Total Posts:59|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Anarcho-Fascism Is The Solution

GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2011 2:35:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Anarcho-Fascism, which has been brought to my attention by Reasoning, appears to be the answer. When I first saw it, it looks humorous and it is, but I also realized that I happen to agree with this political philosophy.

I suppose I've always had Anarcho-Fascist leanings but didn't realize the full implications of my political ideas nor did I know it had a name. During my support of Ron Paul, I've always been in favor of him using Executive Orders to enforce freedom if he were to be President. This is partly why I was immediately drawn to Anarcho-Fascism.

Anarcho-Fascism: A political philosophy which believes that an Anarchic society, in the absence of publically recognized government or enforced political authority, can and should be brought about through a harsh authoritarian state. It is believed that since the people cannot be trusted to come to this freedom on their own, it must be imposed on them by the state.

I believe that Anarcho-Fascism is completely free from the burden of all the common arguments against typical Anarchy. No more can anti-Anarchists complain that in the absence of a state, Anarchy will always lead to an oppressive state being formed.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2011 2:44:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/2/2011 2:41:20 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Also known as Leninism (only Leninism goes to An-Com).

False. Not the same.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2011 2:48:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
So it advocates a fascist dictator so the result would lead to a state of anarchy? That doesn't sound like a political ideology. It just describes how an anarchy state would occur, not what the anarchy state is like.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2011 2:49:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/2/2011 2:35:01 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Anarcho-Fascism, which has been brought to my attention by Reasoning, appears to be the answer. When I first saw it, it looks humorous and it is, but I also realized that I happen to agree with this political philosophy.

I suppose I've always had Anarcho-Fascist leanings but didn't realize the full implications of my political ideas nor did I know it had a name. During my support of Ron Paul, I've always been in favor of him using Executive Orders to enforce freedom if he were to be President. This is partly why I was immediately drawn to Anarcho-Fascism.

Anarcho-Fascism: A political philosophy which believes that an Anarchic society, in the absence of publically recognized government or enforced political authority, can and should be brought about through a harsh authoritarian state. It is believed that since the people cannot be trusted to come to this freedom on their own, it must be imposed on them by the state.

I believe that Anarcho-Fascism is completely free from the burden of all the common arguments against typical Anarchy. No more can anti-Anarchists complain that in the absence of a state, Anarchy will always lead to an oppressive state being formed.

I may be getting in on this a bit late, but what exactly is the question you are answering?

That AF will lead an ideal form of governance? That it is in the individual or nation's best interest to adopt AF?
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2011 2:50:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
This is just as absurd and childish as all the other anarcho-isms...
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2011 2:52:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/2/2011 2:44:30 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 8/2/2011 2:41:20 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Also known as Leninism (only Leninism goes to An-Com).

False. Not the same.

Darn close. both advocate an ultimate anarchy society, and both advocate the use of a highly totalitarian state to function during the transistion process.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2011 2:52:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Though the notion of forcing freedom down people's thoats is not that new.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2011 2:53:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/2/2011 2:48:29 PM, darkkermit wrote:
So it advocates a fascist dictator so the result would lead to a state of anarchy? That doesn't sound like a political ideology. It just describes how an anarchy state would occur, not what the anarchy state is like.

Freedom is imposed by the state. That doesn't mean the state goes away and disappears. The state continues to impose freedom.

For example, think of American states as factions and every time states try to make bullsh!t laws, the dictator will use authoritarian power to overturn any laws that attempt to infringe on our freedom.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2011 2:56:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/2/2011 2:53:43 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 8/2/2011 2:48:29 PM, darkkermit wrote:

Freedom is imposed by the state.

This quote is a keeper.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2011 2:56:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/2/2011 2:49:59 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/2/2011 2:35:01 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Anarcho-Fascism, which has been brought to my attention by Reasoning, appears to be the answer. When I first saw it, it looks humorous and it is, but I also realized that I happen to agree with this political philosophy.

I suppose I've always had Anarcho-Fascist leanings but didn't realize the full implications of my political ideas nor did I know it had a name. During my support of Ron Paul, I've always been in favor of him using Executive Orders to enforce freedom if he were to be President. This is partly why I was immediately drawn to Anarcho-Fascism.

Anarcho-Fascism: A political philosophy which believes that an Anarchic society, in the absence of publically recognized government or enforced political authority, can and should be brought about through a harsh authoritarian state. It is believed that since the people cannot be trusted to come to this freedom on their own, it must be imposed on them by the state.

I believe that Anarcho-Fascism is completely free from the burden of all the common arguments against typical Anarchy. No more can anti-Anarchists complain that in the absence of a state, Anarchy will always lead to an oppressive state being formed.

I may be getting in on this a bit late, but what exactly is the question you are answering?

That AF will lead an ideal form of governance? That it is in the individual or nation's best interest to adopt AF?

