NationStates

Northern Davincia wrote:

Torrocca wrote:
Murray Rothbard literally treated the use of "Libertarianism" to describe Classical Liberals as an act of stealing the word from Leftists; do take note that he wasn't a Leftist himself, and celebrated this notion in his own writings.



News flash: just as right-wing """Libertarians""" aren't Libertarians, """""Anarcho"""""-Capitalists sure as shit aren't Anarchists.



I am dealing with it - by calling it out for the bullshit that it is.

Indeed, we've stolen a word in order to make up for the fact that right-libertarianism is distinct from classical liberalism (we are far more resistant to the state) and contemporary liberalism (which fully embraces the state).

Proctopeo wrote:

Evil Dictators Happyland wrote:I don't want to get involved in this feud, but I am enjoying the irony of a libertarian, who's basing their arguments on libertarianism, arguing that private corporations shouldn't be allowed to create and enforce rules concerning the use of their website.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that private individuals should be allowed to do more or less whatever they want with their legally-owned property, and the government shouldn't be allowed to interfere with how private corporations operate as long as those corporations aren't violating anyone's basic human rights. Or does that basic premise no longer apply at a certain scale?

It's more complicated than you're presenting it as, but, yes, on a very basic level, when a corporation becomes a certain scale, they do start to get the ability to actively violate basic human rights, though not all do.

Pacomia wrote:Hold on, how exactly is right-libertarianism not libertarian?

Torrocca wrote:

Nakena wrote:
Libertarians and Anarchism can carry different adjectives and forms.

And none of them are right-wing.

Not all of them are ideologically aligned to your views however.

Yeah, yeah, I know LibComs, LibSocs, AnPacs, AnSynds, AnMuts, Egoists, SocDems, DemSocs, and the whole rest of the non-authoritarian left exists.

You will have to accept that theres some amongst us who will disagree with your ideology.

Neat. I'm not denying that. Right-wing """Libertarianism""" is still a crock of bullshit in all its forms.

Did I told you I became recently a little interested in anarchism and mutualism? Of course, in my very own interpretation thereof. :^)

Good for you.

Evil Dictators Happyland wrote:

Proctopeo wrote:It's more complicated than you're presenting it as, but, yes, on a very basic level, when a corporation becomes a certain scale, they do start to get the ability to actively violate basic human rights, though not all do.

Since nothing you just said actually conflicts with my post, am I to assume that you agree with me?

Torrocca wrote:

Pacomia wrote:Hold on, how exactly is right-libertarianism not libertarian?

Simple enough: it's paradoxical to define yourself as anti-authoritarian and still uphold a fundamentally authoritarian system (Capitalism).

Torrocca wrote:

Northern Davincia wrote:Marxist-Leninism has a higher death toll than fascism when it comes to ideology. I still believe one has the right to express views sympathetic to either/neither side.

Marxism-Leninism can get fucked, too, for all I care.

And yet right-libertarianism has spread beyond America.

It's spread so magnificently that it's literally a laughing stock everywhere, including America.

Nakena wrote:

Torrocca wrote:
And none of them are right-wing.



Yeah, yeah, I know LibComs, LibSocs, AnPacs, AnSynds, AnMuts, Egoists, SocDems, DemSocs, and the whole rest of the non-authoritarian left exists.



Neat. I'm not denying that. Right-wing """Libertarianism""" is still a crock of bullshit in all its forms.



Good for you.

You forgot National Syndicalism and National-Anarchism. Which may count as right-wing.

Also then you have CasaPound which has a few mutualist characteristics and is heavily engaged in community work.

And of course right-wing libertarism is absolutly a thing. Either in a soft form more resembling classical liberalism ala Ron Paul or hard form as, I believe, HHH and ND follow it.

Torrocca wrote:

Pacomia wrote:Hold on, how exactly is right-libertarianism not libertarian?

Simple enough: it's paradoxical to define yourself as anti-authoritarian and still uphold a fundamentally authoritarian system (Capitalism).

Northern Davincia wrote:

Torrocca wrote:
Marxism-Leninism can get fucked, too, for all I care.



It's spread so magnificently that it's literally a laughing stock everywhere, including America.

>implying left-libertarianism isn't a global laughing stock

Tell me, what does free speech mean to you anyway?

Torrocca wrote:

Pacomia wrote:Hold on, how exactly is right-libertarianism not libertarian?

Simple enough: it's paradoxical to define yourself as anti-authoritarian and still uphold a fundamentally authoritarian system (Capitalism).

