Libertarianism as the Handmaiden to Socialism

[Aldarion]

Libertarianism isn't trying to be left or right wing. It definitely doesn't inherently respect tradition, though it also doesn't disrespect it. It just says don't make it law, and you can do (nearly) whatever tradition you want privately.

Agreed. It is a neutral ideology more than anything; a true center, if you will.

However, full-on libertarianism does help advance the Left, as I explain below.

As for Globalism, it depends what type of 'globalism' you are talking about. Free trade was one of the things that helped defeat one of the most leftist countries in the world, the USSR, but also helped empower a future enemy (that should have been cut off in the mid 90s, right after they became the greatest evil). Free trade in general is a good thing that helps countries, and makes the US and capitalism powerful and economically dominant.

Free trade is good in that it helps economic performance, and it did help defeat USSR. But it also paved a way for megacorporations, which - as can be seen from recent and current events - are one of the greatest enemies of freedom and tradition both. And frankly, between the USSR and modern-day progressives, I think former was less dangerous.

 

[ShieldWife]

Snip

If libertarians were in charge of the city of Troy, there would be no need for a Trojan horse. A Greek soldier could just go up to the gate and say “Let me in, I’m just an individual who wants to live in Troy. Oh yeah, I have the right to bear arms too, so I’ll bring my weapons and armor.” Some of the Greek soldiers get caught trying to undermine Troy’s defenses and the Trojan nationalists warn that Greeks can’t be let in, then the libertarians call them racists and say that they can’t judge all Greeks by a few. Then when there are enough Greeks inside the gates, then they take over Troy and they won’t be swayed by any arguments about individuals or rights.

Okay, not all libertarians are like that, but way too many are. Way too many Republicans too.

The odd thing about Trojan (as above) libertarians and Republicans is how stridently they oppose illiberal polices or ideas that come from the right and how unconcerned they are over illiberal policies or ideas that come from the left.

 

[Abhorsen]

Free trade is good in that it helps economic performance, and it did help defeat USSR. But it also paved a way for megacorporations, which - as can be seen from recent and current events - are one of the greatest enemies of freedom and tradition both. And frankly, between the USSR and modern-day progressives, I think former was less dangerous.

First, megacorporations aren't that much of a threat. As things get more and more decentralized, they have less and less power, and the tighter they try to control things, the faster decentralization happens. We see this all the time. For example, the news now is better than its ever been. Yup, that's right. Because 40 years ago, all that was on the news was generic leftism. Now that chokehold is shattered, and more and more people are getting news from other, non-MSM sources, including youtubers, blogs, etc.

Second, that you think megacorporations are more dangerous than the USSR which killed millions and tortured millions more shows how little perspective you have.

 

[ParadiseLost]

First, megacorporations aren't that much of a threat. As things get more and more decentralized, they have less and less power, and the tighter they try to control things, the faster decentralization happens. We see this all the time. For example, the news now is better than its ever been. Yup, that's right. Because 40 years ago, all that was on the news was generic leftism. Now that chokehold is shattered, and more and more people are getting news from other, non-MSM sources, including youtubers, blogs, etc.

I'm gonna be honest, Abhorsen, every time you open your mouth, its harder and harder for me to convince myself that this threads premise that libertarianism is a threat to society is wrong.

Second, that you think megacorporations are more dangerous than the USSR which killed millions and tortured millions more shows how little perspective you have.

The fact that you equate the terms 'modern day progressives' and 'megacorporations', and are trying to convince people that these 'megacorporations' aren't the threat they think they are, is also concerning.

 

[Abhorsen]

I'm gonna be honest, Abhorsen, every time you open your mouth, its harder and harder for me to convince myself that this threads premise that libertarianism is a threat to society is wrong.

Why?

The fact that you equate the terms 'modern day progressives' and 'megacorporations', and are trying to convince people that these 'megacorporations' aren't the threat they think they are, is also concerning.

Ah, I misread the quote. I substituted megacorporations for progressives. Either way, they aren't as dangerous as the USSR as they aren't in power, and haven't yet killed millions. More dangerous to the US? I'd say it's hard to separate them, as the USSR is part of the reason they came to prominence in the first place

 

[ParadiseLost]

Why?

Abhorsen, remind me, do you believe in natural monopolies, and do you think they need to be regulated?

 

[Abhorsen]

Abhorsen, remind me, do you believe in natural monopolies, and do you think they need to be regulated?

