Fascist. Because they only support that with the expectation of being given deference or increasing their power at the cost of everyone who rejects or refuses them. Not to compare them literally to Hitler or the nazis. But Hitler offered social support to his chosen people as well. That doesn’t make him a good person. Or even right.
Take the proselytization out. Give it unconditionally like the Samaritan did. It’s one of the biggest parables in Christian teaching. So It’s oddly suspicious they all ignore it. Either they’re not really Christian. Or they could use to read their book.
There’s no arrogance or redefinition of beliefs involved anywhere here. It’s all facts and history. You are welcome to believe anything you want. Because belief specifically does not require truth facts or knowledge. Often it’s the opposite.
Also note when I use the term fascist to describe them I made a point of specifically not comparing them directly to Hitler or the nazis. Just because someone’s a fascist does not necessarily mean they are a monster. Fascism however always leads to monsters.
And just to finish since I sense that you’re getting emotional and defensive here. I see you around quite a bit and generally upvote your posts. Because you seem generally pretty on the ball and have a reasonable understanding. I simply disagree with you on this point. And have pointed out factually, philosophically, and historically why. I just hope at some point you take the time to read and consider. You are more than welcome to disagree after that. Just consider that because something is written, no matter where it is written. Does not inherently make it true.
Emotion has no place in determining the logistics of mapping political ideology. Your argument is subjective, and mine is scientific. You’re using your opinions to redefine other’s opinions to fit your narrative.
There is a reason scholars in political science do not use the system you are clinging to by manipulating data into conformity.
How is the origin and basis of libertarianism subjective. And again how are Western political Scholars authoritative. Capitalism literally existed back when libertarianism was created. They specifically chose to create an ideology outside it.
Calling unfettered capitalism libertarianism in no way reflects libertarianism as it was created. Claiming that the freedom of capital is equivalent to actual freedom is an absurdity. If you have access to a freedom that others do not. Due to anything like capital or resources that’s not a freedom. That’s a privilege and should not be protected.
Likewise, the non aggression principle. Capitalists or any other group claiming to abide it’s definition of private property can’t also unhypocritically claim to abide the non-aggression principle. Private property demands aggression and violence to enforce it.
If a homeless starving man walked into or broke into a wealthy person’s second, third house, or yacht. Knowing that this season or time of year they would not be there. And took a tchotchke in order to be able to afford to feed themselves. What would the response be? Would it be understanding and assistance? Or would they be chased down by armed men and most likely locked up and deprived of freedom for a considerable amount of time? Better yet would a wealthy person face remotely the same response stealing from poorer people?
Remember post ex parte appeals to Authority can always be overridden by just pointing to the origins of the ideology and the fact that for a century there were no accepted right wing Libertarians.
In its day the remotely closest thing to what we would consider a modern libertarian were those like Friedrich Hayek. Who was then considered an outsider and Fringe group to what was recognized libertarianism. Not to mention if I’m not mistaken came along well after the establishment of the ideology. Simply seeking to repurpose it. If he was considered Fringe and outside the mainstream. How then can his viewpoints be considered what was always intended for libertarianism? Not revisionism but main stream. Clearly it wasn’t. But maybe you have some writing and evidence from the ideologies origins. Writings that aren’t Hayek’s or his acolytes Rothbard or Friedman.
Rothbard considered the modern founder of rightwing libertarianism. Again almost a century after the ideologies founding. Openly just rebranded classic liberalism. Which again, wasn’t libertarianism. But a separate incompatible ideology. Though claiming to have similar goals via different policy. The claims have never been proven however.
So if were gonna debate let’s debate. What actual support for your claims do you have?
I never suggested that the origin or basis of libertarianism was subjective. I simply said that the ideology is currently defined as supporting high civil liberty and supporting low economic social systems, and because of these qualities, is difficult to map on the same axis as liberal and conservative. It’s really quite simple, and doesn’t justify a wall of text to counter.
You have yet to explain how the aforementioned fascist fits on your line. Do they go on the left for supporting high economic social systems or on the right for support of highly restrictive social legislation? Whichever you choose determines if your line is preferential to economic or social system definition, which in itself is biased. Some individuals vote more heavily on social issues, and others economic. Just food for thought.
What part of using terms like libertarian and libertarianism as they were designed is subjective? Isn’t trying to redefine terms to mean something they were not designed to mean, actually the subjective thing?
I justified calling them fascist because they fit several of the markers of fascism. Nationalism in terms of Christian nationalism being one big glaring one. There are plenty of Christians who aren’t nationalists. Odd that you chose to try to justify Christian nationalists. And again I point you towards Hitler’s government. He had high economic social support for his chosen people. Yet they were a right wing fascist government. In much the same way fundamentalist Christian nationalist social support only extends to proselytizing and no further. No actual support or Solutions for people in need.
