In modern neoliberal fascism, the corporations are pseudo nation states. When ACTA passes in June, these multinational entities will have the power of takings which will put them on par with traditional sovereigns. And like other members in the NATO expeditionary force, these corporate states will become increasingly public proxy clients of the US military--paying in political donation for the necessary force on hand to maintain domestic pacification and foreign resource and market domination.
Ron Paul will bring abaut a tyranny by the majority to think anything different is to be extremly nieve. Thank you for articulating these views they are a must read (or in this case must see) for anyone seriously thinking of voting for Ron Paul who I see as a swindler that made his legislative name on the ill-informed and disenfranchised.
@TheAzov it might seem like a dishonest tactic, but i have seen other users gain lots of views by posting their videos as responses to more popular videos
There is an American fascism that can't be directly compared to European fascism or Ayn Rand;s objectivism. First, real libertarians are anti-state socialists. Ron Paul is a quasi-anarcho-capitalist, more in-line with Pat Buchanan, the old Reform Party, and the KKK going back to the 1870s, characterized by isolationism, christianity, capitalism, and white male supremacy--traditional American fascism. The KKK didn't just kill blacks but also union organizers and socialists. Remember Nov, 1979.
@TheForwardGaze US libertarianism is to a large extent a recycle of localist/confederate ideology. While there are positive aspects to this, as a movement it was always dominated by local elites protecting themselves with anti-state rhetoric.
@TheAzov This is why I dont support Ron Paul. He portrays himself as someone who is against the state. But digging deeper I have found that there is another side to Ron Paul. What he says about the fed, following the constitution, the war, the patriot act, foreign policy has merit. But I think this is "Libertarian cover." After going over his economic plan he calls for savage austerity measures for programs that many people depend on to survive.
@waterhead001 He puts public power in private hands in the name of freedom, turning that public over to unaccountable "lords" and "barons." IOW, a return to feudalism.
@TheAzov That's why he wants young people to have the option of opting out of social security. This will effect social security's ability to sustain itself because less people will be paying into it, which will lead to privatisation which would give the unaccountable lords the money in scocial security? Also Ron Paul calls for the selling off of federal lands and assets. Giving mineral rights, buildings and public lands to the inaccountable lords?
@TheAzov In my opinion Ron Paul does far worse than simply putting public power in private hands. He also puts public assets in private hands as he did when he voted against the Hardrock Mining and Reclamation Act. This essentually gave away gold that sits on public land. The worst part of this is that Ron Paul is actually a share holder in the mining companies that are profitting from this looting of public assets. How he gets away with it is beyond me.
American libertarianism is very counter revolutionary. There rhetoric about personal freedom is icing on their shit cake of dominant market economy. If is not good for the market is not good period, and fuck the people the market is supposed to benefit. They took elements of anarchism and mixed them with liberal economic theories and came up with their type of "libertarianism". vulgar libertarians is more accurate of a name. Ayn Rand was also opposed to libertarianism btw.
I think you have a very poor understanding of what Libertarianism is. It does not "reward" anyone. It leave people to their own devices. Why is this so evil? It is not your place to say who deserves what, and not your place to steal from people you find unworthy of their wealth, and give to those that you think are worthy. Nobody has that right.
Dont forget that in the 30s US, the *Fascist* faction of the elite promoted Libertarian slogans and the "American *Liberty* League" (freedom to crush labor laws and minimal conditions, freedom to impose austerity, etc). General Smedley Butler's account of the attempted coup d'etat against FDR is quite interesting (and his book "War is a Racket" is very interesting)
I really don't know how anyone, regardless of political affiliation, who has even the slightest interest in world history, let alone a serious interest, could actually make the PROFOUND mistake of taking the Nazis at their word. This latent gobbling of a heaping helping of Goebbels' infamous bullshit stew by those who profess to be clued into some deeper, unspoken truth is truly the last great victory of the Nazis propaganda machine. All because they knew how to spell "Socialist".
@GoodManBadSerf I mean seriously, you'd have to be ignorant, willfully or otherwise, of the complex history of the rise of the Nazis Party. Ignorant of the Geo-political, indeed the economic context, juxtaposed against which Hitler's regime found favor. The grandest, in fact, "bait-and-switch" scheme ever devised. Ignorant of the thousands of socialists purged from within Germany. The hundreds of thousand of Communists executed alongside the Jews. cont.
@GoodManBadSerf Of course, most importantly, ignorant of the actual meanings of the terms at play here. And it shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone the two groups who've used this to their advantage throughout modern history: The Nazis themselves (we have all so conveniently forgotten Hitler's own theory of the "Big Lie"), and those who seek to extricate themselves from the inextricable: the Right from their fascist roots, with weak associative fallacies, shadow projection, and hackery.
@GoodManBadSerf And don't think I didn't see the irony in comments being marked as spam by those of you in the "Nazis were Socialists" crowd. Your latent tendencies betray you. To this day, if you could find a way to cart all of us pinko commies out to some camp to be gassed you'd do it in a heart beat.
I still do not see how you can equate Libertarianism and Fascism. The two are as different as dictatorship and anarchy. Libertarians oppose fascism and all other forms on state sponsered oppression and controll. You might have well have called Marx a capitalist.
@RationalismDefined You do know Marx actually coined the term 'capitalism'. It's like that other guy Mikhail Bakunin first coined "Statism" as a term. Or the French guy Joseph Déjacque first coined the term 'libertarian' the funny thing about all three of those guys they were defining their ideological POV which is very much left of Centre.And all three opposed "state sponsored oppression".If you want to know why we equate libertarianism(the USA definition) with fascism watch the video.
@franks2732 And this is how the rest of the community define "libertarianism" : an extreme laissez-faire political philosophy advocating only minimal state intervention in the lives of citizens.
That is from the Oxford Dictionary. They actually deem the subject worth a footnote and I think it is actually more telling than the definition. As Oxford Uni is the worlds most première university in the study of humanities I will provide it. I think it is noteworthy for the US audience.
@franks2732 Continued : Its adherents believe that private morality is not the state’s affair, and that therefore activities such as drug use and prostitution that arguably harm no one but the participants should not be illegal. Libertarianism shares elements with anarchism, although it is generally associated more with the political right (chiefly in the US); it lacks the concern of traditional liberalism with social justice. Funny don't you think
@franks2732 Well it certainly shows the authors distate for libertarianism lol. I have to wonder what exactly you find disagreeable with that definition. Apart from the part about social justice, that goes withough saying.
@franks2732 That depends. Even a minarchist government requires SOME employees. I doubt you are going to find enough volenteers to run a country. And even if you could i doubt that you or I would trust their motives.
@RationalismDefined I actually have nothing against the definition at all. I really love the bit "an extreme laissez-faire political philosophy" About sums it up. And I love how they separate the US 'definition' as not to offend the rest of us. You know the ones who for well way before (say 200 years until now) use the term to describe Anarchism and Democratic Socialism. Because not only is the modern political US ideology know as libertarianism fucking bat shit crazy they had to steal the name
@franks2732 Ya pretty much. Apart from a few holdout, such as my self, who still consider ourselves liberals most libertarians are just antiwar pot smoking republicans.
@RationalismDefined you do know that the term "minarchist" is not even considered a 'real word' except among libertarians. So which one are you the "even though tax is evil and stealing" because we support a government it is needed (i.e. sell outs of the ideology you follow) or the Randtards, let the poor fuckers starve varitiety? LMFAO who consider themselves not libertarians even though they agree with everything except other libertarians
@franks2732 Every group has its own terminology that may or maynot have meaning outside of that group. A "Believer in having as little government as possible" is a bit too wordy. I believe taxation is a nessesary function of a nation and is only "evil" (read damaging) when done unnessesarily or to excess. I agree about the Rand groupies. How can you call yourself an Objectivist and then deny a metaphysical source for objective reality. Not that i believe in such source but im no objectivist.
@RationalismDefined So how much tax is evil lol, when does the government "stealing" as your ideology defines it become excessive stealing by the government. Note i don't believe the government steals your money as society in democracy is the government.
@franks2732 I consider it stealing when taxes are raised so that they can be passed out to coporations to be given back to politition as campaign contrabutions.
@RationalismDefined And in reply to your last comment, the mega wealthy are not the "job creators" for example over 25% of America's wealth results in not one single job. Very little evidence points that low taxes on the mega wealthy increases employment. It is the direct reverse result if the last 30-40 years are looked at. High taxes on the wealthy and support programs for the poor and middle class enables them to have money which means they buy shit. If people don't buy shit economies fail
@RationalismDefined "Ya pretty much. Apart from a few holdout, such as my self, who still consider ourselves liberals most libertarians are just antiwar pot smoking republicans." Dude your not a libertarian. You may say you are but that comment says you are not. Note liberalism (note I am a socialist) does advocate the redistribution of wealth via income tax. It is like one of the big ticket items, can't be liberal without it
@franks2732 You mean "dude you’re not a liberal" right? I am a classical liberal. You are a social liberal. Both fall under the umbrella of liberalism which focuses on protecting the rights and freedoms. Conservatism, on the other hand, emphasizes the protection of the "fabric of society" by restriction rights for the greater good.
@RationalismDefined your not a classical liberal as classical liberalism does not exist, I am not a social liberal as I am a socialist. Conservatism by it's name defines that change is not necessarily a good thing. A "socialist" can be a conservative in social interaction between individuals but still advocate for strong government intervention economically. And most 'conservatives' believe/d in government intervention. It is only in the English speaking world the term has been butchered
@RationalismDefined And conservative does not mean a "restriction of rights" (those being social rights). It means "the maintenance of the social order". It most definitely is the result of the maintenance of the 'social order'. But at least unlike libertarianism (the American usage) it does not advocate for an exclusive social order based on wealth alone. You may not accept that but sorry buddy that is what everyone else believe your ideology stands for. And terms like "job creator" really
@RationalismDefined A classic example of the stupidity of the term "job creator" how many jobs has Newt Gingrish created-None, Sarah Palin-None, etc etc. Increasing personal wealth will not result in any shift in employment numbers at all. Not one job will result from them paying lower taxes. Where an argument (and I disagree it is valid in of itself) payrole tax deductions will free up the real "job creators" Small business to hire new staff and put money in the pockets of people who buy shit
@franks2732 Yes I am aware of those things. However I do not see how someone can view an ideology that expressly opposes coersion as intentionaly supporting coersion. Prehaps my confusion is your view of the "USA" version of libertarianism. If you are equating US libertarians with the teaparty... Then yes i do agree with you. Lately I find myself using the term classical liberal more and more as opposed to libertarian to describe my self because of that association.
