Total Posts:46|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Libertarian Totalitarianism

GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2011 3:58:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Since people seem to have a hard time accepting the term "Anarcho-Fascism" as consistent, I propose Libertarian Totalitarianism.

A Totalitarian regime will use it's iron fist to enforce Libertarian policy.

Wherever property rights are violated, the regime will stop that.
Wherever civil liberties are being denied, the regime will stop that.
Wherever initiatory coercion takes place, the regime will stop that.
Wherever regulations try to attack the free market, the regime will stop that.
Whereever governments try to pop up, the regime will abolish them.
Wherever martial law and police brutality occurs, the regime will stop that.

This regime shall be called the Killuminati.

What arguments can be made against this system if it were to be established?
"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
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2011 4:00:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/3/2011 3:58:04 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Since people seem to have a hard time accepting the term "Anarcho-Fascism" as consistent, I propose Libertarian Totalitarianism.

A Totalitarian regime will use it's iron fist to enforce Libertarian policy.

Wherever property rights are violated, the regime will stop that.
Wherever civil liberties are being denied, the regime will stop that.
Wherever initiatory coercion takes place, the regime will stop that.
Wherever regulations try to attack the free market, the regime will stop that.
Whereever governments try to pop up, the regime will abolish them.
Wherever martial law and police brutality occurs, the regime will stop that.

This regime shall be called the Killuminati.

What arguments can be made against this system if it were to be established?

How specifically will the 'regime stop that'?
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2011 4:07:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/3/2011 4:02:32 PM, FREEDO wrote:
I thought this would be a thread making fun of your other one.

It's times like this that i miss JKenyon.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2011 4:10:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/3/2011 4:07:07 PM, innomen wrote:
At 8/3/2011 4:02:32 PM, FREEDO wrote:
I thought this would be a thread making fun of your other one.

It's times like this that i miss JKenyon.

Based on what I've seen on FB, JKenyon also supports Anarcho-Fascism as does Cody.
"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
8/3/2011 4:12:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/3/2011 4:00:25 PM, innomen wrote:
At 8/3/2011 3:58:04 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Since people seem to have a hard time accepting the term "Anarcho-Fascism" as consistent, I propose Libertarian Totalitarianism.

A Totalitarian regime will use it's iron fist to enforce Libertarian policy.

Wherever property rights are violated, the regime will stop that.
Wherever civil liberties are being denied, the regime will stop that.
Wherever initiatory coercion takes place, the regime will stop that.
Wherever regulations try to attack the free market, the regime will stop that.
Whereever governments try to pop up, the regime will abolish them.
Wherever martial law and police brutality occurs, the regime will stop that.

This regime shall be called the Killuminati.

What arguments can be made against this system if it were to be established?

How specifically will the 'regime stop that'?

Any measure necessary. It's up to the oppressor to decide to what degree he will resist thus determining the level harshness required to "stop that."
"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
8/3/2011 4:17:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/3/2011 3:58:04 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Since people seem to have a hard time accepting the term "Anarcho-Fascism" as consistent, I propose Libertarian Totalitarianism.

A Totalitarian regime will use it's iron fist to enforce Libertarian policy.


This is what government is, dude. None of this is anything new. Government has been trying to do this forever.

Wherever property rights are violated, the regime will stop that.

Yes, the government allegedly attempts to do this.

Wherever civil liberties are being denied, the regime will stop that.

The government allegedly attempts to do this.

Wherever initiatory coercion takes place, the regime will stop that.

The government will get in the way of certain types of coercion, but coercion can not be eradicated. Nor should it be.

Wherever regulations try to attack the free market, the regime will stop that.

This isn't cut and dry obvious. A lot of times, regulations of the market are done in order to make the market "more free". A monopoly will always have a huge advantage over a small business attempting to break into the field. In every conceivable way. Some people consider this an attack on the free market, and wish to bust down monopolies. Other people would consider it an attack on the free market to try to topple the monopoly.

The government itself is an economic institution, though people like to grant it some kind of special status. They can not equate the government with an economic institution, they tend to treat it as something different.

Whereever governments try to pop up, the regime will abolish them.

This is utterly impossible unless you want to screw with the free market. A business is a government.

Wherever martial law and police brutality occurs, the regime will stop that.

Yeah, we see how effective that is in today's society. They are supposed to do the same thing.

What arguments can be made against this system if it were to be established?

