Total Posts:61|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Fascist Libertarianism

Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2012 9:04:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
First things first.

Credit for the term "Fascist Libertarianism" goes to Geo, who originally coined "libertarian fascist" about 6 months ago. He was originally attacked because of the wording used (and because we had a very large libertarian membership that did not like the idea of having "fascist" anywhere near their name) and their definitions, and so the thread died fairly quickly.

I've decided to bring it back, now that we have a newer population that may be able to look at it a different way, explore some implications of the concept, where it applies in the real world, and maybe reach some degree of enlightenment on a politically philosophical level.

Second, the death of the last thread was rooted in the defining of words, so we shall address that here and now.

Fascist = A person, or minority group, that forcefully imposes their beliefs upon others through the political system (by enacting laws against the people's will).

This would imply that, on a government level, any action is either democratic (support of the majority) or fascist (driven by a minority). This matches with how "fascist" is so often thrown around (global fascist dictatorships) to where the word itself has lost significant meaning (it has become just another political buzz word, like "communist" in the 50's).

Libertarianism = A belief that people, government, and pretty much all entities should abide by the NAP (non-aggression principle). This is also a major tenet to AnCap (though they interpret it differently).

Now, some might argue that these are not accurate definitions. I don't care. If you want to say "That is not what fascism is, it's really..." fine, go for it, just use a different word for my definition provided. Don't call it fascism, call it bob-ism, and we're talking about bob-ist libertarianism, I don't care what the words we use are, only the meanings behind them to convey the ideas.

Okay, now that I've spent 2,000 letters prepping for this, the first question is how many people are still reading and how many have already skipped this and began posting comments? (I kinda want to know)

Finally, lets get down to it. Normally, people would say that the NAP and fascism is completely incompatible. However, those that are avid libertarians often refer to the "tyranny of the majority" as a failure of democracy and given the opportunity, they would like to see us transformed into a nation that is centered around the NAP. It is also true, that a vast majority of Americans do not want that (based on the only 14% support that Ron Paul is getting, and even lower support for the libertarian party and other libertarian groups). So wouldn't imposing something like that against their will be the very definition of fascism (based on the definitions given in this OP)?

If that is the case, than anyone that wants a libertarian US, is indeed a fascist libertarian. And the only non-fascist libertarians would be those that held the view "I want other people to voluntarily support the NAP, and until the majority does, I do not want to see an NAP US."

You could ask yourself this, if you had the power to turn the US into an NAP country (based on law, not based on altering the minds of the people) over night, but the people did not want that, would you still do it? Or would you not? If not, how does that make you any different from a populist? If you would, how is that not fascist?

This adjective, fascism and fascist, can really be applied to any ideology or philosophy that is willing to think "our ideas are more important than the majority's "wants"."

Are libertarians willing to accept that? Or will they change so their views are that they will not accept a libertarian US until the general public does? Will they change their mindset to trying to convince others that libertarianism is the ideal option? And attempt to be more convincing and less aggressive (this can apply to any NAP based ideology)?

It seems that the only way to not be a fascist libertarian is to be purely grass-roots, focused not on removing the "tyranny of the majority" but on changing the majority so that it the majority supports the NAP (and in which case would they still call it tyranny?)
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2012 9:11:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I find the pithy commentary from the dictionary to be lacking any real rigor, and instead opt to use Wiki's definition, as I find it way more specific and fitting to most conceptions of what fascism really is.

"Fascism is a radical authoritarian nationalist political ideology."

Juxtaposing that with libertarianism shows the inverse, so as to be entirely antithetical to fascism.

Therefore, libertarianism and fascism are on the opposite ends of the spectrum.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2012 9:18:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/7/2012 9:11:59 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
I find the pithy commentary from the dictionary to be lacking any real rigor, and instead opt to use Wiki's definition, as I find it way more specific and fitting to most conceptions of what fascism really is.

"Fascism is a radical authoritarian nationalist political ideology."