@RationalismDefined Libertarians do not "oppose fascism" (even if we are to wrongfully understand the meaning of fascism to simply mean the government telling you what to do), because they are not opposed to the government deciding the functioning of society, nor the relationship between the classes and the market at all. They are simply opposed to governance that approaches these issues in a way they find disagreeable, i.e. with social welfare in mind. cont.
@GoodManBadSerf Fascism is a dovetailing of business and government, whereby moneymaking interests take the dominant role, and governance is used as the tool by which exclusionary doctrine is enforced with the will of moneyed interests in mind, all protected by a strict hierarchy, strong militarist bent, fueled by a rampant, Nationalist fervor. Conservative Libertarianism has merely divested itself of some of the least attractive of these traits. Fascism Light.
@GoodManBadSerf I do not how you can think that libertarianism would support the dovetailing, as you put it, of buisiness and state. In a libertarian nation no buisiness could use the government to enforce the will of moneyed interest because any such law would be deem unconstitutional. You should also know that most libertarians are not nationalists at all and almost all support reducing the military. If you like to continue I would prefer to do so on private message.
@RationalismDefined As I said, it has divested itself of the less attractive trappings of fascism, i.e. Nationalism, Militarism, and overt dictatorial rule. But the dovetailing must take place, if the interests of the "free market" is to be upheld. If it is to protect itself from the masses that demand social justice. Socialism demands Government be a tool by which democracy extends into the industrial sphere, Libertarianism demands it be used to reject it.
@RationalismDefined And I'd prefer we discuss this further, if at all, in a more public forum (here). I know the character limit is a pain, but I find it hard to get enthused over reenacting a private discussion I must have had a hundred times now. Though I must warn you, I may not respond for some time, as I don't often visit my Youtube page.
@GoodManBadSerf You seem to think that libertarianism has it origins in the fascist movement. If fact Libertarianism has its roots in Classical Liberalism. As you said, "socialism demands Government be a tool by which democracy extends into the industrial sphere." I agree with this and is infact a very succinct definition of socialism. However i take issue with your applying that to libertarianism. Libertarianism is the belief that one person should not have control over anothers person or ...
@GoodManBadSerf No sir you are mistaken. Facism is a form of government uses propaganda and hypernationalism to rebuild the nation often starting wars or blaming a religios, ethnic, or political minority.It often involves forming close ties between industry and the state in much the same way as socialism except that in fascism the goal is to further the power of the government not the welfare of the people. LIbertarians do in fact oppose the government attempting to shape the function of society
@RationalismDefined Propaganda is "non denominational". It's been used by every for of governance, of every persuasion, since man could communicate philosophical or political ideas. Fascism is not necessarily predicated on "rebuilding a nation". It does use racism, bigotry, and xenophobia to further it's aims. (As I said, "exclusionary doctrine"). But this actually has modern incarnations within Conservative Libertarian movements. cont.
@GoodManBadSerf You are correct that both seek to use governance as a tool, as I also stated. You are also correct in discerning that the difference lies in what they aim to use it for. But you are incorrect in your assumption that only one of the two, fascism, seeks to strengthen the power of the government. They both do, but for different reasons (and with two structures of a different character). One (fascism) to protect corporate, and otherwise private interests. cont.
@GoodManBadSerf The other (socialism), to either force private interests to take part in the betterment of society as a whole, or to abolish to the capitalist class altogether. This same principle holds true, though on a lighter scale with libertarianism, both modern libertarianism, and traditional, socialist libertarianism. Modern, Conservative incarnations seek to mold a government that is more useful to the cause of the "free market", the other to enforce social welfare. cont.
@GoodManBadSerf Though the rhetoric of modern, Conservative Libertarianism may espouse a "hands off" ideology, it is still calling for a government of it's choosing, with which to use as a tool to protect, and indeed enforce it's ideal society. To decide who can have access to what, and on what terms, and to use the apparatus of the state to enforce these ideas.
@GoodManBadSerf It should be noted that to this day, there are only two socio-economic philosophies which seek a truly state-less society: Traditional Anarchism, and Communism, though the sub-groups of the latter may differ on how to get there. Rest assured that if anyone professes a "less state, but some state" ideology, they are really professing a "my state" ideology. In and of itself, something I'm not opposed to, depending on the aims of course.
@GoodManBadSerf Let us continue using only this thread for simplicities sake. Im sure that both of us would define bother Anarchism and Communism as unachivable ideals. If you agree then libertarianism and socialism can be seen as the attempt to achieve a state as close to that ideal as possible with in the limitations of human nature. Both true communism (or communalism) and anarchy are fine ideals for a perfect world and both worthy goals. I simply do not think we can reach as close to...
@RationalismDefined ... that ideal free society for as large a portion of humanity with socialism as we can with libertarianism. At the risk of a "no true scottsman falicy", I think it is safe to say that all true libertarians are anarchists at heart who just dont trust everyone to get along with eachother.
@atchisrj1 So, because Hitler used th adjectives "socialist" and "workers" for his movement, that means the German Social Democratic Party, the Zionist Labor Party, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, and the British Labor Party were "really" all on the same side. Even though all fought the NSDAP (and each other.) Too bad you weren't around then to set them straight. :(
@TheAzov Politically they were all very similar. Gerbils even stated (paraphrasing) "Lenin was the great man and Hitler is the second." So what if they fought each other? That doesn't prove them to be different politically.
@atchisrj1 "Lenin was the great man and Hitler is the second." That's intentionally taken out of context from an article that appeared in the NY Times in 1925. You should read the entire article. It appears Goebbels (you terribly mangled the spelling of that name BTW) was attempting to attract support away from actual socialist parties to their own. If you knew history you'd know that purging actual socialists from the party of a first order of business once they had the power to do so.
@atchisrj1 Look up the definition of the word "misnomer". Would you argure there is anything actually democratic about the Democratic Republic of Congo since it has "democratic" as part of its official name?
@atchisrj1 Instead of snark apply it to your original claim about Hitler being a socialist - a claim that is clearly false if one actually knows history. Instead of reading whatever political hack writers you've been reading go read a serious study of that that era, such as Shirer's The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (it's a heavy book at nearly 1,000 pages). As for libertarianism only one as delusional as a religious fanatic would be unable to see what lies beneath the pretty words.
@xexixk Hitler and the Nazi party was Socialist. Lets take a journey so you can learn something.
The Nazi party supported public works programs, welfare, a regulated economy, national healthcare. In 1929 the Nazis promised to expropriate "take control of" the Capitalists. That is very socialistic by nature. If you look at the diaries of Hitler or even Goebbels you will find much praise to Lenin and Marx.
@atchisrj1 You need to go learn something instead of reading hack writers go read some real historians. Social programs? So? What's your point, you think only certain political system would provide social programs. Germany had those before HItler ever came along. Public works? Again you point? That was to rebuild industry and infrastructure.
@xexixk Because America has public roads and infrastructure they are socialist. They even have public funded healthcare, socialist, they have public funded libraries, socialist, public funded centers of science like NASA, fucking socialists. It's not like all that government funding at NASA did anything?It's not like they sent man to the moon or launched satellites that can track cars on road using navigation tolls so Mrs Smith at number 45 does not get lost traveling to mrs betties, socialists
@franks2732 Pres. Eisenhower also funded public works, such as the interstate highway system. I guess Eisenhower was a socialist. Thatcher didn't abolish the National Health Service. I guess Thatcher was a secret socialist too. Gee, Frank I learn new things every day! LOL
@atchisrj1 As for Goebbels and Lenin it's already been explained to you the only reference is a NY Times article from 1925, he said nothing about Lenin's politics but his abilities to mobilize people. Private property & industry was never abolished under NAZI rule, in fact the industrialists loved Hitler and were among his biggest supporters right from the beginning. In your world since a horse & a dog both have four legs then they must be the same animal.
@atchisrj1 Hitler was also responsible for banning the trade unions. He also outlawed abortion; he criminalized homosexuality. It was not the left that brought him to power; he came into power with the assistance of the center right. Who were his bitterest enemies in Germany? It was actually The Left. As for this misnomer about "socialism and nazism being the same thing, are you telling me that Israel is a nazi state? Israel was created by socialists.
@PsychoPunk1965 actually Israel was created by Zionists, the British Council of Zionists were instrumental in creating Israel, a lost of Socialists are Anti-Religious Zionists but are Pro-Labour Zionists who support a two state solution
@atchisrj1 I guess the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is a democracy then. It has the word democratic in it? LMFAO. It also has the word republic in it, so does America, so I guess that both North Korea and America are both republics and democratic? MMM these words that have more than one meaning are confusing are they not? Like 'socialist' and "libertarian" They have lots of "optional extras. Some people may even claim "libertarianism" as you describe it is Fascism. You funny
@atchisrj1 Well then I suppose your statement was quite retarded. You said socialism is nazi lite, and that is still baseless and also stupid.
If socialism was nazi lite then that would mean socialism some how accepted nazism. if nazism somehow accepts socialism, that means its the other way around. God, right wingers are fucking idiots.
