If Libertarianism is so great, why has no country tried it?

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

It's very simple, actually:

"An anarchist is an extreme libertarian, like a socialist is an extreme democrat, and a fascist is an extreme republican." - Andre Marrou

Fascists are monarchs and dictators. Fascism has nothing to do with political parties.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Speaking of clueless people, it's interesting to see how many don't know the difference between Anarchism and Libertarianism.

It's very simple, actually:

"An anarchist is an extreme libertarian, like a socialist is an extreme democrat, and a fascist is an extreme republican." - Andre Marrou

Good one; but, actually, anarchism derives from a left-wing political tradition very closely associated with Marxism, and, like Marxism, aims at a classless and propertyless society, which libertarianism does not.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

An anarchist is a nigga Katrina looter.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Fascists are monarchs and dictators. Fascism has nothing to do with political parties.

Of course it does. Fascism never takes power without a grassroots mass movement for it (not a majority necessarily, but massive). (And, no, Chile's Pinochet was not a fascist -- as one commentator remarked of Francisco Franco, he was "a cop, not an artist".)

 

[bronzeage]

Fascists are monarchs and dictators. Fascism has nothing to do with political parties.

Without a dictator, fascism is just a bunch of assholes who wear the same color shirt.

 

[ryan8558]

An anarchist is a nigga Katrina looter.

White Katrina looters were called POLICEMEN.

 

[KingOrfeo]

An anarchist is a nigga Katrina looter.

You are a "THOUGHT OUTLAW" only in the sense that an illiterate is a "READING OUTLAW".

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Of course it does. Fascism never takes power without a grassroots mass movement for it (not a majority necessarily, but massive). (And, no, Chile's Pinochet was not a fascist -- as one commentator remarked of Francisco Franco, he was "a cop, not an artist".)

No, dear, I own a big fat book about fascism. People make their facts up as they go along. A fascist is a monarch or dictator, and seriously nationalist. Stalin, Hitler, Franco, Mussolini were all fascists but had little in common beyond controlling the government and their nationalism.

 

[KingOrfeo]

A fascist is a monarch or dictator, and seriously nationalist.

Nationalist certainly, but not necessarily a dictator (and never a monarch, fascism is too revolutionary for traditional monarchs); an ordinary brownshirt SA-Mann is just as good a fascist as Hitler.

Stalin, Hitler, Franco, Mussolini were all fascists but had little in common beyond controlling the government and their nationalism.

Stalin was not a fascist. Fascism has an ideological content and it is not Stalinism's content. Franco was not a fascist either, though he depended on fascist (Falangist) support, he was a traditionalist, "a cop, not an artist".

 

[richard_daily]

Fascists are monarchs and dictators. Fascism has nothing to do with political parties.

Fascism is an extreme right ideology. This has been discussed at length on this board, and I can bump the thread if you feel like learning something.

 

[richard_daily]

No, dear, I own a big fat book about fascism. People make their facts up as they go along. A fascist is a monarch or dictator, and seriously nationalist. Stalin, Hitler, Franco, Mussolini were all fascists but had little in common beyond controlling the government and their nationalism.

Maybe you should try reading that book.

A common cry of Russian soldiers in WW2 was "death to fascists".

Stalin was in no way, shape or form a fascist. That doesn't mean that he wasn't an asshole, but he most certainly wasn't a fascist.

Get your facts straight.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Fascism is an extreme right ideology. This has been discussed at length on this board, and I can bump the thread if you feel like learning something.

Well, Hitler's party had "socialist" in its name, therefore all liberals are fascists. Don't you pay any attention around here at all?!

 

[BotanyBoy]

Well, Hitler's party had "socialist" in its name, therefore all liberals are fascists. Don't you pay any attention around here at all?!

LOL..

 

[RobDownSouth]

Nope. Try again.

Anarchists are not related to socialists, but there's some of overlap, with one of the main differences being a interest in an weak or no central government.

Hokay, how 'bout "libertarianism is anarchy for rich people"?

 

[richard_daily]

Well, Hitler's party had "socialist" in its name, therefore all liberals are fascists. Don't you pay any attention around here at all?!

I really love wingnut arguments.

Hokay, how 'bout "libertarianism is anarchy for rich people"?

Meh... It doesn't really hold a comparison, since libertarianism is firmly on the right end of the spectrum, while anarchism is on the left.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Sean Renaud]

Nope. Try again.

Anarchists are not related to socialists, but there's some of overlap, with one of the main differences being a interest in an weak or no central government.

When command order economics and totalitarianism failed in the Soviet Union, why would Obama want to institute it here?

He didn't. Though a lot of people wish he'd take a step in that general direction.