Yes. And those need to be regulated. But big tech companies and social media companies aren't natural monopolies.

 

[ParadiseLost]

Yes. And those need to be regulated. But big tech companies and social media companies aren't natural monopolies.

If a Libertarian society does require some regulation, how do you maintain the ideological purity required to prevent regulation from going too far?

 

[Abhorsen]

If a Libertarian society does require some regulation, how do you maintain the ideological purity required to prevent regulation from going too far?

An actually limited federal government, to start. One that constitutionally has less ability to regulate interstate commerce. A constitutional ban on price fixing and related acts. A 'right to earn a living' clause in the constitution that would also apply to the states (sorta like this proposal). An acknowledgement that freedom of speech should fully apply to economic activity. I could go on.

Or, and this is the easiest in effect but the hardest to get passed, ban Congress from making rulemaking authorities in the Executive Branch. So each law would have to go through congress itself, instead of the steadily encroaching feds.

 

[ParadiseLost]

An actually limited federal government, to start. One that constitutionally has less ability to regulate interstate commerce. A constitutional ban on price fixing and related acts. A 'right to earn a living' clause in the constitution that would also apply to the states (sorta like this proposal). An acknowledgement that freedom of speech should fully apply to economic activity. I could go on.

Or, and this is the easiest in effect but the hardest to get passed, ban Congress from making rulemaking authorities in the Executive Branch. So each law would have to go through congress itself, instead of the steadily encroaching feds.

See, none of those things actually maintains ideological purity. They're all just regulations to try to prevent people from regulating, but none of them actually answer the issue.

 

[Abhorsen]

See, none of those things actually maintains ideological purity. They're all just regulations to try to prevent people from regulating, but none of them actually answer the issue.

First, not funding the communism coming from the colleges means we have much less of a problem than the US does now. Second, federalism allowing different states to act differently within reason. Third, prosperity from fully functional capitalism stops a lot of problems as well. Fourth, the relative lack of violations of civil liberties means that Progressives have less hotpoints to build resentment and a movement off of. Fifth, legalized, controlled seccession, so if a bunch of stupid idiots gets together, they can go somewhere and secede, and leave the normal people alone, and serves as a last resort if everything goes to shit.

 

[ParadiseLost]

First, not funding the communism coming from the colleges means we have much less of a problem than the US does now.

Where do you think communism came from before college? Thin air? Socialism was big in America before the USSR existed.

Second, federalism allowing different states to act differently within reason.

So how do the states maintain the ideological purity needed for socialism?

Third, prosperity from fully functional capitalism stops a lot of problems as well.

Abhorsen, this is meant to be a Socratic exercise where I'm trying to get you to prove capitalism (Specifically, I'm trying to make you realize its flaws.)

This is just circular reasoning though. "Liberterianism will solve ideological purity issues by being Libertarian," basically.

Fourth, the relative lack of violations of civil liberties means that Progressives have less hotpoints to build resentment and a movement off of.

This is in direct disagreement with point two.

Fifth, legalized, controlled seccession, so if a bunch of stupid idiots gets together, they can go somewhere and secede, and leave the normal people alone, and serves as a last resort if everything goes to shit.

Again, this just makes ideological purity a problem faster, just like 2 and 4.



And this is why you're convincing me that libertarianism is a promoter of socialism. You have no idea what you're talking about; you just cling to a pie-in-the-sky ideology.

 

[ShieldWife]

Mega-corporations may not have killed as many people as the USSR, but the corporate death toll is probably a lot higher than most people imagine. It’s not like corporations kill people by sending soldiers flying an Exxon flag. It’s American soldiers who kill and die for corporate interests.

In 1935 Smedley Butler, one of the most decorated soldiers in history a Marine Corps general with 2 Congressional Medals of Honor, published a book called “War is a Racket” about how corrupt the USA was and how American soldiers were fighting wars on the behalf of corporations. Dwight Eisenhower was the head of Allied forces in WWII and US president: he warned us of the military industrial complex.

Millions of deaths have been caused by mega-corporations, they just aren’t taking credit though.

Are they more dangerous than the USSR was? Yes. The USSR couldn’t take over the USA, the mega-corporations already have. The USSR couldn’t destroy Western Civilization, the mega-corporations are fast on their way to doing so.

That is even if we treat Marxism and corporatism as two entirely separate unrelated threats instead of two effects, or tactics perhaps, of the same cause.