@xexixk He had medals and thumped his chest. Read the Oxford Dictionary definition of libertarianism, I posted it for a giggle. Oxford Uni really knows how to politely say libertarianism = "bat shit crazy"
@xexixk How can you say the libertarian idea of "fail or fly" is similar to the fascist idea of "fail or fly"? I mean the libertarians don't advocate smashing your fucking head in to fly? LMFAO, they just advocate not helping you up when you fall! Rothbard advocated although it was OK to keep you down if you have the power to do so as fuck equality is the state interfering. Libertarianism is all about freedumb I tell you
@franks2732 Rothbard also thought parents should be able to sell the "rights" to their children, in other words sell their children if they didn't want them. He also stated that parents should have no legal obligation to house, clothe, educate or feed their child - even if that resulted in the child's death - as requiring such things of the parent would infringe on their "liberty". If that's his idea of liberty then I say no thanks.
@atchisrj1 So the Iraqi Republican Guard must be made of Republicans like Ron Paul. Must be true, its right there in the name!
Nazis used populist slogans to get into power and then formed a right wing fascist dictatorship. Go look up the poem "First they came" by Martin Niemöller. The Communist Party was the opposition party to the Nazis. Doh! Your profile says you are self educated, I got a feeling that means your understanding of the world comes from Glenn Beck. LOL
@erkd1 Wow! how did you come to that conclusion? You do know that I am talking about Political affiliation and not Countrys or armys right? The Nazis were socialist for sure. They followed Marxist ideals. I am surprised that anyone could use the analogy that you have.
@atchisrj1 Do you know what "Marxist ideals" even are? Explain how the Nazis "followed them." I await the wisdom of the Heritage Foundation and FOX&Friends. . . .
@atchisrj1 Just google "antifa", those are the anti-fascists. The Communist Party of Germany and the Social Democratic Party of Germany were literally fighting the Nazi Party. The Nazis jailed and/or killed liberals, leftists, Democratic Socialists, Labor leaders and Communists. There is nothing Marxist about Fascism which is the merger of state and corporate power. By the way, if you feel the Nazis were NOT Fascist, then you have the fringe viewpoint, not me. I suggest you turn off Fox News.
@erkd1 I find it funny that the only thing you thing you have in your arsenal is Fox News. That is laughable because I do not watch Fox or any other news channel. The Nazis also jailed conservatives, atheists, homosexuals, anyone that disagreed with them. I suggest you read Marx and the writings of the Nazi leadership.if you doubt me. Maybe then you will see the connection.
@atchisrj1 I doubt you've read either the writings of Marx or the Nazi leadership. I've read both and find no parallels - except in the minds of the Anerican brainwashed. Interesting that in your lineup of the repressed you left out liberals, social democrats, and atheists - folk you'd like to see behind barbed wire yourself?
@TheAzov I didn't leave out anything pal. If you were actually paying attention to the thread you would have seen that I added on to the list that erkd1 wrought. Also, I included atheists.
@atchisrj1 I don't have time to monitor every posting here. Don't assume what you say to one person has been received by another. But I'll do your job for you: Marx and Trotsky both wrote of "labor armies." Hitler instituted National Labor Service in 1933 to deal with unemployment. Proof of parallel agendas? Only...........
@atchisrj1 Hitler's labor army was leased out to private landowners and industrialists, to keep labor costs down and speed capital's recovery from the Depression. I find no parallel there either with the Soviet model, or with Roosevelt's public service CCC.
@atchisrj1 I told you that Nazis used populist slogans to get elected, to google the poem "First they came", that the opposition party to the Nazis were the Communists, to google "antifa" or the anti-fascists, thats the Nazis locked up liberals, leftists, labor leaders, communists and social democrats....and you just ignore it all. The only thing in YOUR arsenal is the word "Socialist" in the Nazi name and I addressed that. Great you don't watch Fox News, you are a moron all by yourself.
@atchisrj1 "The war we are fighting until victory or the bitter end is in its deepest sense a war between Christ and Marx.Christ: the principle of love.Marx: the principle of hate." -Joseph Geobbels And of course, you did know that all pertinent Marxist writings were banned within Nazi Germany, right? That included Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, et al.
@atchisrj1 No, they weren't a "Socialist Party". They were simply a fascist group with the word "socialist" in the title. The Nazis were masters of propaganda (that people still fall for), and this was an outcropping of that. Socialism is an egalitarian philosophy. You must academically concede to this whether or not you agree with the philosophy itself. The Nazis, on the other hand, were decidedly anti-egalitarian. Nazi "Socialism" was in the service of Aryans, and Aryans only.
@atchisrj1 You've either very poor reading comprehension, or you've taken willful dishonesty to new heights.
"The war we are fighting, until victory or the bitter end, is in its deepest sense a war between Christ and Marx. Christ: the principle of love. Marx: the principle of hate." -Joseph Goebbels
@atchisrj1 In case anyone needed complete affirmation that atchisrj1 is not concerned in the least with the actual fundamentals of the terms involved in this debate, and therefore free to argue whatever ignorance he finds most convenient. Must feel truly liberating.
Then there's the question of what is "the market" anyway. Basically it's the point of exchange between producer & consumer. But dominated by a class of middlemen who take their markup percentage, a parasitic transaction fee, it becomes an exploiter of both.
Does he set up the company by himself? What about the bank and other investors? The research techs who assisted and added to the Google or YT product who never got credit for their imput? If wages are merely set by "the market," then why does the employer insist on getting in the way between worker and market and petitioning Congress to keep wages as minimal as possible? So that it doesn't make much difference where the employee goes? As well as rig labor laws to break mutual action.
You're forgetting that you can't be facist or anything LIKE IT unless you take ONE group of society and raise them above another. Usually Racial, religious, or something simular. With that important factor missing with the true equality that the libertarians want it is impossible to be even close.
@pcgamernum1 But that's exactly what libertarians come from in practice: private property elites who fancy themselves detached and above the "common herd." They resist the state precisely because it "serves the herd." In Marxist terms, it's radical bourgeois individualism.
@TheAzov That's not true at all. The ONLY monopolies to EVER exist have belonged to the government. The fact is that you can't have a monopoly or a ruling corporation without the government. You should do some research into who capitalism works and why it works they way it does. You would be amazed.
@pcgamernum1 It's true that modern corporations are government creations, but monopoly is based on competition within a given space. If there is no competition, by reason of private property right, it is a monopoly. I have done much research into what capitalism is, and I know for a fac tit's all about capital flow going one way - up. Not down, not horizontally.
@TheAzov Then you haven't done any real research. Just search on here for people who can tell you how it works. i could send you links to such. No Monopoly, modern or historic, has ever existed without government assistance. Supply and demand, competition always exist in capitalism. Which is why the money flows ALL ways. But the smarter, more inventive always get more than their share, and they worked to deserve it.
@pcgamernum1 What work do they do? They hire others to do the work, and reap the rewards only because they own. Ownership, not labor, is the basis of capitalism. If money truly flowed "all" ways, then the minium wage for an "honest day's work" wouldn't be set (by them) so ridiculously low and the capitalist couldn't blame workers for organizing for self-advancement.
@TheAzov How about setting up and making a successful company. Deciding where and who to invest in. So the people rich off of making Google, Youtube, ect ect ect, didn't work their way into being rich?
Wage isn't set by the employer, it is set by the market. Think of it this way. If you do X job for X company. But Y company will hire you to do the same job for a bit more. You go to y company don't you? It's called supply and demand.
People who find their niche in society and some degree of success can't understand people like me and don't have much compassion--Luckily I live with my mom-the places that you have to live in at my income level are squalid,crime ridden,dilapidated,bleak--not very conducive to mentqal health or feelings of security or freedom. We need a good strong social net that grants the people who are lower income a healthy positive living standard- then all society will be healthier for it.
@catgumart So because you haven't found your 'niche' in society it's my fault? i should be paying for your failure to either preplan your life or to pick a career?
Explain this to me. I made more than DOUBLE what my mom and dad made in a year last year. (This year I only made probably about what my mom and dad made, got a more relaxed job). So tell me how you couldn't have done the same?
I notice different people have more and less social friction & different levels of compatibility- this is one factor I think in why some people fall inside the bell curve of normalcy- and have trouble seeing outside of it- As a home person (luckily for now) I live with my mother & I keep the house clean,feed cats,birds,water plants,laundry,vacuum,--it is a never ending daily cycle of work-in addition I exercise,study,and practice music,do yoga.jog etc..
People don't lose because they want to and people don't win just because they want to.. They call poorer lower class people "losers" & say it is their choice-I receive benefits for Depression,anxiety,ocd (I use these terms for convenience.because I don't think they are all what they are constructed as) I have social and emotional difficulties--Many people say I'm a loser, & I do envy people who are socially adept -- cont.
@catgumart I'm Bipolar, mental problems are just that, mental. Their are cases where they are CHEMICAL. (Which bipolar is, and my Girl has something more extream) but you can fight through that mentally until you can afford to fix it chemically and then you can go on even further. Besides, plenty of help programs out their to help people like you for FREE.
VampiressOnDaProwlq (21 hours ago) Spam Marked as spam "man dressed as a woman" ... ?
CristiCluj spammed 20 of my vids, my channel, dozens of my friends' channels and PM'd a dozen of my friends, all with the same repetitive deranged message/comment on this channel, over and over to tell them the same strange batshit on this channel ...
... i did already say this but i say another time for the slow-thinkers ...
... (CristiCluj has a) "disturbing obsession with me" ...
@whedonfreak976 If you consider telling a man dressed as a woman that he is not your type and to back off, disrespect, than with all due respect I accept your choice but I will never agree with that... and by the way, nice channel...
@thelegionary1000 boy dumb answer and i do have a nice channel, and hey, i am the truth teller, maybe you might wanna you know tell people how you really feel about homosexuality, cause you guys who have this obsession with putting down gays, usually turn out to be one ok?