Juxtaposing that with libertarianism shows the inverse, so as to be entirely antithetical to fascism.

Therefore, libertarianism and fascism are on the opposite ends of the spectrum.

Try checking the bob-ist subset of fascism. It should be there.
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2012 9:27:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Try checking the bob-ist subset of fascism. It should be there.:

Bob-ist subset? Expound, please.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2012 9:38:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/7/2012 9:27:50 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
Try checking the bob-ist subset of fascism. It should be there.:

Bob-ist subset? Expound, please.

Are you telling me you've never heard of bob-ist libertarianism?
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2012 9:48:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/7/2012 9:27:50 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
Try checking the bob-ist subset of fascism. It should be there.:

Bob-ist subset? Expound, please.

re-read the OP.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
ComplacentRebel
Posts: 3
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2012 10:51:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Funny how you mention this because I have a friend who is insanely libertarian and always talks about "tyranny of the majority". I remember I heard someone say that "a libertarian society would only work if everyone was a libertarian". While the term "fascism" seems to make it look extreme it is sort of true at least for the definitions that you provided.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2012 11:07:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/7/2012 10:51:51 PM, ComplacentRebel wrote:
Funny how you mention this because I have a friend who is insanely libertarian and always talks about "tyranny of the majority". I remember I heard someone say that "a libertarian society would only work if everyone was a libertarian". While the term "fascism" seems to make it look extreme it is sort of true at least for the definitions that you provided.

I wouldn't go so far as to say "it would only work if every one was libertarian," but that "it would certainly work if everyone was libertarian."

But that could be argued for just about any political ideology. From Nazism, to Communism, to Anarchy, to our basic Liberalism and Conservatism. If everyone buys into the political ideals, they will work.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
ComplacentRebel
Posts: 3
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2012 11:19:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Yeah I agree, I just see that having a libertarian or anarchist society with people who don't want those would mean that people would just setup their own non-libertarian society. In communism or a republic even, if some people didn't want any government then they can't really do anything about it except move or convince the people to change. That is where the fascism thing comes in from what you said in the first post. If most people don't want it to happen then the only other way it would most likely come about is by force, which is sounds like a contradiction me.

Sorry if I am mixing libertarian with complete anarchy. The one main source for libertarian stuff I get from is an anarchist.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2012 11:45:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/7/2012 11:19:10 PM, ComplacentRebel wrote:
Yeah I agree, I just see that having a libertarian or anarchist society with people who don't want those would mean that people would just setup their own non-libertarian society. In communism or a republic even, if some people didn't want any government then they can't really do anything about it except move or convince the people to change. That is where the fascism thing comes in from what you said in the first post. If most people don't want it to happen then the only other way it would most likely come about is by force, which is sounds like a contradiction me.

Sorry if I am mixing libertarian with complete anarchy. The one main source for libertarian stuff I get from is an anarchist.

Well, if you stick around here long enough, you'll get plenty of various libertarian views. From Social Pinko (AnCap) to Ragsnar (Libertarian) to Darkkermit (probably the most reasonable libertarian). We have quite a large number and quite a variety.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2012 11:52:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
It's nondemocratic libertarianism, and calling it fascist is complete bs, which is probably why you disclaimed it. Your disclaimer basically amounts to "This post is bull****, I'm wasting your time."

Normally, people would say that the NAP and fascism is completely incompatible.
Yes, because they're talking about actual fascism and you're committing equivocation. And you know damn well that is not what fascism means in any discourse anywhere.

If I went and made a thread called "poo-flinging progressivism" about how progressivism is poo-flinging unless progressives promise not to be progressive until we reach a world where poo is never flung, and define using majority support for justification as poo-flinging, should you be any less dismissive of me than I'm being of you right now?
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.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2012 12:00:04 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/7/2012 11:45:07 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 2/7/2012 11:19:10 PM, ComplacentRebel wrote:
Yeah I agree, I just see that having a libertarian or anarchist society with people who don't want those would mean that people would just setup their own non-libertarian society. In communism or a republic even, if some people didn't want any government then they can't really do anything about it except move or convince the people to change. That is where the fascism thing comes in from what you said in the first post. If most people don't want it to happen then the only other way it would most likely come about is by force, which is sounds like a contradiction me.