Worse. These so-called Christian nationalist destroyed and gutted much more effective and cost efficient programs. In order for less effective use of proselytizing through the government. That said. Again, decent people get roped into these horrific schemes thinking that they’re doing good. They are doing evil in the Christian and atheistic sense of the word. But they can still be decent people despite their actions. But only because of their misguided intent.
What question did I dodge? I answered that. Wait. You think there are left wing fascists? I mean it would fit with redefining left-wing Libertarians to be right wing I suppose. So I shouldn’t be shocked. Even though fascism is defined and accepted as being a right wing ideology.
I don’t think they’re either. Fascists fall under the bottom left quadrant of the Nolan Chart for supporting liberal economic and conservative social systems. Libertarians are placed opposite them on the top right. Left wing on the top left for liberal social and liberal economic, and right wing on the bottom right for conservative social and conservative economic.
My point is if you place them on the right of a straight line, you’re defining your line to weigh on social policy over economic policy. Therefore you must place Libertarians on the far left, despite their staunch objection to tax generated social systems. A line simply doesn’t work.
So first things first. Nolan was a liberal, despite calling himself libertarian. Liberal == economic freedom, libertarian == social freedom. Always has been. Always will be. Second I was not aware that the Nazis were liberal and supported economic freedom. Honestly everything I’ve seen historically screamed the opposite. You know, the whole if you aren’t with us we kill you. Not a socially or economically “liberal” vibe. But I’d be interested to see what your justification for the claim is.
Why would you not weight social Freedom over economic freedom? Society is the basis of the economy. Who in their right mind would prioritize economic freedom over social freedom? Who would want prioritize being the wealthiest inmate in a concentration camp for instance. over being free but having wealth similar to everyone else?
Let’s put this in better perspective. The transition from mercantilism to capitalism. Capitalism provided zero new economic freedom. There were immensely wealthy non royals that owned trading companies. But they were socially segregated from the royals and could never become them outside of marriage which was also segregated. Capitalism offered new social freedom, now us low born could become the equivalent of the royals based largely on dumb luck and chance. The change was strictly about social freedom. As surpurfluous and damaging as that particular freedom was.
Finally there is no meaningful economic freedom without social freedom. Without social Freedom you will be permanently segregated from economic success. Black people and minorities for example in the United States technically have access to economic freedom. And yet it is always such a noteworthy thing anytime one of them actually becomes economically successful. Because they generally do not have the social freedom.
Fascist. Because they only support that with the expectation of being given deference or increasing their power at the cost of everyone who rejects or refuses them. Not to compare them literally to Hitler or the nazis. But Hitler offered social support to his chosen people as well. That doesn’t make him a good person. Or even right.
Take the proselytization out. Give it unconditionally like the Samaritan did. It’s one of the biggest parables in Christian teaching. So It’s oddly suspicious they all ignore it. Either they’re not really Christian. Or they could use to read their book.
There’s no arrogance or redefinition of beliefs involved anywhere here. It’s all facts and history. You are welcome to believe anything you want. Because belief specifically does not require truth facts or knowledge. Often it’s the opposite.
Also note when I use the term fascist to describe them I made a point of specifically not comparing them directly to Hitler or the nazis. Just because someone’s a fascist does not necessarily mean they are a monster. Fascism however always leads to monsters.
And just to finish since I sense that you’re getting emotional and defensive here. I see you around quite a bit and generally upvote your posts. Because you seem generally pretty on the ball and have a reasonable understanding. I simply disagree with you on this point. And have pointed out factually, philosophically, and historically why. I just hope at some point you take the time to read and consider. You are more than welcome to disagree after that. Just consider that because something is written, no matter where it is written. Does not inherently make it true.
Emotion has no place in determining the logistics of mapping political ideology. Your argument is subjective, and mine is scientific. You’re using your opinions to redefine other’s opinions to fit your narrative.
There is a reason scholars in political science do not use the system you are clinging to by manipulating data into conformity.
How is the origin and basis of libertarianism subjective. And again how are Western political Scholars authoritative. Capitalism literally existed back when libertarianism was created. They specifically chose to create an ideology outside it.
Calling unfettered capitalism libertarianism in no way reflects libertarianism as it was created. Claiming that the freedom of capital is equivalent to actual freedom is an absurdity. If you have access to a freedom that others do not. Due to anything like capital or resources that’s not a freedom. That’s a privilege and should not be protected.
Likewise, the non aggression principle. Capitalists or any other group claiming to abide it’s definition of private property can’t also unhypocritically claim to abide the non-aggression principle. Private property demands aggression and violence to enforce it.
If a homeless starving man walked into or broke into a wealthy person’s second, third house, or yacht. Knowing that this season or time of year they would not be there. And took a tchotchke in order to be able to afford to feed themselves. What would the response be? Would it be understanding and assistance? Or would they be chased down by armed men and most likely locked up and deprived of freedom for a considerable amount of time? Better yet would a wealthy person face remotely the same response stealing from poorer people?