@VampiressOnDaprowlg ....oh, there you are....ok I might have to be upfront with you... I do like romanian chicks and I really apreciate the ones that did not embrace the " all you can eat lifestyle". If I ever offended you with something, I apollogize, and pardon my french, I will never have a woody for a man dressed like a women ( you know exactly what I am talking about)...trully sorry, you're definetly not my type..all best to you
when you use terminology like "Ruling Elites", it means something completely different to them.
they know your usage is correct but also "mainstream".
all mainstream is orchestrated by the NWO Jew Socialist Marxist Intellectuals and Big Govt Public corporations disguised as businesses.
they see your way as Jew Communist propaganda by people who became rich and successful not from hard-work but from Welfare help (that success doesnt count because they're not Anglo Protestant and didnt inherit it)
anti-Govt NWO 911 tinfoil hatters & Tea Party Libertarians are components of Fascist structure.
they make a distinction between "Ruling Elite", "Intellectual Elite" and "Corporate Elite".
they dont see Top 2% inheritance Rich as Elites but allies.
to them, "Ruling Elite" are Left Democrats from poor families who got Jew's help to cheat in Govt ...and "Corporate Elites" are not Capitalist profiteers but Big Govt "Public Corporate" Elites (Govt Jew Socialists masquerading as Capitalist)
just droped by to see what are you up to now..It seems like you are behaving pretty good and that's why I rated up a couple of your vids, and I consider you a cool redneck. Now don't forget to get your medicine on time and the stress is definetly not good for your age....one step at a time, granpa and all best to you...see ya!
i was imitating a dumb Redneck who doesnt know what Austrian Libertarians are or even what Austrians are because he's only heard of Australians and Librarians when he last read a book at 8 yrs ... so he says "Australian Librarians and their Feces economicles" (instead of Fascist economics)
if i had to explain it, you're nearly as dumb as a Redneck so go sit with a Redneck, wittle some wood and play the banjo, eh?
@VampiressOnDaProwlq Rednecks have to be stupid now? Could you lay me out a sequence of events showing how libertarian policies would lead to fascism?
@1000g2g3g4g800999 The comment wasn't made to me, but I can demonstrate it. Libertarianism is the stalking horse of the super-wealthy elites (like the Koch Brothers) for dismantling any democratic residues in the state but retaining legal safeguards for property - in fact, enhancing restrictive laws on labor, and beefing up security-military "needs" at home and abroad. Regardless of what theoretical tangent you're about to offer, this is the PRACTICAL application of L-ism in US politics.
@TheAzov Beefing up security-military needs? Enhancing restrictive laws on labor? What? I think you've got right-libertarianism confused with something else (conservatives are NOT libertarian).
@1000g2g3g4g800999 I knew that's what I'd hear, but the tea party people in power at the state level describe themselves as Libertarians, as Ayn Randers. Of course the orthodox like you can morally exclude them as heretics, but they are the ones incarnating your ideology and putting it in practice. And please demonstrate how the Koch brothers have taken a stand against the state machinery of police, military, or legal system. As functioning businessmen they can't.
@TheAzov Well, if you heard it at all, it wasn't from me, seeing as these comments are in text. Anyway, by the logic you're using, if I were to call myself an anarcho-syndicalist, and a Samuel Mainwaringer, then I would actually be such, despite my clearly pro-capitalist views. You don't even know what my ideology is; libertarianism isn't a very specific concept. In its limited specification, it is for personal liberty. The Tea Party protested against the building of a "mosque" near ground zero.
I'm so sorry i couldn't detect sarcasm over the internet. lol Considering all the other brain dead things you said in the comment section, it wouldn't have surprised me you really thought it was "Australian librarian". You seem rather uneducated. Life must be hard for someone so ignorant.
why are you a Right Libertarian apologist if you're sincerely Libertar. Socialist?
i know lots of (semi-Libertar.) Democratic Socialists in my family, for yrs, through my university education/academic experience, my father who was briefly Libertarian Socialist per Ceausescu's madness 1980's Romania.
but none have the bitter profligate attitude you have against Democratic Socialists. my father was longtime Democratic Socialist & was again, after seeing what Reaganomics wrought.
da, dobre den - i like the Slavic introduction and your pronunciation was good except one or two vowel emphasis and the last word was slightly off. but very good for a tourist j/k lol i know you're on a higher degree than most tourists ; )
Bizarrely as a libertarian, I agree with you. This is mainly because conservatism and libertarianism have intermingled to produce some ugly results. Libertarianism was originally an anti-privilege movement (and so associated with the left), but has ended up defending authoritarian policies and ideas.
best video yet my man, and hey, i am gonna do a response video on this in a couple of days, and hayek, the liberutrd hero, he loved pinochette, and thought american should use the chilie model, it is history, and of course the liberturds do not even mention that...wonder why
Libertarian, subsidy. How can you use those two words in the same sentence? Libertarians are the most vocal critics of state subsidies. Oh wait, Tea Party "libertarians," I think you should know that those people aren't libertarian in the slightest.
@Scientisticsoviet The no true scotsman fallacy does not apply here. The Tea Party are quite clearly fascistic, no matter what banner they carry. If an anarchist was pro-war, would it be a no true scotsman fallacy for other anarchists to distance themselves from them?
@Adlasyn I was partly kidding; Although you have confused me a little. Isn't it possible for an anarchist to be pro-war? I mean, as long as the war isn't waged by states that is? In saying, this though, let me be explicit in the definition I am using of anarchist: One who advocates the abolition of government/state, or perhaps institutions that are defacto similar.
(This is purely an descriptive question; Do not assume there is anything implicitly normative in my asking this question please).
In modern neoliberal fascism, the corporations are pseudo nation states. When ACTA passes in June, these multinational entities will have the power of takings which will put them on par with traditional sovereigns. And like other members in the NATO expeditionary force, these corporate states will become increasingly public proxy clients of the US military--paying in political donation for the necessary force on hand to maintain domestic pacification and foreign resource and market domination.
0gods 3 weeks ago
Ron Paul will bring abaut a tyranny by the majority to think anything different is to be extremly nieve. Thank you for articulating these views they are a must read (or in this case must see) for anyone seriously thinking of voting for Ron Paul who I see as a swindler that made his legislative name on the ill-informed and disenfranchised.
idicula1979 3 weeks ago
Very good.
HoGraz 3 weeks ago
how can we get youtube to feature these videos?
RadicalSyndicate 3 weeks ago
@RadicalSyndicate That depends on the amount of hits.
TheAzov 3 weeks ago
@TheAzov it might seem like a dishonest tactic, but i have seen other users gain lots of views by posting their videos as responses to more popular videos
RadicalSyndicate 3 weeks ago
There is an American fascism that can't be directly compared to European fascism or Ayn Rand;s objectivism. First, real libertarians are anti-state socialists. Ron Paul is a quasi-anarcho-capitalist, more in-line with Pat Buchanan, the old Reform Party, and the KKK going back to the 1870s, characterized by isolationism, christianity, capitalism, and white male supremacy--traditional American fascism. The KKK didn't just kill blacks but also union organizers and socialists. Remember Nov, 1979.
TheForwardGaze 3 weeks ago
@TheForwardGaze US libertarianism is to a large extent a recycle of localist/confederate ideology. While there are positive aspects to this, as a movement it was always dominated by local elites protecting themselves with anti-state rhetoric.
TheAzov 3 weeks ago
@TheAzov This is why I dont support Ron Paul. He portrays himself as someone who is against the state. But digging deeper I have found that there is another side to Ron Paul. What he says about the fed, following the constitution, the war, the patriot act, foreign policy has merit. But I think this is "Libertarian cover." After going over his economic plan he calls for savage austerity measures for programs that many people depend on to survive.
waterhead001 3 weeks ago
@waterhead001 He puts public power in private hands in the name of freedom, turning that public over to unaccountable "lords" and "barons." IOW, a return to feudalism.
TheAzov 3 weeks ago
@TheAzov That's why he wants young people to have the option of opting out of social security. This will effect social security's ability to sustain itself because less people will be paying into it, which will lead to privatisation which would give the unaccountable lords the money in scocial security? Also Ron Paul calls for the selling off of federal lands and assets. Giving mineral rights, buildings and public lands to the inaccountable lords?
waterhead001 3 weeks ago
@TheAzov In my opinion Ron Paul does far worse than simply putting public power in private hands. He also puts public assets in private hands as he did when he voted against the Hardrock Mining and Reclamation Act. This essentually gave away gold that sits on public land. The worst part of this is that Ron Paul is actually a share holder in the mining companies that are profitting from this looting of public assets. How he gets away with it is beyond me.
TheCommonMan101 3 weeks ago
American libertarianism is very counter revolutionary. There rhetoric about personal freedom is icing on their shit cake of dominant market economy. If is not good for the market is not good period, and fuck the people the market is supposed to benefit. They took elements of anarchism and mixed them with liberal economic theories and came up with their type of "libertarianism". vulgar libertarians is more accurate of a name. Ayn Rand was also opposed to libertarianism btw.
N0g0dzN0masterz 3 weeks ago
Fascist light my ass! Fascism is fascism! No buts about it!
jesuswasntafascist 3 weeks ago
Excellent, revealing and informative. Thank you.
EuphoricImpact 3 weeks ago
I think you have a very poor understanding of what Libertarianism is. It does not "reward" anyone. It leave people to their own devices. Why is this so evil? It is not your place to say who deserves what, and not your place to steal from people you find unworthy of their wealth, and give to those that you think are worthy. Nobody has that right.
TheMindIsPoison 1 month ago
Excellent video
Dont forget that in the 30s US, the *Fascist* faction of the elite promoted Libertarian slogans and the "American *Liberty* League" (freedom to crush labor laws and minimal conditions, freedom to impose austerity, etc). General Smedley Butler's account of the attempted coup d'etat against FDR is quite interesting (and his book "War is a Racket" is very interesting)
cheers
Rickdeckard2020 1 month ago
I really don't know how anyone, regardless of political affiliation, who has even the slightest interest in world history, let alone a serious interest, could actually make the PROFOUND mistake of taking the Nazis at their word. This latent gobbling of a heaping helping of Goebbels' infamous bullshit stew by those who profess to be clued into some deeper, unspoken truth is truly the last great victory of the Nazis propaganda machine. All because they knew how to spell "Socialist".