Sorry if I am mixing libertarian with complete anarchy. The one main source for libertarian stuff I get from is an anarchist.

Well, if you stick around here long enough, you'll get plenty of various libertarian views. From Social Pinko (AnCap) to Ragsnar (Libertarian) to Darkkermit (probably the most reasonable libertarian). We have quite a large number and quite a variety.

I feel so flattered.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2012 12:06:25 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The problem here is that the opposite of "tyranny of the majority" is not "tyranny of the minority."

For instance, the constitution curtails the tyranny of the majority, ideally regardless of the minorities political activism.

Libertarians cannot use the NAP to enforce NAP standards. That means policy tools become very restricted (ex. taxes are no longer a policy option). So, the goal of a libertarian government would be to move as close to NAP standards as possibly with a restricted set of tools that a government with a monopoly on power may use.

You can only accuse a libertarian of hypocracy in government if their ends are not to violate to NAP but the means are to violate the NAP.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2012 12:15:57 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/7/2012 11:52:08 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
It's nondemocratic libertarianism, and calling it fascist is complete bs, which is probably why you disclaimed it. Your disclaimer basically amounts to "This post is bull****, I'm wasting your time."

such hostility.


Normally, people would say that the NAP and fascism is completely incompatible.
Yes, because they're talking about actual fascism and you're committing equivocation. And you know damn well that is not what fascism means in any discourse anywhere.

Clearly, you didn't read the OP. As I said, if you have a problem calling it "fascism" then call it something else, whatever else you want, I don't care what "name" you assign to that definition, but that definition is the common definition of the average person's understanding.

Which is all definitions are. Definitions are the meanings of words. Their purpose is to enable communication to happen as efficiently as possible (you can't communicate when you have different definitions for the same word), which requires an appeal to popularity. The definition of a word IS what the general public believes it is. This is how words change over time. The word "gay" didn't change from meaning "happy" to meaning "homosexual" because webster said so. It changed because the public understanding of the word changed over time. This is how all words gain and change their definitions.

I will also point out that this is the common understanding of fascism, based on Geo's conversation, so many liberals calling conservatives fascist for being against the popular opinion.

Of course, you can call this an appeal to popularity, and I can call you dictionaries an appeal to authority.

Though I would also like to take this time to point out that you contradicted yourself, by calling my usage an "equivocation" you are admitting that the definition I gave is one of many definitions, yet you claimed that this "is not what fascism means in any discourse anywhere."


If I went and made a thread called "poo-flinging progressivism" about how progressivism is poo-flinging unless progressives promise not to be progressive until we reach a world where poo is never flung, and define using majority support for justification as poo-flinging, should you be any less dismissive of me than I'm being of you right now?

You clearly miss the point. To most people, fascism is anti-democracy, that is the common understanding and definition of the word. Sorry if you don't like it, but definitions are popularity driven.

Though allow me to restate, yet again, I don't care what word you attach to that definition, it is the definition I care about. Call it whatever you want, call it Bob-ism, I don't care.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2012 12:32:58 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/8/2012 12:15:57 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 2/7/2012 11:52:08 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
It's nondemocratic libertarianism, and calling it fascist is complete bs, which is probably why you disclaimed it. Your disclaimer basically amounts to "This post is bull****, I'm wasting your time."

such hostility.
Well, you're the one who looked for about the most convoluted way possible to cast a political slur at me, I didn't start it.



Normally, people would say that the NAP and fascism is completely incompatible.
Yes, because they're talking about actual fascism and you're committing equivocation. And you know damn well that is not what fascism means in any discourse anywhere.