 

[CandiCame]

Speaking of clueless people, it's interesting to see how many don't know the difference between Anarchism and Libertarianism.

I don't. Nor do I care enough to take the five minutes out of my life to research it. Explain it to me.

 

[KingOrfeo]

When command order economics and totalitarianism failed in the Soviet Union, why would Obama want to institute it here?

Because (1) social democracy is not command order economics or totalitarianism and (2) Obama ain't no social democrat anyway, more's the pity, his politics are much the same as Bill Clinton's and (3) it is only the Obama who lives in your head (and not yours alone, more's the pity) who wants to institute command order economics and totalitarianism, or even social democracy.

 

[richard_daily]

I don't. Nor do I care enough to take the five minutes out of my life to research it. Explain it to me.

Anarchism can be summed up simply in the phrase: No gods, no masters.

There is some historical evidence of anarchists using violence as a means to an end, although some of those claims are dubious and most likely involved set ups and cover ups, such as with the Haymarket Riots.

You can also see Catalonia in Spain, as well as the CNT as examples of anarchist community. They fought against Franco's fascist forces before WW2, and formed what essentially amounted to their own nation.

 

[richard_daily]

I don't. Nor do I care enough to take the five minutes out of my life to research it. Explain it to me.

You can also see the battles between Appalachian's and government forces at the turn of the 19th century as examples of anarchism.

I'm kind of surprised that you're not more familiar with the term.

 

[Sean Renaud]

I think the question, at least to some extent, was how exactly it differs from libertarianism. I must confess they sound pretty damn similar to me as well. I mean one is a romantic term and the other maligned term but to quote Ms. Rand "The question isn't who will let me, it's who will stop me." Sounds pretty damn anarchic to me.

 

[richard_daily]

I think the question, at least to some extent, was how exactly it differs from libertarianism. I must confess they sound pretty damn similar to me as well. I mean one is a romantic term and the other maligned term but to quote Ms. Rand "The question isn't who will let me, it's who will stop me." Sounds pretty damn anarchic to me.

Libertarianism is an economic construct, built around the premise that white people were giving up too much to socialism. Anarchism is a lifestyle (although there are non-lifestyle anarchists) based around direct action, community (rather than individualism) and being free from government intrusion (which is really the only similarity).

Rand was attempting to co-opt anarchism in her books, but if you look through them, they read more like the ravings of a mad woman who just wanted a bigger piece of the pie. libertarianism is politically closer to fascism than anarchism, especially if you look at Rand's work compared to fascist lit like the Turner Diaries.

Anarchism doesn't subscribe to the "more for me" philosophy, and private ownership of... well, everything. This is a huge difference between libertarianism and anarchism. All of this is especially hilarious when you consider that Rand took public assistance, much like many of the libertarians do today.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Libertarianism is an economic construct, built around the premise that white people were giving up too much to socialism. Anarchism is a lifestyle (although there are non-lifestyle anarchists) based around direct action, community (rather than individualism) and being free from government intrusion (which is really the only similarity).

Rand was attempting to co-opt anarchism in her books, but if you look through them, they read more like the ravings of a mad woman who just wanted a bigger piece of the pie. libertarianism is politically closer to fascism than anarchism, especially if you look at Rand's work compared to fascist lit like the Turner Diaries.

Anarchism doesn't subscribe to the "more for me" philosophy, and private ownership of... well, everything. This is a huge difference between libertarianism and anarchism. All of this is especially hilarious when you consider that Rand took public assistance, much like many of the libertarians do today.

Okay fair enough. Though I think many of your criticisms of Libertarians ultimately comes down to they don't actually practice what they preach and most of them are Republicans who are ashamed to be associated with. . .well Republicans. But point made.

I've read most of Rand when I was young. Might even still have a book or two still around someplace. Probably under some Gamepro Magazines.

Thanks!

 

[richard_daily]

Okay fair enough. Though I think many of your criticisms of Libertarians ultimately comes down to they don't actually practice what they preach and most of them are Republicans who are ashamed to be associated with. . .well Republicans. But point made.

I've read most of Rand when I was young. Might even still have a book or two still around someplace. Probably under some Gamepro Magazines.

Thanks!

I have plenty of opinions on it, but I have never seen a libertarian who practiced what they preached. Perhaps they exist, but I have never seen one. I suppose when you have to do EVERYTHING by yourself to actually adhere to your philosophy, it's intrinsically impossible. Especially since you can't even ask your kids to do the dishes and adhere to "rugged individualism" without being on shaky philosophical ground.

Libertarianism is basically a "woe is me" philosophy, that's steeped in a history of racism and hypocrisy. Yes, that's my personal opinion, but I think it can be backed up with considerable examples.

...and you're welcome!