Remember post ex parte appeals to Authority can always be overridden by just pointing to the origins of the ideology and the fact that for a century there were no accepted right wing Libertarians.
In its day the remotely closest thing to what we would consider a modern libertarian were those like Friedrich Hayek. Who was then considered an outsider and Fringe group to what was recognized libertarianism. Not to mention if I’m not mistaken came along well after the establishment of the ideology. Simply seeking to repurpose it. If he was considered Fringe and outside the mainstream. How then can his viewpoints be considered what was always intended for libertarianism? Not revisionism but main stream. Clearly it wasn’t. But maybe you have some writing and evidence from the ideologies origins. Writings that aren’t Hayek’s or his acolytes Rothbard or Friedman.
Rothbard considered the modern founder of rightwing libertarianism. Again almost a century after the ideologies founding. Openly just rebranded classic liberalism. Which again, wasn’t libertarianism. But a separate incompatible ideology. Though claiming to have similar goals via different policy. The claims have never been proven however.
So if were gonna debate let’s debate. What actual support for your claims do you have?
I never suggested that the origin or basis of libertarianism was subjective. I simply said that the ideology is currently defined as supporting high civil liberty and supporting low economic social systems, and because of these qualities, is difficult to map on the same axis as liberal and conservative. It’s really quite simple, and doesn’t justify a wall of text to counter.
You have yet to explain how the aforementioned fascist fits on your line. Do they go on the left for supporting high economic social systems or on the right for support of highly restrictive social legislation? Whichever you choose determines if your line is preferential to economic or social system definition, which in itself is biased. Some individuals vote more heavily on social issues, and others economic. Just food for thought.
What part of using terms like libertarian and libertarianism as they were designed is subjective? Isn’t trying to redefine terms to mean something they were not designed to mean, actually the subjective thing?
I justified calling them fascist because they fit several of the markers of fascism. Nationalism in terms of Christian nationalism being one big glaring one. There are plenty of Christians who aren’t nationalists. Odd that you chose to try to justify Christian nationalists. And again I point you towards Hitler’s government. He had high economic social support for his chosen people. Yet they were a right wing fascist government. In much the same way fundamentalist Christian nationalist social support only extends to proselytizing and no further. No actual support or Solutions for people in need.
Worse. These so-called Christian nationalist destroyed and gutted much more effective and cost efficient programs. In order for less effective use of proselytizing through the government. That said. Again, decent people get roped into these horrific schemes thinking that they’re doing good. They are doing evil in the Christian and atheistic sense of the word. But they can still be decent people despite their actions. But only because of their misguided intent.
You’re dodging the question. Where do the Christian Nationalists that support economic social support systems go on a line? Left or right?
What question did I dodge? I answered that. Wait. You think there are left wing fascists? I mean it would fit with redefining left-wing Libertarians to be right wing I suppose. So I shouldn’t be shocked. Even though fascism is defined and accepted as being a right wing ideology.
I don’t think they’re either. Fascists fall under the bottom left quadrant of the Nolan Chart for supporting liberal economic and conservative social systems. Libertarians are placed opposite them on the top right. Left wing on the top left for liberal social and liberal economic, and right wing on the bottom right for conservative social and conservative economic.
My point is if you place them on the right of a straight line, you’re defining your line to weigh on social policy over economic policy. Therefore you must place Libertarians on the far left, despite their staunch objection to tax generated social systems. A line simply doesn’t work.
So first things first. Nolan was a liberal, despite calling himself libertarian. Liberal == economic freedom, libertarian == social freedom. Always has been. Always will be. Second I was not aware that the Nazis were liberal and supported economic freedom. Honestly everything I’ve seen historically screamed the opposite. You know, the whole if you aren’t with us we kill you. Not a socially or economically “liberal” vibe. But I’d be interested to see what your justification for the claim is.
Why would you not weight social Freedom over economic freedom? Society is the basis of the economy. Who in their right mind would prioritize economic freedom over social freedom? Who would want prioritize being the wealthiest inmate in a concentration camp for instance. over being free but having wealth similar to everyone else?
Let’s put this in better perspective. The transition from mercantilism to capitalism. Capitalism provided zero new economic freedom. There were immensely wealthy non royals that owned trading companies. But they were socially segregated from the royals and could never become them outside of marriage which was also segregated. Capitalism offered new social freedom, now us low born could become the equivalent of the royals based largely on dumb luck and chance. The change was strictly about social freedom. As surpurfluous and damaging as that particular freedom was.
Finally there is no meaningful economic freedom without social freedom. Without social Freedom you will be permanently segregated from economic success. Black people and minorities for example in the United States technically have access to economic freedom. And yet it is always such a noteworthy thing anytime one of them actually becomes economically successful. Because they generally do not have the social freedom.