Clearly, you didn't read the OP.
If I didn't I wouldn't have known about your disclaimer to have posted about it.

As I said, if you have a problem calling it "fascism" then call it something else, whatever else you want, I don't care what "name" you assign to that definition, but that definition is the common definition of the average person's understanding.
No, IT ISNT. The average person is a moron, but not such a moron that he believes anything nondemocratic is fascist. The average person doesn't look in their bible and say "King Solomon was a fascist."

I will also point out that this is the common understanding of fascism, based on Geo's conversation
Basing "canon" on Geo is a moronic idea.

Though I would also like to take this time to point out that you contradicted yourself, by calling my usage an "equivocation" you are admitting that the definition I gave is one of many definitions
To the same extent that "poo flinging" is a definition of progressivism-- because you or geo just made it up, like I just made up that definition of poo flinging.

You clearly miss the point. To most people, fascism is anti-democracy
False.

Though allow me to restate, yet again, I don't care what word you attach to that definition, it is the definition I care about. Call it whatever you want, call it Bob-ism, I don't care.
If it were called bobism there wouldn't be any point to the thread. The entire goal of your post is to get a chance to fling a slur. Since bobism isn't a slur calling it bobism undermines your post.
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
2/8/2012 12:34:06 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
And definitions of political ideologies are NOT made by majorities, like most words. They are made by their advocates. Otherwise you aren't defining an ideology, just a slur.
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
2/8/2012 3:39:07 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Just an fyi, the term I used was: Libertarian Totalitarianism

.
.
"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
2/8/2012 3:51:56 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Good thread though, unfortunately people can't understand the idea because theyre hung up on semantics despite your disclaimer.

.
.
"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
2/8/2012 4:06:45 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/8/2012 12:06:25 AM, Wnope wrote:
The problem here is that the opposite of "tyranny of the majority" is not "tyranny of the minority."

For instance, the constitution curtails the tyranny of the majority, ideally regardless of the minorities political activism.

Libertarians cannot use the NAP to enforce NAP standards. That means policy tools become very restricted (ex. taxes are no longer a policy option). So, the goal of a libertarian government would be to move as close to NAP standards as possibly with a restricted set of tools that a government with a monopoly on power may use.

You can only accuse a libertarian of hypocracy in government if their ends are not to violate to NAP but the means are to violate the NAP.

The idea is this. A Libertarian Totalitarian government would create freedom by force. Essentially using force to break all handcuffs whereever they occur whether they like it or not. No waiting for Congresses approval, just repeal all laws that restrict freedom. (Fyi, violating another persons freedom is not a freedom, thats antithetical to a free society like a square circle.)

It would never use force except when initiatory coercion (aggression) or property rights violations occur. Basically, the use of government sanctioned force would truly be just a necessary means for individuals to defend themselves. The Libertarian Totalitarian government will never use initiatory coercion. Only force used for protection.

.
.
"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
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2012 4:52:23 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Interesting but by that definition, the either Republicans or the Democrats are fascist at any given point making the definition seem rather weak. The same with every less common view point.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2012 9:07:23 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Defintions

(n) libertarianism (an ideological belief in freedom of thought, speech and action)
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...
(n) fascism (a political theory advocating an authoritarian hierarchical government)
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=fascism

fascism (extreme totalitarian political regime)
http://en.wiktionary.org...

Libertarianism (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, provided they allow others the same liberty)
http://en.wiktionary.org...

Libertarianism Etymology

liberty +‎ -arian + -ism

The word "Liberty" comes from the Latin word "libertas", meaning "freedom".
+
The suffix "-arian" comes from the Latin suffix "-ārius", meaning "related to"
+
The suffix "-ism" comes from the Greek suffix "-ismos", meaning "a doctrine of"

Libertarianism is thus "a doctrine related to freedom"

Fascism Etymology

fascio + -ism

The Italian word "Fasciso" comes from the Latin word "fascis", meaning "to bundle".
The suffix "-ism" comes from the Greek suffix "-ismos", meaning "a doctrine of"

Fascism is thus the doctrine of collectivism.

