NationStates

Fauxia wrote:

Janszoonia wrote:It's basic, and I'm not. You are either for freedom (anarchism), or total state control (fascism).

Well someone isn’t a libertarian

Libertarianism is another school of anarchism.
Communism is another school of fascism.

Libertarian Moral Psychology (Long)

Shikihara wrote:

The Liberated Territories wrote:Some of our more left wing regulars of this thread might be interested in this.

An article by Benjamin Tucker in the early anarchist magazine "Liberty" about the differences between state and non-state socialists.

Why am I interested in it? Because he makes a lot of references to how "state" socialism is simply one giant monopoly replacing a lot of smaller monopolies.

Swallowing the anarcho-pill, TLT?

not even close

Janszoonia wrote:

Fauxia wrote:Well someone isn’t a libertarian

Libertarianism is another school of anarchism.
Communism is another school of fascism.

Libertarians like small government, but they aren’t anarchists

Fauxia wrote:

Janszoonia wrote:Libertarianism is another school of anarchism.
Communism is another school of fascism.

Libertarians like small government, but they aren’t anarchists

Let's not exclude the ancaps.

Janszoonia wrote:

Fauxia wrote:Well someone isn’t a libertarian

Libertarianism is another school of anarchism.
Communism is another school of fascism.

Libertarians are those who wish anarchy was possible, but are realistic enough to know it is not so we accept the smallest government possible.

It's about making decisions rather than positions. Positionalism is the reason why leftist circles are so toxic to be around and there is no need to import it here.

Fauxia wrote:

Janszoonia wrote:Libertarianism is another school of anarchism.
Communism is another school of fascism.

Libertarians like small government, but they aren’t anarchists

ever heard of ancaps? voluntaryists?

Elwher wrote:

Janszoonia wrote:Libertarianism is another school of anarchism.
Communism is another school of fascism.

Libertarians are those who wish anarchy was possible, but are realistic enough to know it is not so we accept the smallest government possible.

Wrong wrong wrong. I don't want an anarchy for example, and I suppose that the classical liberals will agree with me. Libertarianism wants more freedom to the individual, especially when it comes to choice-making. Whether this will result into a small government (classical liberals and minarchists) or anarchy (ancaps), this is what typically fractions it.

Taihei Tengoku wrote:It's about making decisions rather than positions. Positionalism is the reason why leftist circles are so toxic to be around and there is no need to import it here.

Something something the right never does this I swear
I heard centrists are free from this problem as well! /sarc

Mattopilos II wrote:

Taihei Tengoku wrote:It's about making decisions rather than positions. Positionalism is the reason why leftist circles are so toxic to be around and there is no need to import it here.

Something something the right never does this I swear
I heard centrists are free from this problem as well! /sarc

you list half a dozen positions every time you post

Taihei Tengoku wrote:

Mattopilos II wrote:
Something something the right never does this I swear
I heard centrists are free from this problem as well! /sarc

you list half a dozen positions every time you post

The left will always have a bigger issue with infighting because the left want to create a 'new world', while the right mostly want to 'return' to some romanticised past. It's easier to agree on what the past looked like than what the future should be.

Irona wrote:

Taihei Tengoku wrote:you list half a dozen positions every time you post

The left will always have a bigger issue with infighting because the left want to create a 'new world', while the right mostly want to 'return' to some romanticised past. It's easier to agree on what the past looked like than what the future should be.

which is why people play Pin the Genocide

Libertarians, should the federal government force states to permit abortion? And would ancap system permit abortion?

"Life begins at conception" is a consistent principle to base common law off of at least. Though honestly there is little but faith to say what happens in the beforelife as it is in the afterlife--probably not enough to base any secular principle of when destroying the embryo-fetus becomes the destruction of a "human being."

Irona wrote:

Taihei Tengoku wrote:you list half a dozen positions every time you post

The left will always have a bigger issue with infighting because the left want to create a 'new world', while the right mostly want to 'return' to some romanticised past. It's easier to agree on what the past looked like than what the future should be.

