beneficial to the protection of property rights, but they certainly have no problem with the Bourgeoisie exploiting the worker so long as the community doesn&#39;t intervene - similar to barbarism where an individual with more power and money gets the consent of a weaker person.

Bureaucracies are a product of the state. We as communists want to abolish such a structure and replace it with citizen management, unlike libertarians who want to tame it so they can have their capitalist modes of production. Public services run by the constituents and workers would not only demolish the top-down services we have now, but anything that could be put forward by the market. A constant discussion between those who are most affected by the services and those who provide the goods is logically the best way to achieve what everyone wants. We don&#39;t hear about the problems with fire stations as we do public schools because they&#39;re libertarian services, while public schools are managed by politicians and administrators who often enroll their kids in private institutions and collect a paycheck from feeding kids scan sheets.

Since communists want to abolish the state, and libertarians don&#39;t, I think it should be you having to explain why your philosophy won&#39;t see a re-emergence of the intrusive state.

People certainly don&#39;t like to be told what to do. That is a perfect reason why every individual should be empowered to participate in a democratic association when they want to instead of having power of others, or worse, being on the receiving end.

[Overman]

By the way. I mentioned the inevitable ugly truth in my last post. What you may ask is the ugly truth that people are simply not willing to face? After all systems from democracy (blunderocracy, idiocracy...), Capitalism (monetarism, those with the gold make the rules ... ism), Communism (equally poor and incompetent ... ism) and when it all fails it will become apparent where the problem is. It is simply the nature of the bell curve of intelligence that the stupid and mediocre will outnumber the intelligent (http://youtube.com/watch?v=6mfbUhs2PVY).

"To the very top of our economic and socio-political structure are dunces. When you turn a bunch of dunces loose this is what tends to happen. Duncical equilibrium. The stupid person thinks he is as smart or smarter than the smart person and therein lies their stupidity."

[WrenchTurner]

What do I buy that&#39;s worth buying with your worthless "promissary" notes? Perhaps someone else who is more useful as in having the knowledge and skills to build useful items would be a better choice. Those are the people we currently refer to now as technicians, engineers and scientists.

Whatever you&#39;re going to say doesn&#39;t matter because I&#39;m better you because I make more money than you&#33; (http://youtube.com/watch?v=KLPPZY74UII)

I&#39;m better than Galileo and Van Gogh combined&#33; :D Woo Hoo&#33;

I&#39;m better than all you brainiacs&#33; :P