Right Wing Discussion Thread XIV: Join the Friendkorps

[Northern Davincia]

Outlawing drugs did more to help those scoundrels.

Uh, no. Drugs were outlawed and punished severely when Mexico was authoritarian, but the cartels only arose in the 1970's, within a year after Mexico stopped being authoritarian.

The drug war in the US (and elsewhere) kicked up in the 70s. It gave the cartels enough demand to thrive.

[Darussalam]

How about no.

Why not? Most modern market societies are contingent on strong, stable states. Coercion is inevitable once one accepts the responsibility of social life.

[Mardla]

Uh, no. Drugs were outlawed and punished severely when Mexico was authoritarian, but the cartels only arose in the 1970's, within a year after Mexico stopped being authoritarian.

The drug war in the US (and elsewhere) kicked up in the 70s. It gave the cartels enough demand to thrive.

The drug war kicked up rather because Mexico stopped being authoritarian.

[Zex]

Outlawing drugs did more to help those scoundrels.

And outlawing drugs would work far better if they have a strong, brutally competent centralized state that could actually enforce its own laws.

Didn't Mexico just go through a civil war where citizens just grabbed some guns and started killing cartels? Ultimately, centralized or not, if the president of your country is taking kickbacks then you're shit out of luck.

[Joohan]

So you're an anarchist then?

I mean, the nature of the state is that it provides safety at the expense of liberty ( under a state, you now must obey laws which can limit what you are permitted to do ).

If you truly believe Benjameme Franklin in this instant, then you must be an anarchist.

I view the ideal state as a defender of liberty, as most of us do, but safety ought to be ensured by the individual.

And outlawing drugs would work far better if they have a strong, brutally competent centralized state that could actually enforce its own laws.

How about no.

Liberty and freedom do not exist under a state. By the nature of the social contract, you sacrifice your freedom in exchange for security. The state will provide you security at the expense of your freedom. This is a constant.

And as time progresses, society advances, new threats to your security will arise and so the state must then find new ways to protect the public at the expense of other freedoms. That a freedom can be taken away means that it's not really a freedom - it is a privilege.

A state cannot protect liberty - because it is by very nature the antithesis of freedom. A state can only provide security.

[Joohan]

And outlawing drugs would work far better if they have a strong, brutally competent centralized state that could actually enforce its own laws.

Didn't Mexico just go through a civil war where citizens just grabbed some guns and started killing cartels? Ultimately, centralized or not, if the president of your country is taking kickbacks then you're shit out of luck.

Dude,

you just described the entire western world with that last sentence.

[Zex]

I view the ideal state as a defender of liberty, as most of us do, but safety ought to be ensured by the individual.

How about no.

Liberty and freedom do not exist under a state. By the nature of the social contract, you sacrifice your freedom in exchange for security. The state will provide you security at the expense of your freedom. This is a constant.

And as time progresses, society advances, new threats to your security will arise and so the state must then find new ways to protect the public at the expense of other freedoms. That a freedom can be taken away means that it's not really a freedom - it is a privilege.

A state cannot protect liberty - because it is by very nature the antithesis of freedom. A state can only provide security.

This is Mexico a state?

[Napkiraly]

John Calhoun would say security and the welfare of race must come before liberty, which is a better way of putting it. Although Hegel in The Philosophy of Right has an.understanding of liberty similar to.that of the Falange, and provides an excellent argument for it.

"Those who sacrifice liberty for safety lose both and deserve neither."

"Witty sayings on the Internet prove nothing" - Adam Keynes, Hindu-Catholic Queen of Saudi Arabia

[Joohan]

Liberty and freedom do not exist under a state. By the nature of the social contract, you sacrifice your freedom in exchange for security. The state will provide you security at the expense of your freedom. This is a constant.

And as time progresses, society advances, new threats to your security will arise and so the state must then find new ways to protect the public at the expense of other freedoms. That a freedom can be taken away means that it's not really a freedom - it is a privilege.

A state cannot protect liberty - because it is by very nature the antithesis of freedom. A state can only provide security.

This is Mexico a state?

Mexico sucks at being a state

Really, a bit of revolution ( in the civil catholic sense ) and vanguard would do them quite well.

[Kowani]

Didn't Mexico just go through a civil war where citizens just grabbed some guns and started killing cartels? Ultimately, centralized or not, if the president of your country is taking kickbacks then you're shit out of luck.

Dude,

you just described the entire western world with that last sentence.

Mate, it's not just the Western world. Nobody would say that most of Africa is Western (Maybe SA if y'really stretch it), but we all know how corrupt it is there. Corruption is more global than McDonalds and Coca-Cola are at this point.