It is more of the same old same old.
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
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2011 4:18:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/3/2011 4:10:06 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 8/3/2011 4:07:07 PM, innomen wrote:
At 8/3/2011 4:02:32 PM, FREEDO wrote:
I thought this would be a thread making fun of your other one.

It's times like this that i miss JKenyon.

Based on what I've seen on FB, JKenyon also supports Anarcho-Fascism as does Cody.

This isn't really that big of a surprise to me. They were all phony anarchists anyway.
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
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2011 4:19:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/3/2011 3:58:04 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Since people seem to have a hard time accepting the term "Anarcho-Fascism" as consistent, I propose Libertarian Totalitarianism.

A Totalitarian regime will use it's iron fist to enforce Libertarian policy.

Wherever property rights are violated, the regime will stop that.
Wherever civil liberties are being denied, the regime will stop that.
Wherever initiatory coercion takes place, the regime will stop that.
Wherever regulations try to attack the free market, the regime will stop that.
Whereever governments try to pop up, the regime will abolish them.
Wherever martial law and police brutality occurs, the regime will stop that.

This regime shall be called the Killuminati.

What arguments can be made against this system if it were to be established?

The regime would abolish itself.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2011 4:24:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
That's simply not what totalitarianism means.

Crushing those who violate the law- That's just what successful governance means.

Totalitarianism/fascism refer to how extensive the law is, not what happens to the violators.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2011 4:30:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/3/2011 4:24:30 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
That's simply not what totalitarianism means.

Crushing those who violate the law- That's just what successful governance means.

Totalitarianism/fascism refer to how extensive the law is, not what happens to the violators.

Yes, and the law will extend across the whole land and apply everywhere.
"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
8/3/2011 4:45:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/3/2011 3:58:04 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Since people seem to have a hard time accepting the term "Anarcho-Fascism" as consistent, I propose Libertarian Totalitarianism.

A Totalitarian regime will use it's iron fist to enforce Libertarian policy.

Wherever property rights are violated, the regime will stop that.
Wherever civil liberties are being denied, the regime will stop that.
Wherever initiatory coercion takes place, the regime will stop that.
Wherever regulations try to attack the free market, the regime will stop that.
Whereever governments try to pop up, the regime will abolish them.
Wherever martial law and police brutality occurs, the regime will stop that.

This regime shall be called the Killuminati.

What arguments can be made against this system if it were to be established?

This is more like Libertarian Dictatorship (Libertarian style policies, with a dictator to enforce them that cannot be challenged).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2011 5:01:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Well, at least you guys have abandoned anarchism, but am not sure you've found a more viable option.

What about this form of totalitarianism is attractive to you? Who is in charge and how do they get to be in charge?
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2011 5:14:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/3/2011 5:01:54 PM, innomen wrote:
Well, at least you guys have abandoned anarchism, but am not sure you've found a more viable option.

What about this form of totalitarianism is attractive to you? Who is in charge and how do they get to be in charge?

I can't speak for Geo, but I can guess.

It seems to be based on the classic totalitarian/dictator ideals that "you don't know what's best for you," and "I, who does know what's best for you, will force it upon you. You may not like it now, but you'll come to see that I was right in the end."

In this case, the "what's best for you" is the Libertarian principles (NAP, self ownership, etc).

Most people do hold a "you don't know what's best for you, but I do," mind set, though they stop themselves before going further down the totalitarian vortex.

Sometimes people dive deeper out of desperation and frustration. They spend their time trying to convince others what is best for them, but eventually give up and try to move on to force.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2011 5:19:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/3/2011 5:14:11 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/3/2011 5:01:54 PM, innomen wrote:
Well, at least you guys have abandoned anarchism, but am not sure you've found a more viable option.

What about this form of totalitarianism is attractive to you? Who is in charge and how do they get to be in charge?

I can't speak for Geo, but I can guess.

It seems to be based on the classic totalitarian/dictator ideals that "you don't know what's best for you," and "I, who does know what's best for you, will force it upon you. You may not like it now, but you'll come to see that I was right in the end."

In this case, the "what's best for you" is the Libertarian principles (NAP, self ownership, etc).

Most people do hold a "you don't know what's best for you, but I do," mind set, though they stop themselves before going further down the totalitarian vortex.

Sometimes people dive deeper out of desperation and frustration. They spend their time trying to convince others what is best for them, but eventually give up and try to move on to force.