 

[Abhorsen]

Where do you think communism came from before college? Thin air? Socialism was big in America before the USSR existed.

There's a big difference in not knowing that socialism doesn't work before it was tried versus not knowing it doesn't work after it was tried. The reason why support for socialism survived was the influence of colleges.

So how do the states maintain the ideological purity needed for socialism?

By people fleeing states for other states (which is happening now), the influence of stupid ideas is further limited, and we can test ideas as well.

Abhorsen, this is meant to be a Socratic exercise where I'm trying to get you to prove capitalism (Specifically, I'm trying to make you realize its flaws.)

This is just circular reasoning though. "Liberterianism will solve ideological purity issues by being Libertarian," basically.

No, this isn't circular. Capitalism does cause prosperity (and I can go full through a socratic on that), and prosperous countries don't have as man

Again, this just makes ideological purity a problem faster, just like 2 and 4.

How does getting rid of socialists make the socialism problem speed up?

Other ways libertarian nations can encourage libertarianism: have a remembrance of victims of communism day, and have encourage people to go and teach how communism harmed them.

 

[ParadiseLost]

There's a big difference in not knowing that socialism doesn't work before it was tried versus not knowing it doesn't work after it was tried. The reason why support for socialism survived was the influence of colleges.

Again, you're falling for the classic (false) belief that people are rational.

By people fleeing states for other states (which is happening now), the influence of stupid ideas is further limited, and we can test ideas as well.

Guess how most of the liberals from liberal states are voting when they move to conservative states? Liberal!

That's what's flipping NC, Texas, and Georgia.

No, this isn't circular. Capitalism does cause prosperity (and I can go full through a socratic on that), and prosperous countries don't have as man

Y'know, I'm going to end it here.

If you're honestly incapable of imaging that capitalism might not be the nirvana you think it is, then there are irreconcilable ideological differences and we'll get no where discussing this.

 

[Abhorsen]

Again, you're falling for the classic (false) belief that people are rational.

No? I never claimed this. I'm just noting that your comparison doesn't work. In the first case, rational people could honestly believe in socialism. In the second, it was largely people who like lording themselves over others, the type of person who think "I can do it, because I'm smarter than those idiots".

Guess how most of the liberals from liberal states are voting when they move to conservative states? Liberal!

That's what's flipping NC, Texas, and Georgia.

Who said they could vote immediately? or at all?

Y'know, I'm going to end it here.

If you're honestly incapable of imaging that capitalism might not be the nirvana you think it is, then there are irreconcilable ideological differences and we'll get no where discussing this.

Given capitalism a) makes sense economically, and b) the big alternative of socialism fell on its ass, what's your alternative to capitalism then? Because economically, you have two edge cases: command and control (socialism's economy, along with facism's and also frequently wartime economies), and lassiez faire capitalism (libertarianism's economy), and you get to choose where you want to be in between.

 

[ParadiseLost]

Given capitalism a) makes sense economically, and b) the big alternative of socialism fell on its ass, what's your alternative to capitalism then? Because economically, you have two edge cases: command and control (socialism's economy, along with facism's and also frequently wartime economies), and lassiez faire capitalism (libertarianism's economy), and you get to choose where you want to be in between.

Either/or fallacy. In reality, economies are NOT spread along a single line from Socialism to Capitalism.

The reality is that the success of a government is far more dependent upon culture and tradition than upon its economy. That includes economic success.

 

[Abhorsen]

Either/or fallacy. In reality, economies are NOT spread along a single line from Socialism to Capitalism.

First, I didn't give a binary answer, which means this can't be an either/or fallacy. Do you know what you're talking about here? Second, government economic policies can be described based on how much they interfere with the economy, which would put them on a single line from total command and control to lassiez faire capitalism.

The reality is that the success of a government is far more dependent upon culture and tradition than upon its economy. That includes economic success.

And you still haven't described a government, nor its economic policy.

 

[ParadiseLost]

And you still haven't described a government, nor its economic policy.

Because economic policy isn't the primary concern. Economic policy follows social and cultural ideas, not the other way around.

For example, you don't create a Libertarian society by implementing Libertarian economic policies; you create a Libertarian society by promoting Libertarian social and cultural ideas, and a Libertarian society follows.

 

[Abhorsen]

Because economic policy isn't the primary concern. Economic policy follows social and cultural policies, not the other way around.

The major conflict of the second half of the twentieth century was a disagreement about economic policy, so that simply isn't true.