Nakena wrote:

Torrocca wrote:
And none of them are right-wing.



Yeah, yeah, I know LibComs, LibSocs, AnPacs, AnSynds, AnMuts, Egoists, SocDems, DemSocs, and the whole rest of the non-authoritarian left exists.



Neat. I'm not denying that. Right-wing """Libertarianism""" is still a crock of bullshit in all its forms.



Good for you.

You forgot National Syndicalism and National-Anarchism. Which may count as right-wing. Also then you have CasaPound which has a few mutualist characteristics and is heavily engaged in community work. And of course right-wing libertarism is absolutly a thing. Either in a soft form more resembling classical liberalism ala Ron Paul or hard form as, I believe, HHH and ND follow it.

Torrocca wrote:

Nakena wrote:
You forgot National Syndicalism and National-Anarchism. Which may count as right-wing.

Rebranded Fascism.

Also then you have CasaPound which has a few mutualist characteristics and is heavily engaged in community work.

That's not a political ideology; they're also Neo-Fascists.

And of course right-wing libertarism is absolutly a thing. Either in a soft form more resembling classical liberalism ala Ron Paul or hard form as, I believe, HHH and ND follow it.

Nope. You can't claim to be the antithesis of authoritarianism and simultaneously uphold an inherently authoritarian system such as Capitalism.

National-anarchism is a radical anti-capitalist and anti-Marxist right-wing anarchist ideology.[1][2] National-anarchists advocate a post-capitalist stateless society in which homogeneous communities of different ethnic or racial groups would be free to develop separately in their own tribal communes, named "national autonomous zones", that are politically meritocratic, economically mutualistic, ecologically sustainable, and socially and culturally traditional.[1][2]

Northern Davincia wrote:

Torrocca wrote:
Simple enough: it's paradoxical to define yourself as anti-authoritarian and still uphold a fundamentally authoritarian system (Capitalism).

It would only be paradoxical if we accept your premise that capitalism is authoritarian, which we don't. We believe it to be the system by which liberty is maximized.

Torrocca wrote:

Northern Davincia wrote:>implying left-libertarianism isn't a global laughing stock

It's not, given that it's actually inspired people to try and break the chains of Capitalism.

Tell me, what does free speech mean to you anyway?

Doesn't matter, it's irrelevant to what I'm talking about.

Torrocca wrote:

Northern Davincia wrote:It would only be paradoxical if we accept your premise that capitalism is authoritarian, which we don't. We believe it to be the system by which liberty is maximized.

And you'd be wrong. There is no liberty under a hierarchy of servants ruled by masters.

Pacomia wrote:to be fair capitalism was traditionally individualist whereas socialism was traditionally collectivist

Northern Davincia wrote:

Torrocca wrote:
And you'd be wrong. There is no liberty under a hierarchy of servants ruled by masters.

Specialization of labor necessitates hierarchy. It would only be authoritarian if social mobility did not exist.

Torrocca wrote:

Northern Davincia wrote:Specialization of labor necessitates hierarchy. It would only be authoritarian if social mobility did not exist.

The worker's labor becomes a profit for the Capitalist, not the worker. That is authoritarian.

Northern Davincia wrote:

Pacomia wrote:to be fair capitalism was traditionally individualist whereas socialism was traditionally collectivist

This remains to be the case.

Northern Davincia wrote:

Torrocca wrote:
The worker's labor becomes a profit for the Capitalist, not the worker. That is authoritarian.

The capitalist puts in far more risk into every decision he makes.

Torrocca wrote:*snip*

Torrocca wrote:

Northern Davincia wrote:The capitalist puts in far more risk into every decision he makes.

The Capitalist loses some money if he fucks up; the worker can easily lose everything if the Capitalist fucks up.

It's not the Capitalist taking the most risk.

Northern Davincia wrote:

Torrocca wrote:
The worker's labor becomes a profit for the Capitalist, not the worker. That is authoritarian.

The capitalist puts in far more risk into every decision he makes. The capitalist is an intellectual laborer, and the laborer below him profits when his boss decides wisely. The market ultimately decides the value of their labor in any case.

Northern Davincia wrote:

Torrocca wrote:
The worker's labor becomes a profit for the Capitalist, not the worker. That is authoritarian.

The capitalist puts in far more risk into every decision he makes. The capitalist is an intellectual laborer, and the laborer below him profits when his boss decides wisely. The market ultimately decides the value of their labor in any case.