The current form of government does not act in the best interest of the governed.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2011 5:27:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/3/2011 5:19:19 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 8/3/2011 5:14:11 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/3/2011 5:01:54 PM, innomen wrote:
Well, at least you guys have abandoned anarchism, but am not sure you've found a more viable option.

What about this form of totalitarianism is attractive to you? Who is in charge and how do they get to be in charge?

I can't speak for Geo, but I can guess.

It seems to be based on the classic totalitarian/dictator ideals that "you don't know what's best for you," and "I, who does know what's best for you, will force it upon you. You may not like it now, but you'll come to see that I was right in the end."

In this case, the "what's best for you" is the Libertarian principles (NAP, self ownership, etc).

Most people do hold a "you don't know what's best for you, but I do," mind set, though they stop themselves before going further down the totalitarian vortex.

Sometimes people dive deeper out of desperation and frustration. They spend their time trying to convince others what is best for them, but eventually give up and try to move on to force.

The current form of government does not act in the best interest of the governed.

For the most part the individuals in congress think they are acting for what is best for the people. For examples, republicans actually believe that lowering taxes and cutting spending are whats best for the people. And democrats actually believe that the rich should be taxed more and that all these social programs are whats best for the people.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
seraine
Posts: 734
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2011 9:25:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/3/2011 3:58:04 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Since people seem to have a hard time accepting the term "Anarcho-Fascism" as consistent, I propose Libertarian Totalitarianism.

A Totalitarian regime will use it's iron fist to enforce Libertarian policy.

Wherever property rights are violated, the regime will stop that.
Wherever civil liberties are being denied, the regime will stop that.
Wherever initiatory coercion takes place, the regime will stop that.
Wherever regulations try to attack the free market, the regime will stop that.
Whereever governments try to pop up, the regime will abolish them.
Wherever martial law and police brutality occurs, the regime will stop that.

This regime shall be called the Killuminati.

What arguments can be made against this system if it were to be established?

Two problems: a) The government better not violate their ideals and b) By forcing everyone to obey your rules, you are kinda abandoning libertarian ideals.

There would be problems with unrest and such as well. Using big government to enforce a small government.... don't really agree with that. Forcing people to do something whether or not they agree with it =/= Libertarian ideals.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2011 9:57:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/3/2011 4:30:23 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 8/3/2011 4:24:30 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
That's simply not what totalitarianism means.

Crushing those who violate the law- That's just what successful governance means.

Totalitarianism/fascism refer to how extensive the law is, not what happens to the violators.

Yes, and the law will extend across the whole land and apply everywhere.

D'oh!
You're equivocating again.

Extensive in subject matter, not geography. Again, that's successful governance you're talking.

E.g., in fascism/totalitarianism/ primitive equivalents-- well, as Rand said "The savage's whole existence is public, ruled by the law of his tribe."

The savage is the subject of a fascist/totalitarian state, although traditionally one without a lot of geographic territory.

The law being swift, certain, brutal-- that is not the essence of fascism. Fascism is about regimenting the lives of all its subjects-- making a "Fasces," straightening out the kinks, bundling everyone together. Forced unity. Want more fascism? Tell people YOU MUST WORK AT THIS PROFESSION, NOT THAT ONE. YOU MUST USE THESE DRUGS, NOT THOSE ONES. THE MONEY YOU MAKE SHALL ALL BE SPENT AT THE ORDERS OF THE STATE, NOT ON WHAT YOU ENJOY. GET IN THE BREAD LINE, NOT BECAUSE YOU ARE POOR, NOT BECAUSE SPECIALIZED BAKERIES IN A COMPETITIVE ECONOMY MAKE BETTER BREAD (BAKERS WHO DARE COMPETE WITH THE STATE ARE GUILTY OF TREASON) BUT BECAUSE YOU MUST NOT BE PERMITTED THE INDEPENDENCE OF AN OVEN.

When you have libertarianism, and you have a government chopping off people's heads for initiating force-- that's not fascism, that's just particularly effective minarchy.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2011 10:00:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/3/2011 9:25:34 PM, seraine wrote:
At 8/3/2011 3:58:04 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Since people seem to have a hard time accepting the term "Anarcho-Fascism" as consistent, I propose Libertarian Totalitarianism.

A Totalitarian regime will use it's iron fist to enforce Libertarian policy.