GoodManBadSerf 2 months ago
@GoodManBadSerf I mean seriously, you'd have to be ignorant, willfully or otherwise, of the complex history of the rise of the Nazis Party. Ignorant of the Geo-political, indeed the economic context, juxtaposed against which Hitler's regime found favor. The grandest, in fact, "bait-and-switch" scheme ever devised. Ignorant of the thousands of socialists purged from within Germany. The hundreds of thousand of Communists executed alongside the Jews. cont.
GoodManBadSerf 2 months ago
@GoodManBadSerf Of course, most importantly, ignorant of the actual meanings of the terms at play here. And it shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone the two groups who've used this to their advantage throughout modern history: The Nazis themselves (we have all so conveniently forgotten Hitler's own theory of the "Big Lie"), and those who seek to extricate themselves from the inextricable: the Right from their fascist roots, with weak associative fallacies, shadow projection, and hackery.
GoodManBadSerf 2 months ago
@GoodManBadSerf And don't think I didn't see the irony in comments being marked as spam by those of you in the "Nazis were Socialists" crowd. Your latent tendencies betray you. To this day, if you could find a way to cart all of us pinko commies out to some camp to be gassed you'd do it in a heart beat.
GoodManBadSerf 2 months ago
I still do not see how you can equate Libertarianism and Fascism. The two are as different as dictatorship and anarchy. Libertarians oppose fascism and all other forms on state sponsered oppression and controll. You might have well have called Marx a capitalist.
RationalismDefined 2 months ago
@RationalismDefined You do know Marx actually coined the term 'capitalism'. It's like that other guy Mikhail Bakunin first coined "Statism" as a term. Or the French guy Joseph Déjacque first coined the term 'libertarian' the funny thing about all three of those guys they were defining their ideological POV which is very much left of Centre.And all three opposed "state sponsored oppression".If you want to know why we equate libertarianism(the USA definition) with fascism watch the video.
franks2732 2 months ago
@franks2732 And this is how the rest of the community define "libertarianism" : an extreme laissez-faire political philosophy advocating only minimal state intervention in the lives of citizens.
That is from the Oxford Dictionary. They actually deem the subject worth a footnote and I think it is actually more telling than the definition. As Oxford Uni is the worlds most première university in the study of humanities I will provide it. I think it is noteworthy for the US audience.
franks2732 2 months ago
@franks2732 Continued : Its adherents believe that private morality is not the state’s affair, and that therefore activities such as drug use and prostitution that arguably harm no one but the participants should not be illegal. Libertarianism shares elements with anarchism, although it is generally associated more with the political right (chiefly in the US); it lacks the concern of traditional liberalism with social justice. Funny don't you think
franks2732 2 months ago
@franks2732 Well it certainly shows the authors distate for libertarianism lol. I have to wonder what exactly you find disagreeable with that definition. Apart from the part about social justice, that goes withough saying.
RationalismDefined 2 months ago
@RationalismDefined Dude you are a public servant, you do realize a libertarian government would sack you
franks2732 2 months ago
@franks2732 That depends. Even a minarchist government requires SOME employees. I doubt you are going to find enough volenteers to run a country. And even if you could i doubt that you or I would trust their motives.
RationalismDefined 2 months ago
@RationalismDefined "minarchist government" the way you define yourselves it's fucking funny.
franks2732 2 months ago
@franks2732 how so?
RationalismDefined 2 months ago
@RationalismDefined to what directly are you asking about?
franks2732 2 months ago
@franks2732 Oh, i think i got ut now from your other post.
RationalismDefined 2 months ago
@RationalismDefined I actually have nothing against the definition at all. I really love the bit "an extreme laissez-faire political philosophy" About sums it up. And I love how they separate the US 'definition' as not to offend the rest of us. You know the ones who for well way before (say 200 years until now) use the term to describe Anarchism and Democratic Socialism. Because not only is the modern political US ideology know as libertarianism fucking bat shit crazy they had to steal the name
franks2732 2 months ago
@franks2732 Ya pretty much. Apart from a few holdout, such as my self, who still consider ourselves liberals most libertarians are just antiwar pot smoking republicans.
RationalismDefined 2 months ago
@RationalismDefined you do know that the term "minarchist" is not even considered a 'real word' except among libertarians. So which one are you the "even though tax is evil and stealing" because we support a government it is needed (i.e. sell outs of the ideology you follow) or the Randtards, let the poor fuckers starve varitiety? LMFAO who consider themselves not libertarians even though they agree with everything except other libertarians
franks2732 2 months ago
@franks2732 Every group has its own terminology that may or maynot have meaning outside of that group. A "Believer in having as little government as possible" is a bit too wordy. I believe taxation is a nessesary function of a nation and is only "evil" (read damaging) when done unnessesarily or to excess. I agree about the Rand groupies. How can you call yourself an Objectivist and then deny a metaphysical source for objective reality. Not that i believe in such source but im no objectivist.
RationalismDefined 2 months ago
@RationalismDefined So how much tax is evil lol, when does the government "stealing" as your ideology defines it become excessive stealing by the government. Note i don't believe the government steals your money as society in democracy is the government.
franks2732 2 months ago
@franks2732 I consider it stealing when taxes are raised so that they can be passed out to coporations to be given back to politition as campaign contrabutions.
RationalismDefined 2 months ago
@RationalismDefined And in reply to your last comment, the mega wealthy are not the "job creators" for example over 25% of America's wealth results in not one single job. Very little evidence points that low taxes on the mega wealthy increases employment. It is the direct reverse result if the last 30-40 years are looked at. High taxes on the wealthy and support programs for the poor and middle class enables them to have money which means they buy shit. If people don't buy shit economies fail
franks2732 2 months ago
@RationalismDefined What's your view on social spending?
xexixk 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RationalismDefined "Ya pretty much. Apart from a few holdout, such as my self, who still consider ourselves liberals most libertarians are just antiwar pot smoking republicans." Dude your not a libertarian. You may say you are but that comment says you are not. Note liberalism (note I am a socialist) does advocate the redistribution of wealth via income tax. It is like one of the big ticket items, can't be liberal without it
franks2732 2 months ago
@franks2732 You mean "dude you’re not a liberal" right? I am a classical liberal. You are a social liberal. Both fall under the umbrella of liberalism which focuses on protecting the rights and freedoms. Conservatism, on the other hand, emphasizes the protection of the "fabric of society" by restriction rights for the greater good.
RationalismDefined 2 months ago
@RationalismDefined your not a classical liberal as classical liberalism does not exist, I am not a social liberal as I am a socialist. Conservatism by it's name defines that change is not necessarily a good thing. A "socialist" can be a conservative in social interaction between individuals but still advocate for strong government intervention economically. And most 'conservatives' believe/d in government intervention. It is only in the English speaking world the term has been butchered
franks2732 2 months ago
@RationalismDefined And conservative does not mean a "restriction of rights" (those being social rights). It means "the maintenance of the social order". It most definitely is the result of the maintenance of the 'social order'. But at least unlike libertarianism (the American usage) it does not advocate for an exclusive social order based on wealth alone. You may not accept that but sorry buddy that is what everyone else believe your ideology stands for. And terms like "job creator" really
franks2732 2 months ago
@RationalismDefined A classic example of the stupidity of the term "job creator" how many jobs has Newt Gingrish created-None, Sarah Palin-None, etc etc. Increasing personal wealth will not result in any shift in employment numbers at all. Not one job will result from them paying lower taxes. Where an argument (and I disagree it is valid in of itself) payrole tax deductions will free up the real "job creators" Small business to hire new staff and put money in the pockets of people who buy shit
franks2732 2 months ago
@franks2732 Yes I am aware of those things. However I do not see how someone can view an ideology that expressly opposes coersion as intentionaly supporting coersion. Prehaps my confusion is your view of the "USA" version of libertarianism. If you are equating US libertarians with the teaparty... Then yes i do agree with you. Lately I find myself using the term classical liberal more and more as opposed to libertarian to describe my self because of that association.
RationalismDefined 2 months ago
@RationalismDefined Libertarians do not "oppose fascism" (even if we are to wrongfully understand the meaning of fascism to simply mean the government telling you what to do), because they are not opposed to the government deciding the functioning of society, nor the relationship between the classes and the market at all. They are simply opposed to governance that approaches these issues in a way they find disagreeable, i.e. with social welfare in mind. cont.
GoodManBadSerf 2 months ago
@GoodManBadSerf Fascism is a dovetailing of business and government, whereby moneymaking interests take the dominant role, and governance is used as the tool by which exclusionary doctrine is enforced with the will of moneyed interests in mind, all protected by a strict hierarchy, strong militarist bent, fueled by a rampant, Nationalist fervor. Conservative Libertarianism has merely divested itself of some of the least attractive of these traits. Fascism Light.
GoodManBadSerf 2 months ago
@GoodManBadSerf I do not how you can think that libertarianism would support the dovetailing, as you put it, of buisiness and state. In a libertarian nation no buisiness could use the government to enforce the will of moneyed interest because any such law would be deem unconstitutional. You should also know that most libertarians are not nationalists at all and almost all support reducing the military. If you like to continue I would prefer to do so on private message.
RationalismDefined 2 months ago
@RationalismDefined As I said, it has divested itself of the less attractive trappings of fascism, i.e. Nationalism, Militarism, and overt dictatorial rule. But the dovetailing must take place, if the interests of the "free market" is to be upheld. If it is to protect itself from the masses that demand social justice. Socialism demands Government be a tool by which democracy extends into the industrial sphere, Libertarianism demands it be used to reject it.