Libertarianism is individualist and Fascism is collectivist; libertarianism is for less government, and fascism is for more government; both ideologies are incompatible, as they are direct opposites.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2012 9:10:40 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/8/2012 9:07:23 AM, DanT wrote:
Defintions

(n) libertarianism (an ideological belief in freedom of thought, speech and action)
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...
(n) fascism (a political theory advocating an authoritarian hierarchical government)
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=fascism

fascism (extreme totalitarian political regime)
http://en.wiktionary.org...

Libertarianism (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, provided they allow others the same liberty)
http://en.wiktionary.org...

Libertarianism Etymology

liberty + -arian + -ism

The word "Liberty" comes from the Latin word "libertas", meaning "freedom".
+
The suffix "-arian" comes from the Latin suffix "-arius", meaning "related to"
+
The suffix "-ism" comes from the Greek suffix "-ismos", meaning "a doctrine of"

Libertarianism is thus "a doctrine related to freedom"

Fascism Etymology

fascio + -ism

The Italian word "Fasciso" comes from the Latin word "fascis", meaning "to bundle".
The suffix "-ism" comes from the Greek suffix "-ismos", meaning "a doctrine of"

Fascism is thus the doctrine of collectivism.

Libertarianism is individualist and Fascism is collectivist; libertarianism is for less government, and fascism is for more government; both ideologies are incompatible, as they are direct opposites.

don't know why it did that; I was using my iPhone; maybe it's a unicode issue. Hopefully that fixed the spelling.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2012 9:20:34 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/8/2012 12:32:58 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 2/8/2012 12:15:57 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 2/7/2012 11:52:08 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
It's nondemocratic libertarianism, and calling it fascist is complete bs, which is probably why you disclaimed it. Your disclaimer basically amounts to "This post is bull****, I'm wasting your time."

such hostility.
Well, you're the one who looked for about the most convoluted way possible to cast a political slur at me, I didn't start it.

False.




Normally, people would say that the NAP and fascism is completely incompatible.
Yes, because they're talking about actual fascism and you're committing equivocation. And you know damn well that is not what fascism means in any discourse anywhere.

Clearly, you didn't read the OP.
If I didn't I wouldn't have known about your disclaimer to have posted about it.


If you did, you would have seen where I said, for those that want to say "that is not the definition of fascist, fascist is..." can call the definition any other name other than fascism, I don't care.

Or you read it, choose to ignore it in order to derail the thread.

As I said, if you have a problem calling it "fascism" then call it something else, whatever else you want, I don't care what "name" you assign to that definition, but that definition is the common definition of the average person's understanding.
No, IT ISNT. The average person is a moron, but not such a moron that he believes anything nondemocratic is fascist. The average person doesn't look in their bible and say "King Solomon was a fascist."

Enough people believe it for it to get into the Princeton dictionary. People stopped supporting the war, while Bush continued (against the will of the people), so they called him fascist (on a global scale). Main stream leftist commentators continue to call the republicans and conservatives fascists when they propose or enforce unpopular ideas (most notably was Governor Scott Walker when the democrats fled the state).



I will also point out that this is the common understanding of fascism, based on Geo's conversation
Basing "canon" on Geo is a moronic idea.

Nice editing. You realize that you're being intellectually dishonest with that, right?



Though I would also like to take this time to point out that you contradicted yourself, by calling my usage an "equivocation" you are admitting that the definition I gave is one of many definitions
To the same extent that "poo flinging" is a definition of progressivism-- because you or geo just made it up, like I just made up that definition of poo flinging.

Except I didn't make up the definition of fascism, I only used the common understanding of it, rather than the technical.


You clearly miss the point. To most people, fascism is anti-democracy
False.

Allow me to quote George Orwell (the writer that you derive your user-name from, if I'm not mistaken).