[Autarkheia]

That national syndicalism manifesto sounds like generic fascist economics (we're against capitalism, except we're not really, unless we want to take your property for the good of the nation, but we probably won't, unless you piss us off) along with some vaguely leftist ideas about redistributing land that I doubt would be carried out in practice. I am not really in favour of it.

Well, certainly they should not be dancing in adult venues like bars or nightclubs. But if they want to wear clothing of the opposite sex, I would not stop them, unless it was some kind of overly sexualized clothing, but really the problem is children being oversexualized, not gender non-conformity.

I'm surprised to see a take I basically agree with in this thread. Now, onto the next moral panic about pedophiles or other sexual deviancy, I guess.

[Zex]

This is Mexico a state?

Mexico sucks at being a state

Really, a bit of revolution ( in the civil catholic sense ) and vanguard would do them quite well.

I only ask because if Mexico is still a state then any state which did not provide security for the sake of liberty would still be a state, just a bad one.

Didn't Mexico just go through a civil war where citizens just grabbed some guns and started killing cartels? Ultimately, centralized or not, if the president of your country is taking kickbacks then you're shit out of luck.

Dude,
you just described the entire western world with that last sentence.

I bring this up because the rebellion I speak of was gutted by the Mexican military per orders of their president. The militia is as disorganized as they get, yet they made gains against the cartels state-by-state. It seems corrupt, not the lack of an authoritarian state, that is the underpinning of Mexico's issues.

[Joohan]

Mexico sucks at being a state

Really, a bit of revolution ( in the civil catholic sense ) and vanguard would do them quite well.

I only ask because if Mexico is still a state then any state which did not provide security for the sake of liberty would still be a state, just a bad one.

Dude,
you just described the entire western world with that last sentence.

I bring this up because the rebellion I speak of was gutted by the Mexican military per orders of their president. The militia is as disorganized as they get, yet they made gains against the cartels state-by-state. It seems corrupt, not the lack of an authoritarian state, that is the underpinning of Mexico's issues.

The Mexican state has failed on it's end of the social contract - that is should be removed and replaced by it's citizenry is entirely justified, though not maliciously.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

This is Mexico a state?

Mexico sucks at being a state

Really, a bit of revolution ( in the civil catholic sense ) and vanguard would do them quite well.

Well the catholic church in Mexico is too cowardly to take on the drug cartels in Mexico. The Priests get killed, and the hierarchy is somewhat complicit. Don't expect them to come up with any good proposal.

[Kowani]

Liberty and freedom do not exist under a state. By the nature of the social contract, you sacrifice your freedom in exchange for security. The state will provide you security at the expense of your freedom. This is a constant.

And as time progresses, society advances, new threats to your security will arise and so the state must then find new ways to protect the public at the expense of other freedoms. That a freedom can be taken away means that it's not really a freedom - it is a privilege.

A state cannot protect liberty - because it is by very nature the antithesis of freedom. A state can only provide security.

If we're going with Social Contracts, then I am going to take the State of Nature and call that a tyranny of Chaos. It is a very different kind of tyranny, as there are no laws saying "One cannot," "One must," and etc, but it is still a tyranny all the same. I may have, without a state, Freedom from laws and the like, but I have no reasonable expectation that my Freedoms will be respected by others, and commerce and innovation become impossible. A State may remove absolute freedom (which is an oxymoron in and of itself), but in doing so, it allows for Liberty to flourish in another direction.

The war of All against All has ended, and Freedom reigns shackled.

[Joohan]

Mexico sucks at being a state

Really, a bit of revolution ( in the civil catholic sense ) and vanguard would do them quite well.

Well the catholic church in Mexico is too cowardly to take on the drug cartels in Mexico. The Priests get killed, and the hierarchy is somewhat complicit. Don't expect them to come up with any good proposal.

Ain't too much the church can do when the state itself is in the pockets the evil. The only real hard action which they could do would be to support some kind of revolutionary change - and thelast time they did that in Mexico, it was the government killing priests

[Mardla]

I view the ideal state as a defender of liberty, as most of us do, but safety ought to be ensured by the individual.

How about no.

Liberty and freedom do not exist under a state. By the nature of the social contract, you sacrifice your freedom in exchange for security. The state will provide you security at the expense of your freedom. This is a constant.

And as time progresses, society advances, new threats to your security will arise and so the state must then find new ways to protect the public at the expense of other freedoms. That a freedom can be taken away means that it's not really a freedom - it is a privilege.

A state cannot protect liberty - because it is by very nature the antithesis of freedom. A state can only provide security.