Returning to the past is actually not that easy to do, mostly because of reaction to that idea itself, and also because of the problems it brings, which we know even more clearly than a future system. Funny thing is, people on the right still argue about it a lot... what time in the past? What was it actually like? Should we make changes to make it more stable or will that "ruin" it? Its less visible fighting, but fighting nonetheless.

Taihei Tengoku wrote:

Mattopilos II wrote:
Something something the right never does this I swear
I heard centrists are free from this problem as well! /sarc

you list half a dozen positions every time you post

You try too hard to attack people without an ounce of purpose.

before minding the motes in others eyes mind the beam in your own

Aren't paleolibertarians basically just crypto-reactionaries?

The Parkus Empire wrote:Libertarians, should the federal government force states to permit abortion? And would ancap system permit abortion?

No to both.

Of course it depends on how you define "reactionary." A lot of libertarians want to return to the fundamental values of the Constitution for example, but none want to return to the time period it was written in (slavery and all). If Paleolibs want to return to the 1800s, with Jim Crow style segregation laws and so called "laissez-faire" capitalism, then they are reactionary.

Of course "reactionary" is such a marxist buzzword i don't really treat it seriously.

The Liberated Territories wrote:Of course it depends on how you define "reactionary." A lot of libertarians want to return to the fundamental values of the Constitution for example, but none want to return to the time period it was written in (slavery and all). If Paleolibs want to return to the 1800s, with Jim Crow style segregation laws and so called "laissez-faire" capitalism, then they are reactionary.

Of course "reactionary" is such a marxist buzzword i don't really treat it seriously.

Paleolibertarians enjoy laissez-faire capitalism and justifications for wearing top hats. There's not much else.

The Liberated Territories wrote:Of course it depends on how you define "reactionary." A lot of libertarians want to return to the fundamental values of the Constitution for example, but none want to return to the time period it was written in (slavery and all). If Paleolibs want to return to the 1800s, with Jim Crow style segregation laws and so called "laissez-faire" capitalism, then they are reactionary.

Of course "reactionary" is such a marxist buzzword i don't really treat it seriously.

I thought reactionaries were about returning the situation to an older one.
Whatever that may mean in their eyes.

In that case I declare anyone who wishes to go back to a world before markets as "reactionary." Especially as collectivism and tribalism are pre-industrial holdovers, and the belief that we should run the government and economy as we would a tribe of 150 people as preposterous.

The Liberated Territories wrote:In that case I declare anyone who wishes to go back to a world before markets as "reactionary." Especially as collectivism and tribalism are pre-industrial holdovers, and the belief that we should run the government and economy as we would a tribe of 150 people as preposterous.

Okay? Props to you, but I believe you're simplifying things to a horrific extent just to label something with a term that you think is a swear word.

Tekeristan wrote:

The Liberated Territories wrote:In that case I declare anyone who wishes to go back to a world before markets as "reactionary." Especially as collectivism and tribalism are pre-industrial holdovers, and the belief that we should run the government and economy as we would a tribe of 150 people as preposterous.

Okay? Props to you, but I believe you're simplifying things to a horrific extent just to label something with a term that you think is a swear word.

It's a word that can be warped in any direction one would choose, and isn't very descriptive at all. However I've only seen it applied as a smear word, so I might be biased. Nonetheless calling someone a "reactionary" as a pejorative will only indict eye rolling from me.

The Liberated Territories wrote:

Tekeristan wrote:Okay? Props to you, but I believe you're simplifying things to a horrific extent just to label something with a term that you think is a swear word.

It's a word that can be warped in any direction one would choose, and isn't very descriptive at all. However I've only seen it applied as a smear word, so I might be biased. Nonetheless calling someone a "reactionary" as a pejorative will only indict eye rolling from me.

If a bunch of monarchists rose up to re-instant monarchy, they'd be refereed to as reactionaries since the term conservative doesn't fit them. It's the simple way to be put, I guess.
But yea. It is used as a smear word often times, but I suppose it is one to most modern people. I imagine your disinterest in the term is akin to mine when I hear people say marxist or cultural marxism.

A lot of politics has been name calling. It's honestly just tired me out.