It's a rhetorical statement. I simply mean that Anarcho-Fascism is the best form of governance.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2011 2:58:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/2/2011 2:56:51 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 8/2/2011 2:49:59 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/2/2011 2:35:01 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Anarcho-Fascism, which has been brought to my attention by Reasoning, appears to be the answer. When I first saw it, it looks humorous and it is, but I also realized that I happen to agree with this political philosophy.

I suppose I've always had Anarcho-Fascist leanings but didn't realize the full implications of my political ideas nor did I know it had a name. During my support of Ron Paul, I've always been in favor of him using Executive Orders to enforce freedom if he were to be President. This is partly why I was immediately drawn to Anarcho-Fascism.

Anarcho-Fascism: A political philosophy which believes that an Anarchic society, in the absence of publically recognized government or enforced political authority, can and should be brought about through a harsh authoritarian state. It is believed that since the people cannot be trusted to come to this freedom on their own, it must be imposed on them by the state.

I believe that Anarcho-Fascism is completely free from the burden of all the common arguments against typical Anarchy. No more can anti-Anarchists complain that in the absence of a state, Anarchy will always lead to an oppressive state being formed.

I may be getting in on this a bit late, but what exactly is the question you are answering?

That AF will lead an ideal form of governance? That it is in the individual or nation's best interest to adopt AF?

It's a rhetorical statement. I simply mean that Anarcho-Fascism is the best form of governance.

Would you mind an Anarcho-fascist state whose head was Hillary Clinton? She'd be protecting your freedom, right?

Or, if not her, what about a state where the leader is...say...Hitler. His definition of freedom was quite specific.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2011 3:01:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Wnope makes a good point. Different people have different opinions on what is a freedom and what is not (classically, we can look at abortion). Any dictator (be it a person, or a piece of paper) is going to have a subjective version of freedom. And any time you have the "freedom" of the dictator differing from the "freedom" of the people, they'll claim oppression.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2011 3:02:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Anarcho-Fascism.. So basically, you want a republic, but like using the word "anarchy" because it opens the door for you to use hardcore punk music in the national anthem?
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2011 3:04:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/2/2011 2:53:43 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 8/2/2011 2:48:29 PM, darkkermit wrote:
So it advocates a fascist dictator so the result would lead to a state of anarchy? That doesn't sound like a political ideology. It just describes how an anarchy state would occur, not what the anarchy state is like.

Freedom is imposed by the state. That doesn't mean the state goes away and disappears. The state continues to impose freedom.

For example, think of American states as factions and every time states try to make bullsh!t laws, the dictator will use authoritarian power to overturn any laws that attempt to infringe on our freedom.

Where are we to fund these authoritarian angels? Are we going to get Augusto pinochet who enforced free markets via the fist.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2011 3:04:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/2/2011 3:01:15 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Wnope makes a good point. Different people have different opinions on what is a freedom and what is not (classically, we can look at abortion). Any dictator (be it a person, or a piece of paper) is going to have a subjective version of freedom. And any time you have the "freedom" of the dictator differing from the "freedom" of the people, they'll claim oppression.

Freedom is very simple. As Ron Paul puts it, Liberty is the freedom to do what you want so long as you don't infringe on someone else's freedom.

There are very few issues like abortion. In fact, that may be the only issue where the line is hard to draw and clear cut.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2011 3:06:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/2/2011 3:04:42 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 8/2/2011 3:01:15 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Wnope makes a good point. Different people have different opinions on what is a freedom and what is not (classically, we can look at abortion). Any dictator (be it a person, or a piece of paper) is going to have a subjective version of freedom. And any time you have the "freedom" of the dictator differing from the "freedom" of the people, they'll claim oppression.

Freedom is very simple. As Ron Paul puts it, Liberty is the freedom to do what you want so long as you don't infringe on someone else's freedom.

That is the subjective value. Tens of millions of Americans disagree with him.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2011 3:08:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/2/2011 3:02:27 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
Anarcho-Fascism.. So basically, you want a republic, but like using the word "anarchy" because it opens the door for you to use hardcore punk music in the national anthem?

And thus we see all forms of anarchism summarised.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2011 3:11:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/2/2011 3:04:27 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 8/2/2011 2:53:43 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 8/2/2011 2:48:29 PM, darkkermit wrote:
So it advocates a fascist dictator so the result would lead to a state of anarchy? That doesn't sound like a political ideology. It just describes how an anarchy state would occur, not what the anarchy state is like.

Freedom is imposed by the state. That doesn't mean the state goes away and disappears. The state continues to impose freedom.

For example, think of American states as factions and every time states try to make bullsh!t laws, the dictator will use authoritarian power to overturn any laws that attempt to infringe on our freedom.

Where are we to fund these authoritarian angels? Are we going to get Augusto pinochet who enforced free markets via the fist.