There is no social contract, obedience to.the government is compulsory, not optional.

Liberty is ultimatrly predicated upon security.

[Benuty]

Why do y'all keep leaving me out of this kind of stuff?!?!

You might be able to get someone to do one for you over on the Islamic Discussion thread.

Fucking savage.

[Benuty]

Why? What's wrong with doing it here?

You're Bin Laden. There you go, you have one.

Ouch.

[Joohan]

Liberty and freedom do not exist under a state. By the nature of the social contract, you sacrifice your freedom in exchange for security. The state will provide you security at the expense of your freedom. This is a constant.

And as time progresses, society advances, new threats to your security will arise and so the state must then find new ways to protect the public at the expense of other freedoms. That a freedom can be taken away means that it's not really a freedom - it is a privilege.

A state cannot protect liberty - because it is by very nature the antithesis of freedom. A state can only provide security.

If we're going with Social Contracts, then I am going to take the State of Nature and call that a tyranny of Chaos. It is a very different kind of tyranny, as there are no laws saying "One cannot," "One must," and etc, but it is still a tyranny all the same. I may have, without a state, Freedom from laws and the like, but I have no reasonable expectation that my Freedoms will be respected by others, and commerce and innovation become impossible. A State may remove absolute freedom (which is an oxymoron in and of itself), but in doing so, it allows for Liberty to flourish in another direction.

The war of All against All has ended, and Freedom reigns shackled.

The state of nature is absolute freedom - freedom to do as you please, and not being forcefully bound to any other person or groups expectations. That the consequences of such living are largely negative does not negate the initial statement.

But I do not really understand what you are trying to say. Are you proposing my interpretation of the state is wrong?

[Joohan]

Liberty and freedom do not exist under a state. By the nature of the social contract, you sacrifice your freedom in exchange for security. The state will provide you security at the expense of your freedom. This is a constant.

And as time progresses, society advances, new threats to your security will arise and so the state must then find new ways to protect the public at the expense of other freedoms. That a freedom can be taken away means that it's not really a freedom - it is a privilege.

A state cannot protect liberty - because it is by very nature the antithesis of freedom. A state can only provide security.

There is no social contract, obedience to.the government is compulsory, not optional.

Liberty is ultimatrly predicated upon security.

Of course it's optional. You don't have to do what the state demands - people do it all the time! It just happens that the state will, regardless, impose it's will upon you ( and usually with a fair degree of success ).

[Benuty]

Even though I respect certain mods on the team I view the institution with an incredibly dim light...time has not vindicated them of this watergate, and perhaps never will in my eyes.

[Benuty]

So it appears Parkus has been officially spared the headsman axe.

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=457402&start=325

[Mardla]

There is no social contract, obedience to.the government is compulsory, not optional.

Liberty is ultimatrly predicated upon security.

Of course it's optional. You don't have to do what the state demands - people do it all the time! It just happens that the state will, regardless, impose it's will upon you ( and usually with a fair degree of success ).

Optional as in consent-based.

There also isn't really a state of nature.

[Kowani]

If we're going with Social Contracts, then I am going to take the State of Nature and call that a tyranny of Chaos. It is a very different kind of tyranny, as there are no laws saying "One cannot," "One must," and etc, but it is still a tyranny all the same. I may have, without a state, Freedom from laws and the like, but I have no reasonable expectation that my Freedoms will be respected by others, and commerce and innovation become impossible. A State may remove absolute freedom (which is an oxymoron in and of itself), but in doing so, it allows for Liberty to flourish in another direction.

The war of All against All has ended, and Freedom reigns shackled.

The state of nature is absolute freedom - freedom to do as you please, and not being forcefully bound to any other person or groups expectations. That the consequences of such living are largely negative does not negate the initial statement.

Not so, for if I have freedom to do as I like, others do as well. But, if others may do as they like, and there is no overarching authority, then others are not bound to respect my rights, and because shitty people exist, there will be someone who is bound against their will to another. The State of Nature cannot exist for long because without a State being formed by consensus, one will be made by arms. It will most likely be brutal and depressing, but it is what will be done. In effect, absolute freedom assures its own demise because it is absolute. With no laws, the strong will rule, and the weak be abused, the young, the old, the infirm. Because absolute freedom gives all of its adherents the right to do as they please, it is inevitable that some will abuse that right to strip others of theirs. As such, Liberty unchained forms the greatest chains of all, and that is not to speak of the miserable conditions it would impose.

But I do not really understand what you are trying to say. Are you proposing my interpretation of the state is wrong?

Yes.