"The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies "something not desirable...not only is there no agreed definition, but the attempt to make one is resisted from all sides." (for that second have, he is specifically talking about the lack of meaning of "democracy" but points out that it is the same for many political words).

"I have not here been considering the literary use of language, but merely language as an instrument for expressing and not for concealing or preventing thought." - My disclaimer at the beginning was to avoid any "concealing or preventing [of] thought" by saying that I understand people can have various definitions.

Because of the decay of definitions, what I defined is the common understanding of the word. It's been like that since the end of WW2.


Though allow me to restate, yet again, I don't care what word you attach to that definition, it is the definition I care about. Call it whatever you want, call it Bob-ism, I don't care.
If it were called bobism there wouldn't be any point to the thread. The entire goal of your post is to get a chance to fling a slur. Since bobism isn't a slur calling it bobism undermines your post.

Wrong, there was no goal to fling a slur, you are creating an intentional fallacy.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2012 9:24:39 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/8/2012 9:07:23 AM, DanT wrote:
Defintions

(n) libertarianism (an ideological belief in freedom of thought, speech and action)
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...
(n) fascism (a political theory advocating an authoritarian hierarchical government)
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=fascism

You trimmed a definition here.

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...

"(n) fascism - a political theory advocating an authoritarian hierarchical government (as opposed to democracy or liberalism)"


fascism (extreme totalitarian political regime)
http://en.wiktionary.org...

Libertarianism (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, provided they allow others the same liberty)
http://en.wiktionary.org...

Libertarianism Etymology

liberty +‎ -arian + -ism

The word "Liberty" comes from the Latin word "libertas", meaning "freedom".
+
The suffix "-arian" comes from the Latin suffix "-ārius", meaning "related to"
+
The suffix "-ism" comes from the Greek suffix "-ismos", meaning "a doctrine of"

Libertarianism is thus "a doctrine related to freedom"

Fascism Etymology

fascio + -ism

The Italian word "Fasciso" comes from the Latin word "fascis", meaning "to bundle".
The suffix "-ism" comes from the Greek suffix "-ismos", meaning "a doctrine of"

Fascism is thus the doctrine of collectivism.

Libertarianism is individualist and Fascism is collectivist; libertarianism is for less government, and fascism is for more government; both ideologies are incompatible, as they are direct opposites.

You're also hanging up on the words, rather than intended meaning. Call it bobism libertarianism if you like.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2012 9:34:22 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The reason why Mussolini hose the term "fascio" ("fascis") when creating the term "fascismo" ("fascism") was because fasces were a symbol of power, and fascis meant "To bundle". The bunddle was meant to represent the unity, and collectivism of the nation, in his nationalist (that is national-socialist) utopia.

There are two aspects of fascism; Nationalism and Socialism.
Socialism is socioeconomic collectivism, while nationalism is sociocultural collectivism.

Libertarianism is the direct opposite, being an individualist ideology.
Anarchy (left wing libertarianism) is sociocultural individualism, while classical liberalism (right wing libertarianism) is socioeconomic individualism.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2012 9:45:13 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/8/2012 9:24:39 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 2/8/2012 9:07:23 AM, DanT wrote:
Defintions

(n) libertarianism (an ideological belief in freedom of thought, speech and action)
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...
(n) fascism (a political theory advocating an authoritarian hierarchical government)
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=fascism

You trimmed a definition here.

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...

"(n) fascism - a political theory advocating an authoritarian hierarchical government (as opposed to democracy or liberalism)"


Democracy is the rule of the people. Demos meaning people and kratos meaning rule.

liberalism, is used in the classical sense, such as john locke's trinity of "life, liberty, and property"; the protection of which is the role of the government.

It by no means refers to social liberalism, which is a mixture of progressivism and classic libralism.
That is exactly why I left out the section in brackets; you took it out of context, just as I suspected you would.


fascism (extreme totalitarian political regime)
http://en.wiktionary.org...