I'm an authoritarian angel. Let me protect your "freedoms" and force them down your gulluts. lol.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2011 3:12:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
@Wnope

No, Hillary or Hitler cannot be the head. First of all, it could be one dictator or several dictators, but no, people who don't believe in Liberty can't be the head/s of state.

I believe that if Ron Paul is elected, he may be the first example of a real Anarchi-Fascist. He will use his iron fist to free all drug accused prisoners, withdraw all troops, abolish IRS, abolish Federal Reserve, abolish military industrial complex, and abolish the TSA. That's real freedom pounded with an iron fist. (Albeit, RP believes too much in states rights to be a total Anarcho-fascist, perhaps Ventura might be better fit.)
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2011 3:13:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/2/2011 3:06:39 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/2/2011 3:04:42 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 8/2/2011 3:01:15 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Wnope makes a good point. Different people have different opinions on what is a freedom and what is not (classically, we can look at abortion). Any dictator (be it a person, or a piece of paper) is going to have a subjective version of freedom. And any time you have the "freedom" of the dictator differing from the "freedom" of the people, they'll claim oppression.

Freedom is very simple. As Ron Paul puts it, Liberty is the freedom to do what you want so long as you don't infringe on someone else's freedom.

That is the subjective value. Tens of millions of Americans disagree with him.

This is when it gets tricky. What is considered infringing on someone else's freedom.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2011 3:16:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/2/2011 3:02:27 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
Anarcho-Fascism.. So basically, you want a republic, but like using the word "anarchy"

Sort of, but most Republics don't enforce freedom. They make laws that restrict freedoms.

because it opens the door for you to use hardcore punk music in the national anthem?

I don't like punk music or the punk movement.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2011 3:17:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Governments don't actually exist. People just think they do.

Government is what happens when a bunch of grown ups play make believe, and take themselves too seriously.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2011 3:18:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/2/2011 3:08:05 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/2/2011 3:02:27 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
Anarcho-Fascism.. So basically, you want a republic, but like using the word "anarchy" because it opens the door for you to use hardcore punk music in the national anthem?

And thus we see all forms of anarchism summarised.

False. Nearly every form of Anarchy is stateless with no republic. Anarcho-fascism is unique in that it doesn't follow the stateless trend.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2011 3:18:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Also, I just kind of have a knee jerk gut abhorrence for anything with "fascism" in the title.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2011 3:22:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/2/2011 3:06:39 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/2/2011 3:04:42 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 8/2/2011 3:01:15 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Wnope makes a good point. Different people have different opinions on what is a freedom and what is not (classically, we can look at abortion). Any dictator (be it a person, or a piece of paper) is going to have a subjective version of freedom. And any time you have the "freedom" of the dictator differing from the "freedom" of the people, they'll claim oppression.

Freedom is very simple. As Ron Paul puts it, Liberty is the freedom to do what you want so long as you don't infringe on someone else's freedom.

That is the subjective value. Tens of millions of Americans disagree with him.

Those people are either idiots or are lying to themselves. Yes, there are millions and millions of people who scream for freedom, yet want the gvernment to enslave drug users.

That doesn't mean that those people truly believe in or know what freedom is, they're just ignorant hypocrites.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2011 3:25:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Hey, I've just thought of/heard about this new snazzy political ideology that's awesome! Let's use violence to force everyone else to conform to this political system that I think is greater than any other political system anyone else has thought of, even though politics is a very complicated subject where it's easy to be wrong and very informed people have extremely different views!

Sounds like typical murderous dictator logic.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2011 3:29:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/2/2011 3:25:03 PM, Kinesis wrote:
Hey, I've just thought of/heard about this new snazzy political ideology that's awesome! Let's use violence to force everyone else to conform to this political system that I think is greater than any other political system anyone else has thought of, even though politics is a very complicated subject where it's easy to be wrong and very informed people have extremely different views!

Sounds like typical murderous dictator logic.

There's two words:

Freedom
Slavery

I'm pretty sure were all repulsed by the word "slavery" and in favor of "freedom."

Why is it wrong to abolish all people and legislation who try to impose slavery?
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2011 3:31:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/2/2011 3:22:03 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Those people are either idiots or are lying to themselves.

That's what all the dickheadz on either side say.

Yes, there are millions and millions of people who scream for freedom, yet want the gvernment to enslave drug users.

Who goes around screaming for freedom? Libertarians only. Most people regard freedom as one benefit amongst many to be considered. Freedom balanced against security, or happiness.

That doesn't mean that those people truly believe in or know what freedom is, they're just ignorant hypocrites.

The word 'freedom' does not have a correct definition. I've been hammering on about this point for ages. Words are just arbitrary labels. One person can have a definition of freedom, and another can have a different one. Neither are right, and neither are wrong.