GoodManBadSerf 2 months ago
@RationalismDefined And I'd prefer we discuss this further, if at all, in a more public forum (here). I know the character limit is a pain, but I find it hard to get enthused over reenacting a private discussion I must have had a hundred times now. Though I must warn you, I may not respond for some time, as I don't often visit my Youtube page.
GoodManBadSerf 2 months ago
@GoodManBadSerf You seem to think that libertarianism has it origins in the fascist movement. If fact Libertarianism has its roots in Classical Liberalism. As you said, "socialism demands Government be a tool by which democracy extends into the industrial sphere." I agree with this and is infact a very succinct definition of socialism. However i take issue with your applying that to libertarianism. Libertarianism is the belief that one person should not have control over anothers person or ...
RationalismDefined 2 months ago
@RationalismDefined property.
RationalismDefined 2 months ago
@GoodManBadSerf No sir you are mistaken. Facism is a form of government uses propaganda and hypernationalism to rebuild the nation often starting wars or blaming a religios, ethnic, or political minority.It often involves forming close ties between industry and the state in much the same way as socialism except that in fascism the goal is to further the power of the government not the welfare of the people. LIbertarians do in fact oppose the government attempting to shape the function of society
RationalismDefined 2 months ago
@RationalismDefined Propaganda is "non denominational". It's been used by every for of governance, of every persuasion, since man could communicate philosophical or political ideas. Fascism is not necessarily predicated on "rebuilding a nation". It does use racism, bigotry, and xenophobia to further it's aims. (As I said, "exclusionary doctrine"). But this actually has modern incarnations within Conservative Libertarian movements. cont.
GoodManBadSerf 2 months ago
@GoodManBadSerf You are correct that both seek to use governance as a tool, as I also stated. You are also correct in discerning that the difference lies in what they aim to use it for. But you are incorrect in your assumption that only one of the two, fascism, seeks to strengthen the power of the government. They both do, but for different reasons (and with two structures of a different character). One (fascism) to protect corporate, and otherwise private interests. cont.
GoodManBadSerf 2 months ago
@GoodManBadSerf The other (socialism), to either force private interests to take part in the betterment of society as a whole, or to abolish to the capitalist class altogether. This same principle holds true, though on a lighter scale with libertarianism, both modern libertarianism, and traditional, socialist libertarianism. Modern, Conservative incarnations seek to mold a government that is more useful to the cause of the "free market", the other to enforce social welfare. cont.
GoodManBadSerf 2 months ago
@GoodManBadSerf Though the rhetoric of modern, Conservative Libertarianism may espouse a "hands off" ideology, it is still calling for a government of it's choosing, with which to use as a tool to protect, and indeed enforce it's ideal society. To decide who can have access to what, and on what terms, and to use the apparatus of the state to enforce these ideas.
GoodManBadSerf 2 months ago
@GoodManBadSerf It should be noted that to this day, there are only two socio-economic philosophies which seek a truly state-less society: Traditional Anarchism, and Communism, though the sub-groups of the latter may differ on how to get there. Rest assured that if anyone professes a "less state, but some state" ideology, they are really professing a "my state" ideology. In and of itself, something I'm not opposed to, depending on the aims of course.
GoodManBadSerf 2 months ago
@GoodManBadSerf Let us continue using only this thread for simplicities sake. Im sure that both of us would define bother Anarchism and Communism as unachivable ideals. If you agree then libertarianism and socialism can be seen as the attempt to achieve a state as close to that ideal as possible with in the limitations of human nature. Both true communism (or communalism) and anarchy are fine ideals for a perfect world and both worthy goals. I simply do not think we can reach as close to...
RationalismDefined 2 months ago
@RationalismDefined ... that ideal free society for as large a portion of humanity with socialism as we can with libertarianism. At the risk of a "no true scottsman falicy", I think it is safe to say that all true libertarians are anarchists at heart who just dont trust everyone to get along with eachother.
RationalismDefined 2 months ago
@TheAzov Well the Nazis were the National Socialist German Workers' Party. That being a Socialist party. That is the fact I allude to.
atchisrj1 2 months ago 6
@atchisrj1 So, because Hitler used th adjectives "socialist" and "workers" for his movement, that means the German Social Democratic Party, the Zionist Labor Party, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, and the British Labor Party were "really" all on the same side. Even though all fought the NSDAP (and each other.) Too bad you weren't around then to set them straight. :(
TheAzov 2 months ago
@TheAzov Politically they were all very similar. Gerbils even stated (paraphrasing) "Lenin was the great man and Hitler is the second." So what if they fought each other? That doesn't prove them to be different politically.
atchisrj1 2 months ago
Comment removed
xexixk 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@atchisrj1 "Lenin was the great man and Hitler is the second." That's intentionally taken out of context from an article that appeared in the NY Times in 1925. You should read the entire article. It appears Goebbels (you terribly mangled the spelling of that name BTW) was attempting to attract support away from actual socialist parties to their own. If you knew history you'd know that purging actual socialists from the party of a first order of business once they had the power to do so.
xexixk 2 months ago
@atchisrj1 Look up the definition of the word "misnomer". Would you argure there is anything actually democratic about the Democratic Republic of Congo since it has "democratic" as part of its official name?
xexixk 2 months ago
@xexixk I agree 100%. Calling Libertarianism Fascism light is a misnomer. Thank you.
atchisrj1 2 months ago
@atchisrj1 Instead of snark apply it to your original claim about Hitler being a socialist - a claim that is clearly false if one actually knows history. Instead of reading whatever political hack writers you've been reading go read a serious study of that that era, such as Shirer's The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (it's a heavy book at nearly 1,000 pages). As for libertarianism only one as delusional as a religious fanatic would be unable to see what lies beneath the pretty words.
xexixk 2 months ago
@xexixk Hitler and the Nazi party was Socialist. Lets take a journey so you can learn something.
The Nazi party supported public works programs, welfare, a regulated economy, national healthcare. In 1929 the Nazis promised to expropriate "take control of" the Capitalists. That is very socialistic by nature. If you look at the diaries of Hitler or even Goebbels you will find much praise to Lenin and Marx.
I hope that you have learned something here.
atchisrj1 2 months ago
@atchisrj1 You need to go learn something instead of reading hack writers go read some real historians. Social programs? So? What's your point, you think only certain political system would provide social programs. Germany had those before HItler ever came along. Public works? Again you point? That was to rebuild industry and infrastructure.
xexixk 2 months ago
@xexixk Because America has public roads and infrastructure they are socialist. They even have public funded healthcare, socialist, they have public funded libraries, socialist, public funded centers of science like NASA, fucking socialists. It's not like all that government funding at NASA did anything?It's not like they sent man to the moon or launched satellites that can track cars on road using navigation tolls so Mrs Smith at number 45 does not get lost traveling to mrs betties, socialists
franks2732 2 months ago
@franks2732 Pres. Eisenhower also funded public works, such as the interstate highway system. I guess Eisenhower was a socialist. Thatcher didn't abolish the National Health Service. I guess Thatcher was a secret socialist too. Gee, Frank I learn new things every day! LOL
xexixk 2 months ago
@atchisrj1 As for Goebbels and Lenin it's already been explained to you the only reference is a NY Times article from 1925, he said nothing about Lenin's politics but his abilities to mobilize people. Private property & industry was never abolished under NAZI rule, in fact the industrialists loved Hitler and were among his biggest supporters right from the beginning. In your world since a horse & a dog both have four legs then they must be the same animal.
xexixk 2 months ago
@atchisrj1 You mean what the USA does? By golly, Americas a socialist nation lmfao
franks2732 2 months ago
@atchisrj1 Hitler was also responsible for banning the trade unions. He also outlawed abortion; he criminalized homosexuality. It was not the left that brought him to power; he came into power with the assistance of the center right. Who were his bitterest enemies in Germany? It was actually The Left. As for this misnomer about "socialism and nazism being the same thing, are you telling me that Israel is a nazi state? Israel was created by socialists.
PsychoPunk1965 2 months ago
Comment removed
irishgodfatherchris 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@PsychoPunk1965 actually Israel was created by Zionists, the British Council of Zionists were instrumental in creating Israel, a lost of Socialists are Anti-Religious Zionists but are Pro-Labour Zionists who support a two state solution
irishgodfatherchris 2 months ago
@atchisrj1 I guess the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is a democracy then. It has the word democratic in it? LMFAO. It also has the word republic in it, so does America, so I guess that both North Korea and America are both republics and democratic? MMM these words that have more than one meaning are confusing are they not? Like 'socialist' and "libertarian" They have lots of "optional extras. Some people may even claim "libertarianism" as you describe it is Fascism. You funny
franks2732 2 months ago
@atchisrj1 Well then I suppose your statement was quite retarded. You said socialism is nazi lite, and that is still baseless and also stupid.
If socialism was nazi lite then that would mean socialism some how accepted nazism. if nazism somehow accepts socialism, that means its the other way around. God, right wingers are fucking idiots.
gulbirk 2 months ago
@gulbirk Next he will be claiming that Pinochet and his murderous regime were socialists as well.
xexixk 2 months ago
@xexixk He had medals and thumped his chest. Read the Oxford Dictionary definition of libertarianism, I posted it for a giggle. Oxford Uni really knows how to politely say libertarianism = "bat shit crazy"
franks2732 2 months ago
@franks2732 That's a good one!
xexixk 2 months ago
@xexixk oh and lets not forget the Regime of Colonels in Greece and the Fascist Dictatorship in Portugal
irishgodfatherchris 2 months ago
@irishgodfatherchris LOL, yes we can't forget them either.
xexixk 2 months ago
@xexixk How can you say the libertarian idea of "fail or fly" is similar to the fascist idea of "fail or fly"? I mean the libertarians don't advocate smashing your fucking head in to fly? LMFAO, they just advocate not helping you up when you fall! Rothbard advocated although it was OK to keep you down if you have the power to do so as fuck equality is the state interfering. Libertarianism is all about freedumb I tell you
franks2732 2 months ago
@franks2732 Rothbard also thought parents should be able to sell the "rights" to their children, in other words sell their children if they didn't want them. He also stated that parents should have no legal obligation to house, clothe, educate or feed their child - even if that resulted in the child's death - as requiring such things of the parent would infringe on their "liberty". If that's his idea of liberty then I say no thanks.
xexixk 2 months ago
@xexixk thats libertarian freedumb for you (interdependent on which libertarian you talk too lol)
franks2732 2 months ago
@xexixk and probably Franco too
irishgodfatherchris 2 months ago
@irishgodfatherchris LMFAO
franks2732 2 months ago
@atchisrj1 So the Iraqi Republican Guard must be made of Republicans like Ron Paul. Must be true, its right there in the name!