Wherever property rights are violated, the regime will stop that.
Wherever civil liberties are being denied, the regime will stop that.
Wherever initiatory coercion takes place, the regime will stop that.
Wherever regulations try to attack the free market, the regime will stop that.
Whereever governments try to pop up, the regime will abolish them.
Wherever martial law and police brutality occurs, the regime will stop that.

This regime shall be called the Killuminati.

What arguments can be made against this system if it were to be established?

Two problems: a) The government better not violate their ideals and b) By forcing everyone to obey your rules, you are kinda abandoning libertarian ideals.

There would be problems with unrest and such as well. Using big government to enforce a small government.... don't really agree with that. Forcing people to do something whether or not they agree with it =/= Libertarian ideals.

You're just as confused as he is. "Big government" is not about how harsh the government is with those who violate its laws. It's about the range of subject matter the government concerns itself with.

All government is force. If you are against force, you are an anarchist and a pacifist. If you are a small-government libertarian, you need to use force to punish those who attempt to govern things that government has no business in.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2011 10:08:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/3/2011 9:25:34 PM, seraine wrote:
Two problems: a) The government better not violate their ideals

That's not an argument against the system itself, you're just pointing out that it'd be bad if the system were perverted or abandoned for something else. It's possible for a free Republic to deviate into an oppressive government, but that's not the fault of a Republic.

and b) By forcing everyone to obey your rules, you are kinda abandoning libertarian ideals.

What rules? How is forcing Libertarian ideals a form of abandoning Libertarian ideals? Really, there are no rules but civil liberty and property rights. That's not abandoning Libertarian ideals, that's enforcing them.

There would be problems with unrest and such as well. Using big government to enforce a small government.... don't really agree with that.

No. That's not what this is. It's not two governments, it's one small, but powerful government that ensures that freedom is everywhere and oppression is eliminated entirely.

Forcing people to do something whether or not they agree with it =/= Libertarian ideals.

Forcing people to do WHAT? The Libertarian Totalitarianism doesn't tell people what to DO. It tells them what they can't do, i.e. they can't take freedom from others, enslave others, initiate aggression against others without consent, etc.

Other than that, there's one rule, and that's Liberty.
"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
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2011 11:36:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Forcing people to do WHAT? The Libertarian Totalitarianism doesn't tell people what to DO.

Do you see the problem?

Totalitarianism is all about telling people what to do
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
seraine
Posts: 734
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2011 8:51:45 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/3/2011 10:08:56 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 8/3/2011 9:25:34 PM, seraine wrote:
Two problems: a) The government better not violate their ideals

That's not an argument against the system itself, you're just pointing out that it'd be bad if the system were perverted or abandoned for something else. It's possible for a free Republic to deviate into an oppressive government, but that's not the fault of a Republic.

and b) By forcing everyone to obey your rules, you are kinda abandoning libertarian ideals.

What rules? How is forcing Libertarian ideals a form of abandoning Libertarian ideals? Really, there are no rules but civil liberty and property rights. That's not abandoning Libertarian ideals, that's enforcing them.

There would be problems with unrest and such as well. Using big government to enforce a small government.... don't really agree with that.

No. That's not what this is. It's not two governments, it's one small, but powerful government that ensures that freedom is everywhere and oppression is eliminated entirely.

You are oppressing people with your ideals and ideas. Are they free if they can't work to change the system?


Forcing people to do something whether or not they agree with it =/= Libertarian ideals.

Forcing people to do WHAT? The Libertarian Totalitarianism doesn't tell people what to DO. It tells them what they can't do, i.e. they can't take freedom from others, enslave others, initiate aggression against others without consent, etc.

Other than that, there's one rule, and that's Liberty.

My problem is that you are forcing people to follow your libertarian ideals. Liberals and conservatives and such would be understandably upset if you forced them to follow libertarian ideals and denied them from attempting to make a change to the regime. If someone believes in big government, they would feel oppressed in that you are forcing them to follow your ideals.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2011 8:56:04 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/3/2011 3:58:04 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Since people seem to have a hard time accepting the term "Anarcho-Fascism" as consistent, I propose Libertarian Totalitarianism.

A Totalitarian regime will use it's iron fist to enforce Libertarian policy.

Wherever property rights are violated, the regime will stop that.
Wherever civil liberties are being denied, the regime will stop that.
Wherever initiatory coercion takes place, the regime will stop that.
Wherever regulations try to attack the free market, the regime will stop that.
Whereever governments try to pop up, the regime will abolish them.
Wherever martial law and police brutality occurs, the regime will stop that.

