Right Wing Discussion Thread XIII: Do the Right thing

[Uxupox]

Child slaves has nothing to do on economical systems of thought. It's more based on cultural values that the people uphold or believe in.

Someone clearly missed the part where Rothbard advocated that child slaves would be acceptable under his form of Capitalism. :^)

Just because a pro-founding author orthodox liberal form of capitalism is true doesn't mean the whole entire branch supports it or else if we use that analogy then all afro-americans follow a black nihilism philosophy, all whites are secret slavers, communists are just want to take everybody else stuff, etc.

[Oil exporting People]

So National Syndicalism is basically the same as corporatism or is it more of a Third Position Authoritarian ideology? Haven't got quite into it.

I'd label it more as a Third Position Authoritarianism; corporatism has some rather distinct elements from the Syndicates called for in NatSynd.

[Northeast American Federation]

What are you now, if you don't mind me asking?

Just conservative.

I've simply come to appreciate the utility of the State, rather than reject it as an immoral affront to the sanctity of God. It can be, as with most things. I realized that the utopia in my head was not reality.

Well, welcome to the land of the reasonable. Make sure to grab a pocket Constitution on the way in.

The fact is the state is essentially a societal tool. Like any tool, it is not the existence of it that makes it good or bad, but its use and its user.

[Painisia]

Do you all think cosmopolitanism will take over as a system in the future?

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Do you all think cosmopolitanism will take over as a system in the future?

>Looks up word
Yeah, sure.

[Fahran]

"The Austromarxist principle of national personal autonomy ("personal principle"), developed by Otto Bauer in his 1907 book Die Nationalitätenfrage und die Sozialdemokratie (The Nationalities Question and Social Democracy) was seen by him a way of gathering the geographically divided members of the same nation to "organize nations not in territorial bodies but in simple association of persons", thus radically disjoining the nation from the territory and making of the nation a non-territorial association.[1]"

National personal autonomy as a concept had parallels in the systems implemented in Austria-Hungary, Yugoslavia, the Ottoman Empire, and among the early Labor Zionists. It's likewise been implemented in many of the states that succeeded the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. It has not been a neat solution to ethnic tensions and has rather tended to perpetuate the hegemony and power of the largest or most dominant ethnic group within the context of a given state. The response to my criticism of the idea was essentially the equivalent of "we've never had real communism/socialism!"

[Fahran]

Do you all think cosmopolitanism will take over as a system in the future?

I certainly hope so. Any ideology that places cosmopolitan martinis at its center is a stellar ideology in my book.

[Painisia]

Do you all think cosmopolitanism will take over as a system in the future?

I certainly hope so. Any ideology that places cosmopolitan martinis at its center is a stellar ideology in my book.

But with today`s rise of right-wing populism and anti-multicultural sentiments, it is not going to be easy to maintain control over 10 billion humans. It will be like Yugoslavia 2.0. But let`s see

[Second Empire of America]

Do you all think cosmopolitanism will take over as a system in the future?

Absolutely! The sooner, the better, but it'll definitely win in the long run.

[Bienenhalde]

Classical liberals have always understood "liberty" as the license to impose their will on others. Some of them are just finally becoming honest enough to say out loud what they've always meant.

The thing is that one person's liberty usually conflicts with another persons liberty. People's actions do not occur in a vacuum, they effect other people and the other person who is effected by the action may see it as an infringement on their own liberty. Trying to maximize individual liberty is a fool's errand, because in reality increasing the liberty of some individuals causes harm to others. So rather than being devoted to individualism and liberty, political leaders ought to focus on the common good and do what is best for humanity collectively.

[Loben]

Do you all think cosmopolitanism will take over as a system in the future?

Absolutely! The sooner, the better, but it'll definitely win in the long run.

No.

[Fahran]

But with today`s rise of right-wing populism and anti-multicultural sentiments, it is not going to be easy to maintain control over 10 billion humans. It will be like Yugoslavia 2.0. But let`s see

I was making a joke. I actually think that a one-world state would be a terrible idea.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Absolutely! The sooner, the better, but it'll definitely win in the long run.

No.

It'll happen whether you like it or not.

[Distruzio]

Do you all think cosmopolitanism will take over as a system in the future?

No. Not all cultures are equal. The West is clearly superior (with certain westernized Far Eastern nations being included). Not unless Americans can be convinced to toss the constitution, either (which is unlikely).

[Painisia]

But with today`s rise of right-wing populism and anti-multicultural sentiments, it is not going to be easy to maintain control over 10 billion humans. It will be like Yugoslavia 2.0. But let`s see

I was making a joke. I actually think that a one-world state would be a terrible idea.

I literally took you serious for moment......

[Genivaria]

Do you all think cosmopolitanism will take over as a system in the future?

Define what you mean by cosmopolitanism.

[Fahran]

I see communists and capitalists putting aside their differences and uniting against fascism, while libertarians misguidedly help the fascists because they misunderstand the term "free speech".

Well, that's a leap on a multitude of levels.

1.) Free speech, as it is understood in most of the West, is difficult to misunderstand. In the United States, the definition is extremely broad and is becoming more broad with each case that reaches the SCOTUS. A significant contingent of the political left simply doesn't like free speech that contradicts their ideology and assumptions. Classical liberals attempt to defend the concept of free speech from erosion and redefinition. In this case, it just happens to entail defending the rights of people with whom they disagree.

2.) Having fascists on your side doesn't mean you're the bad guy. Finland had Nazi support against the imperialist aggression of the USSR. This does not mean that the Finns at the time were Nazis, bad people, or in the wrong. It'd be a logical non sequitur to say otherwise.

[Painisia]

Do you all think cosmopolitanism will take over as a system in the future?

Define what you mean by cosmopolitanism.

All nations disappear and a world government is imposed

[Genivaria]

Define what you mean by cosmopolitanism.

All nations disappear and a world government is imposed

Not fucking likely, at least not within this century.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Define what you mean by cosmopolitanism.

All nations disappear and a world government is imposed

Oh, you meant that.
Yeah, that's not likely to happen. But Allahu 'Alam.

[Frievolk]

Define what you mean by cosmopolitanism.

All nations disappear and a world government is imposed

I sure fucking hope not.
You know what they say about World Federations. One country gets the World, the others get the "Federation".

[Second Empire of America]

I was making a joke. I actually think that a one-world state would be a terrible idea.

I, on the other hand, legitimately think a world government would be enormously beneficial if it's ever achieved.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

I was making a joke. I actually think that a one-world state would be a terrible idea.

I, on the other hand, legitimately think a world government would be enormously beneficial if it's ever achieved.

Depends.

[Fahran]

I, on the other hand, legitimately think a world government would be enormously beneficial if it's ever achieved.

It might be useful in pooling resources, but I expect it would be markedly more authoritarian, marginally less wealthy, and intensely more bureaucratic than the governments to which we in the West are accustomed. Keep in mind that China, India, and Africa together would represent half the population under this government and these populations do not possess views similar to ours on policy - you could almost certainly expect a socially conservative government.

[Diopolis]

I, on the other hand, legitimately think a world government would be enormously beneficial if it's ever achieved.

It might be useful in pooling resources, but I expect it would be markedly more authoritarian, marginally less wealthy, and intensely more bureaucratic than the governments to which we in the West are accustomed. Keep in mind that China, India, and Africa together would represent half the population under this government and these populations do not possess views similar to ours on policy.

I expect that a world government would be incredibly ineffectual, bureaucratic, perpetually broke, an record-settingly corrupt. It doesn't matter what they believe or want to do; they're not going to do it.
So like the UN, but way worse.