Nazis used populist slogans to get into power and then formed a right wing fascist dictatorship. Go look up the poem "First they came" by Martin Niemöller. The Communist Party was the opposition party to the Nazis. Doh! Your profile says you are self educated, I got a feeling that means your understanding of the world comes from Glenn Beck. LOL
erkd1 2 months ago 2
@erkd1 And the Heritage Foundation website lmfao
franks2732 2 months ago
@erkd1 Wow! how did you come to that conclusion? You do know that I am talking about Political affiliation and not Countrys or armys right? The Nazis were socialist for sure. They followed Marxist ideals. I am surprised that anyone could use the analogy that you have.
atchisrj1 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@atchisrj1 Do you know what "Marxist ideals" even are? Explain how the Nazis "followed them." I await the wisdom of the Heritage Foundation and FOX&Friends. . . .
TheAzov 2 months ago
@atchisrj1 Just google "antifa", those are the anti-fascists. The Communist Party of Germany and the Social Democratic Party of Germany were literally fighting the Nazi Party. The Nazis jailed and/or killed liberals, leftists, Democratic Socialists, Labor leaders and Communists. There is nothing Marxist about Fascism which is the merger of state and corporate power. By the way, if you feel the Nazis were NOT Fascist, then you have the fringe viewpoint, not me. I suggest you turn off Fox News.
erkd1 2 months ago
@erkd1 I find it funny that the only thing you thing you have in your arsenal is Fox News. That is laughable because I do not watch Fox or any other news channel. The Nazis also jailed conservatives, atheists, homosexuals, anyone that disagreed with them. I suggest you read Marx and the writings of the Nazi leadership.if you doubt me. Maybe then you will see the connection.
atchisrj1 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@atchisrj1 I doubt you've read either the writings of Marx or the Nazi leadership. I've read both and find no parallels - except in the minds of the Anerican brainwashed. Interesting that in your lineup of the repressed you left out liberals, social democrats, and atheists - folk you'd like to see behind barbed wire yourself?
TheAzov 2 months ago
@TheAzov I didn't leave out anything pal. If you were actually paying attention to the thread you would have seen that I added on to the list that erkd1 wrought. Also, I included atheists.
atchisrj1 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@atchisrj1 I don't have time to monitor every posting here. Don't assume what you say to one person has been received by another. But I'll do your job for you: Marx and Trotsky both wrote of "labor armies." Hitler instituted National Labor Service in 1933 to deal with unemployment. Proof of parallel agendas? Only...........
TheAzov 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@atchisrj1 Hitler's labor army was leased out to private landowners and industrialists, to keep labor costs down and speed capital's recovery from the Depression. I find no parallel there either with the Soviet model, or with Roosevelt's public service CCC.
TheAzov 2 months ago
@atchisrj1 Marking these comments as spam is utterly pathetic. To whom it may concern.
GoodManBadSerf 2 months ago
@atchisrj1 I told you that Nazis used populist slogans to get elected, to google the poem "First they came", that the opposition party to the Nazis were the Communists, to google "antifa" or the anti-fascists, thats the Nazis locked up liberals, leftists, labor leaders, communists and social democrats....and you just ignore it all. The only thing in YOUR arsenal is the word "Socialist" in the Nazi name and I addressed that. Great you don't watch Fox News, you are a moron all by yourself.
erkd1 2 months ago
@atchisrj1 "The war we are fighting until victory or the bitter end is in its deepest sense a war between Christ and Marx.Christ: the principle of love.Marx: the principle of hate." -Joseph Geobbels And of course, you did know that all pertinent Marxist writings were banned within Nazi Germany, right? That included Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, et al.
GoodManBadSerf 2 months ago
@atchisrj1 No, they weren't a "Socialist Party". They were simply a fascist group with the word "socialist" in the title. The Nazis were masters of propaganda (that people still fall for), and this was an outcropping of that. Socialism is an egalitarian philosophy. You must academically concede to this whether or not you agree with the philosophy itself. The Nazis, on the other hand, were decidedly anti-egalitarian. Nazi "Socialism" was in the service of Aryans, and Aryans only.
GoodManBadSerf 2 months ago
@GoodManBadSerf I'm glad to see that you have admitted to the truth. Nazis were Socialist. Thank you for manning up.
atchisrj1 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@atchisrj1 You still haven't manned up to my question: if socialists = Nazi, then the Zionist Labor Party = the NSDAP. Jawohl, bubi?
TheAzov 2 months ago
@atchisrj1 You've either very poor reading comprehension, or you've taken willful dishonesty to new heights.
"The war we are fighting, until victory or the bitter end, is in its deepest sense a war between Christ and Marx. Christ: the principle of love. Marx: the principle of hate." -Joseph Goebbels
GoodManBadSerf 2 months ago
Socialism is Nazi lite. That is a fact.
atchisrj1 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@atchisrj1 Mere statement is not evidence.
TheAzov 2 months ago
@atchisrj1 Yep, those social-democratic countries all over Europe that are doing so well are completely "fascist".
marcelthemaoist 2 months ago
@marcelthemaoist When the fuck did I say Fascist?
atchisrj1 2 months ago
@atchisrj1 Nazism is a branch of fascism. You really don't know your politics 101, do you?
marcelthemaoist 2 months ago
@marcelthemaoist Nazism and Fascism both came from Socialism, is what I'm sure you meant.
atchisrj1 2 months ago
@atchisrj1 In case anyone needed complete affirmation that atchisrj1 is not concerned in the least with the actual fundamentals of the terms involved in this debate, and therefore free to argue whatever ignorance he finds most convenient. Must feel truly liberating.
GoodManBadSerf 2 months ago
Then there's the question of what is "the market" anyway. Basically it's the point of exchange between producer & consumer. But dominated by a class of middlemen who take their markup percentage, a parasitic transaction fee, it becomes an exploiter of both.
TheAzov 2 months ago
Does he set up the company by himself? What about the bank and other investors? The research techs who assisted and added to the Google or YT product who never got credit for their imput? If wages are merely set by "the market," then why does the employer insist on getting in the way between worker and market and petitioning Congress to keep wages as minimal as possible? So that it doesn't make much difference where the employee goes? As well as rig labor laws to break mutual action.
TheAzov 2 months ago
@TheAzov Great comment mate.
Tuathalful 2 months ago
You're forgetting that you can't be facist or anything LIKE IT unless you take ONE group of society and raise them above another. Usually Racial, religious, or something simular. With that important factor missing with the true equality that the libertarians want it is impossible to be even close.
pcgamernum1 2 months ago
@pcgamernum1 But that's exactly what libertarians come from in practice: private property elites who fancy themselves detached and above the "common herd." They resist the state precisely because it "serves the herd." In Marxist terms, it's radical bourgeois individualism.
TheAzov 2 months ago
@TheAzov That's not true at all. The ONLY monopolies to EVER exist have belonged to the government. The fact is that you can't have a monopoly or a ruling corporation without the government. You should do some research into who capitalism works and why it works they way it does. You would be amazed.
pcgamernum1 2 months ago
@pcgamernum1 It's true that modern corporations are government creations, but monopoly is based on competition within a given space. If there is no competition, by reason of private property right, it is a monopoly. I have done much research into what capitalism is, and I know for a fac tit's all about capital flow going one way - up. Not down, not horizontally.
TheAzov 2 months ago
@TheAzov Then you haven't done any real research. Just search on here for people who can tell you how it works. i could send you links to such. No Monopoly, modern or historic, has ever existed without government assistance. Supply and demand, competition always exist in capitalism. Which is why the money flows ALL ways. But the smarter, more inventive always get more than their share, and they worked to deserve it.
pcgamernum1 2 months ago
@pcgamernum1 What work do they do? They hire others to do the work, and reap the rewards only because they own. Ownership, not labor, is the basis of capitalism. If money truly flowed "all" ways, then the minium wage for an "honest day's work" wouldn't be set (by them) so ridiculously low and the capitalist couldn't blame workers for organizing for self-advancement.
TheAzov 2 months ago
@TheAzov How about setting up and making a successful company. Deciding where and who to invest in. So the people rich off of making Google, Youtube, ect ect ect, didn't work their way into being rich?
Wage isn't set by the employer, it is set by the market. Think of it this way. If you do X job for X company. But Y company will hire you to do the same job for a bit more. You go to y company don't you? It's called supply and demand.
pcgamernum1 2 months ago
People who find their niche in society and some degree of success can't understand people like me and don't have much compassion--Luckily I live with my mom-the places that you have to live in at my income level are squalid,crime ridden,dilapidated,bleak--not very conducive to mentqal health or feelings of security or freedom. We need a good strong social net that grants the people who are lower income a healthy positive living standard- then all society will be healthier for it.
catgumart 9 months ago
@catgumart So because you haven't found your 'niche' in society it's my fault? i should be paying for your failure to either preplan your life or to pick a career?