This regime shall be called the Killuminati.

What arguments can be made against this system if it were to be established?

It's kinda boring having two joke threads on what is basically the same topic.
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.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2011 9:02:04 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/4/2011 8:56:04 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/3/2011 3:58:04 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Since people seem to have a hard time accepting the term "Anarcho-Fascism" as consistent, I propose Libertarian Totalitarianism.

A Totalitarian regime will use it's iron fist to enforce Libertarian policy.

Wherever property rights are violated, the regime will stop that.
Wherever civil liberties are being denied, the regime will stop that.
Wherever initiatory coercion takes place, the regime will stop that.
Wherever regulations try to attack the free market, the regime will stop that.
Whereever governments try to pop up, the regime will abolish them.
Wherever martial law and police brutality occurs, the regime will stop that.

This regime shall be called the Killuminati.

What arguments can be made against this system if it were to be established?

It's kinda boring having two joke threads on what is basically the same topic.

They patch a hole in their ideology by ripping out a piece of it. 'What if people don't want to be free or want others to be free?' 'We'll force them with our regime using any power necessary to make sure they're free, whether they like it or not.' - Yeah, a joke thread.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2011 9:09:30 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Libertarian = Government is small and weak, lots of lovely social, economic and political freedoms.

Totalitarianism = Government is large and powerful, freedoms are at the whim of the Government. A totalitarian Government may permit social and economic freedoms, though historical most have not... it is highly unlikely to grant political freedoms.

Same reply for anarcho-fascism, more so in fact.

Thread closed.
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.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2011 9:11:52 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/4/2011 9:09:30 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Libertarian = Government is small and weak, lots of lovely social, economic and political freedoms.

Totalitarianism = Government is large and powerful, freedoms are at the whim of the Government. A totalitarian Government may permit social and economic freedoms, though historical most have not... it is highly unlikely to grant political freedoms.

Same reply for anarcho-fascism, more so in fact.

Thread closed.:

That pretty much sums it up.

The OP either intentionally distorts the premise with an oxymoron or simply doesn't understand the difference.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2011 1:42:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/3/2011 5:14:11 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/3/2011 5:01:54 PM, innomen wrote:
Well, at least you guys have abandoned anarchism, but am not sure you've found a more viable option.

What about this form of totalitarianism is attractive to you? Who is in charge and how do they get to be in charge?

I can't speak for Geo, but I can guess.

Well your guess is completely and utterly false.

It seems to be based on the classic totalitarian/dictator ideals that "you don't know what's best for you," and "I, who does know what's best for you, will force it upon you. You may not like it now, but you'll come to see that I was right in the end."

WTF? This is absurd and you know it. That's the opposite of what this system does. It doesn't claim to know what's best for you. But rather, "I don't know what's best for you so I'm going to set you free and let you do what's best for you."

In this case, the "what's best for you" is the Libertarian principles (NAP, self ownership, etc).

I don't know anybody who would say "what's best for me is being a slave." Hey, even if that's the case, the system still allows that, if the master-slave relationship is explicitly consentual.

Same goes for aggression. Aggression is allowed if it's consented to by both parties, I.e. the UFC is allowed.

Most people do hold a "you don't know what's best for you, but I do," mind set, though they stop themselves before going further down the totalitarian vortex.

Except I'm not claiming to know what's best for them. I'm making them free to make their own decisions.

Sometimes people dive deeper out of desperation and frustration. They spend their time trying to convince others what is best for them, but eventually give up and try to move on to force.

Force is not used against people who aren't already using force to oppress others.

You're just completely off base here.
"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
8/4/2011 1:46:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/3/2011 11:36:58 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Forcing people to do WHAT? The Libertarian Totalitarianism doesn't tell people what to DO.

Do you see the problem?

Totalitarianism is all about telling people what to do

Sure. And in this case, Libertarian Totalitarianism is telling oppressors to stop oppressing.
"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
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2011 1:55:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/4/2011 1:46:50 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 8/3/2011 11:36:58 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Forcing people to do WHAT? The Libertarian Totalitarianism doesn't tell people what to DO.

Do you see the problem?

Totalitarianism is all about telling people what to do

Sure. And in this case, Libertarian Totalitarianism is telling oppressors to stop oppressing.

Honk honk! Oooh I've filled my pants with jelly! More tea vicar! Honk honk!
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.