Libertarianism (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, provided they allow others the same liberty)
http://en.wiktionary.org...

Libertarianism Etymology

liberty +‎ -arian + -ism

The word "Liberty" comes from the Latin word "libertas", meaning "freedom".
+
The suffix "-arian" comes from the Latin suffix "-ārius", meaning "related to"
+
The suffix "-ism" comes from the Greek suffix "-ismos", meaning "a doctrine of"

Libertarianism is thus "a doctrine related to freedom"

Fascism Etymology

fascio + -ism

The Italian word "Fasciso" comes from the Latin word "fascis", meaning "to bundle".
The suffix "-ism" comes from the Greek suffix "-ismos", meaning "a doctrine of"

Fascism is thus the doctrine of collectivism.

Libertarianism is individualist and Fascism is collectivist; libertarianism is for less government, and fascism is for more government; both ideologies are incompatible, as they are direct opposites.

You're also hanging up on the words, rather than intended meaning. Call it bobism libertarianism if you like.

No I'm not; the Etymology matches the Definition.

Libertarianism is individualism.
Left wing libertarianism is sociocultural individualism, and right wing libertarianism is socioeconomic individualism.

Fascism is collectivism
Left wing Fascism s socioeconomic collectivism, and right wing fascism is sociocultural collectivism.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2012 9:54:56 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/8/2012 9:45:13 AM, DanT wrote:
At 2/8/2012 9:24:39 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 2/8/2012 9:07:23 AM, DanT wrote:
Defintions

(n) libertarianism (an ideological belief in freedom of thought, speech and action)
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...
(n) fascism (a political theory advocating an authoritarian hierarchical government)
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=fascism

You trimmed a definition here.

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...

"(n) fascism - a political theory advocating an authoritarian hierarchical government (as opposed to democracy or liberalism)"


Democracy is the rule of the people. Demos meaning people and kratos meaning rule.

liberalism, is used in the classical sense, such as john locke's trinity of "life, liberty, and property"; the protection of which is the role of the government.

It by no means refers to social liberalism, which is a mixture of progressivism and classic libralism.
That is exactly why I left out the section in brackets; you took it out of context, just as I suspected you would.


When you want to know the definition of a word in a definition, you use the same dictionary.

(n) liberalism (an economic theory advocating free competition and a self-regulating market)
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...
(n) democracy (the doctrine that the numerical majority of an organized group can make decisions binding on the whole group)
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...
(n) democracy (the political orientation of those who favor government by the people or by their elected representatives)
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...

Progressivism is is fascist, but not to the same degree as socialism.
When you combine progressivism and classic liberalism you get social liberalism.
social liberalism is libertarian, but not to the same degree as anarachism.

Like progressivism traditional conservatism is fascist, but not to the same degree as nationalism.
When you combine traditional conservatism with classic liberalism, you get liberal conservatism (modern conservatism); liberal conservatism is libertarian, but not to the same degree as classic liberalism.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2012 10:29:59 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I think Ore_ele has a valid point. Augusto Pinochet is probably the closest a nation has come to having a "libertarian dictatorship" (Not sure what his social views were, but he was definitely pro-free market).

The thing is, the majority of people are likely not going to respond kindly to these pro-freedom rights, especially in the short run. You have both liberals and social conservatives against you. There would likely be rebellions and attacks against the new form of government.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2012 10:34:42 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/8/2012 10:29:59 AM, darkkermit wrote:
I think Ore_ele has a valid point. Augusto Pinochet is probably the closest a nation has come to having a "libertarian dictatorship" (Not sure what his social views were, but he was definitely pro-free market).

The thing is, the majority of people are likely not going to respond kindly to these pro-freedom rights, especially in the short run. You have both liberals and social conservatives against you. There would likely be rebellions and attacks against the new form of government.

How is Pinochet's government pro-freedom? It was a dictatorship with economic freedoms; civil rights and political freedoms were meaningless.