Explain this to me. I made more than DOUBLE what my mom and dad made in a year last year. (This year I only made probably about what my mom and dad made, got a more relaxed job). So tell me how you couldn't have done the same?
pcgamernum1 2 months ago
I notice different people have more and less social friction & different levels of compatibility- this is one factor I think in why some people fall inside the bell curve of normalcy- and have trouble seeing outside of it- As a home person (luckily for now) I live with my mother & I keep the house clean,feed cats,birds,water plants,laundry,vacuum,--it is a never ending daily cycle of work-in addition I exercise,study,and practice music,do yoga.jog etc..
catgumart 9 months ago
People don't lose because they want to and people don't win just because they want to.. They call poorer lower class people "losers" & say it is their choice-I receive benefits for Depression,anxiety,ocd (I use these terms for convenience.because I don't think they are all what they are constructed as) I have social and emotional difficulties--Many people say I'm a loser, & I do envy people who are socially adept -- cont.
catgumart 9 months ago
@catgumart I'm Bipolar, mental problems are just that, mental. Their are cases where they are CHEMICAL. (Which bipolar is, and my Girl has something more extream) but you can fight through that mentally until you can afford to fix it chemically and then you can go on even further. Besides, plenty of help programs out their to help people like you for FREE.
pcgamernum1 2 months ago
VampiressOnDaProwlq (21 hours ago) Spam Marked as spam "man dressed as a woman" ... ?
CristiCluj spammed 20 of my vids, my channel, dozens of my friends' channels and PM'd a dozen of my friends, all with the same repetitive deranged message/comment on this channel, over and over to tell them the same strange batshit on this channel ...
... i did already say this but i say another time for the slow-thinkers ...
... (CristiCluj has a) "disturbing obsession with me" ...
thelegionary1000 10 months ago
@thelegionary1000 wow, how little respect you show for a woman, and quit telling people about your secret life ok el douche?
whedonfreak976 10 months ago
@whedonfreak976 If you consider telling a man dressed as a woman that he is not your type and to back off, disrespect, than with all due respect I accept your choice but I will never agree with that... and by the way, nice channel...
thelegionary1000 10 months ago
@thelegionary1000 boy dumb answer and i do have a nice channel, and hey, i am the truth teller, maybe you might wanna you know tell people how you really feel about homosexuality, cause you guys who have this obsession with putting down gays, usually turn out to be one ok?
whedonfreak976 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@VampiressOnDaprowlg ....oh, there you are....ok I might have to be upfront with you... I do like romanian chicks and I really apreciate the ones that did not embrace the " all you can eat lifestyle". If I ever offended you with something, I apollogize, and pardon my french, I will never have a woody for a man dressed like a women ( you know exactly what I am talking about)...trully sorry, you're definetly not my type..all best to you
CristiClujeanul 10 months ago
A libertarian is a fascist the same way a Ku klux klansman is a black lesbian catholic retarded feminist.
rhodeislandpatriot 10 months ago 9
when you use terminology like "Ruling Elites", it means something completely different to them.
they know your usage is correct but also "mainstream".
all mainstream is orchestrated by the NWO Jew Socialist Marxist Intellectuals and Big Govt Public corporations disguised as businesses.
they see your way as Jew Communist propaganda by people who became rich and successful not from hard-work but from Welfare help (that success doesnt count because they're not Anglo Protestant and didnt inherit it)
VampiressOnDaProwlq 10 months ago
TheAzov
anti-Govt NWO 911 tinfoil hatters & Tea Party Libertarians are components of Fascist structure.
they make a distinction between "Ruling Elite", "Intellectual Elite" and "Corporate Elite".
they dont see Top 2% inheritance Rich as Elites but allies.
to them, "Ruling Elite" are Left Democrats from poor families who got Jew's help to cheat in Govt ...and "Corporate Elites" are not Capitalist profiteers but Big Govt "Public Corporate" Elites (Govt Jew Socialists masquerading as Capitalist)
VampiressOnDaProwlq 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
just droped by to see what are you up to now..It seems like you are behaving pretty good and that's why I rated up a couple of your vids, and I consider you a cool redneck. Now don't forget to get your medicine on time and the stress is definetly not good for your age....one step at a time, granpa and all best to you...see ya!
CristiClujeanul 10 months ago
That's Nietzsche, btw. With the z in his name. Friedrich Wilhelm. That one.
TheAzov 10 months ago
damn Australian Librarians and their Feces economicles ... i mean Fascist. i like that guy who said that and i had to quote it, it was too good. FOO!
VampiressOnDaProwlq 10 months ago
@VampiressOnDaProwlq
>Australian Librarians
lmao you mean Austrian economics. Ludwig Von Mises was an Austrian jew.
ohbobsagetpiss 10 months ago
@ohbobsagetpiss
That left Austria to escape the 3rd Reich, because he was jewish. Sorry i left that out.
ohbobsagetpiss 10 months ago
@ohbobsagetpiss
wtf? are you robotic concierge?
i was imitating a dumb Redneck who doesnt know what Austrian Libertarians are or even what Austrians are because he's only heard of Australians and Librarians when he last read a book at 8 yrs ... so he says "Australian Librarians and their Feces economicles" (instead of Fascist economics)
if i had to explain it, you're nearly as dumb as a Redneck so go sit with a Redneck, wittle some wood and play the banjo, eh?
inept grasp of sarcasm much? lol
VampiressOnDaProwlq 10 months ago
@VampiressOnDaProwlq Rednecks have to be stupid now? Could you lay me out a sequence of events showing how libertarian policies would lead to fascism?
1000g2g3g4g800999 10 months ago
@1000g2g3g4g800999 The comment wasn't made to me, but I can demonstrate it. Libertarianism is the stalking horse of the super-wealthy elites (like the Koch Brothers) for dismantling any democratic residues in the state but retaining legal safeguards for property - in fact, enhancing restrictive laws on labor, and beefing up security-military "needs" at home and abroad. Regardless of what theoretical tangent you're about to offer, this is the PRACTICAL application of L-ism in US politics.
TheAzov 10 months ago
@TheAzov Beefing up security-military needs? Enhancing restrictive laws on labor? What? I think you've got right-libertarianism confused with something else (conservatives are NOT libertarian).
1000g2g3g4g800999 10 months ago
@1000g2g3g4g800999 I knew that's what I'd hear, but the tea party people in power at the state level describe themselves as Libertarians, as Ayn Randers. Of course the orthodox like you can morally exclude them as heretics, but they are the ones incarnating your ideology and putting it in practice. And please demonstrate how the Koch brothers have taken a stand against the state machinery of police, military, or legal system. As functioning businessmen they can't.
TheAzov 10 months ago
@TheAzov Well, if you heard it at all, it wasn't from me, seeing as these comments are in text. Anyway, by the logic you're using, if I were to call myself an anarcho-syndicalist, and a Samuel Mainwaringer, then I would actually be such, despite my clearly pro-capitalist views. You don't even know what my ideology is; libertarianism isn't a very specific concept. In its limited specification, it is for personal liberty. The Tea Party protested against the building of a "mosque" near ground zero.
1000g2g3g4g800999 10 months ago
@1000g2g3g4g800999 Character limit sucks, and I don't feel like typing more to explain myself right now. Meh.
1000g2g3g4g800999 10 months ago
@VampiressOnDaProwlq
I'm so sorry i couldn't detect sarcasm over the internet. lol Considering all the other brain dead things you said in the comment section, it wouldn't have surprised me you really thought it was "Australian librarian". You seem rather uneducated. Life must be hard for someone so ignorant.
ohbobsagetpiss 10 months ago
@ohbobsagetpiss
why are you a Right Libertarian apologist if you're sincerely Libertar. Socialist?
i know lots of (semi-Libertar.) Democratic Socialists in my family, for yrs, through my university education/academic experience, my father who was briefly Libertarian Socialist per Ceausescu's madness 1980's Romania.
but none have the bitter profligate attitude you have against Democratic Socialists. my father was longtime Democratic Socialist & was again, after seeing what Reaganomics wrought.
VampiressOnDaProwlq 10 months ago
@ohbobsagetpiss now quit saying that about your life, you do not suck that much, ok you do, get a life loser
whedonfreak976 10 months ago
da, dobre den - i like the Slavic introduction and your pronunciation was good except one or two vowel emphasis and the last word was slightly off. but very good for a tourist j/k lol i know you're on a higher degree than most tourists ; )
VampiressOnDaProwlq 10 months ago
Bizarrely as a libertarian, I agree with you. This is mainly because conservatism and libertarianism have intermingled to produce some ugly results. Libertarianism was originally an anti-privilege movement (and so associated with the left), but has ended up defending authoritarian policies and ideas.
Adlasyn 10 months ago 2
best video yet my man, and hey, i am gonna do a response video on this in a couple of days, and hayek, the liberutrd hero, he loved pinochette, and thought american should use the chilie model, it is history, and of course the liberturds do not even mention that...wonder why
whedonfreak976 10 months ago
Libertarian, subsidy. How can you use those two words in the same sentence? Libertarians are the most vocal critics of state subsidies. Oh wait, Tea Party "libertarians," I think you should know that those people aren't libertarian in the slightest.
1000g2g3g4g800999 10 months ago 8
@1000g2g3g4g800999 Indeed, there are no true Scotsmen these days.
Scientisticsoviet 10 months ago
@Scientisticsoviet The no true scotsman fallacy does not apply here. The Tea Party are quite clearly fascistic, no matter what banner they carry. If an anarchist was pro-war, would it be a no true scotsman fallacy for other anarchists to distance themselves from them?
Adlasyn 10 months ago 7
@Adlasyn I was partly kidding; Although you have confused me a little. Isn't it possible for an anarchist to be pro-war? I mean, as long as the war isn't waged by states that is? In saying, this though, let me be explicit in the definition I am using of anarchist: One who advocates the abolition of government/state, or perhaps institutions that are defacto similar.
(This is purely an descriptive question; Do not assume there is anything implicitly normative in my asking this question please).
Scientisticsoviet 10 months ago
@Scientisticsoviet I suppose it was a bad example since so many anarchists hold tacitly authoritarian views (e.g. mr1001nights).
Adlasyn 10 months ago