I sort-of promised you a response, and although I've lost interest in this thread, I do like to keep my word, so here goes.
Zieborn wrote:Dukasaur wrote:
Second, they didn't escape from a socialist republic, they escaped from a communist republic. Yes, we all know that communists like to pretend that they're socialists, and they like to label their countries as socialist republics, but we all know that's a self-serving lie. It suits their propaganda purposes to pretend they're part of the same movement. As for those on the opposite side who repeat the same lie, it's good for their propaganda, too, but they also know, or ought to know, that it's a lie.
Communism is a system of state ownership. Socialism, or more properly social democracy, is a system of private ownership, but with reasonable safeguards to ensure that the working man gets a piece of the pie. Right-wingers scream that socialists are planning to expropriate everyone's properties, but if you look at real socialist countries like Sweden or Germany, you see that not only are they not expropriating everything, but in fact the role of the private sector remains strong and in some ways is increasing.
You're describing fascism, not socialism. I don't hate that as much as some systems (slightly better than globalism at least), but I'm guessing you do. Don't take my word for it. Read Mussolini or, more properly, Giovanni Gentile. They describe your exact system. In fact, the way you describe it is word for word a description of National Socialism (go to a free speech space anywhere and you'll figure that out quickly enough). So, you know. There's that. This isn't even an attack on your position. I literally don't care if you're a fascist. Politics isn't a real concern to me. Not my circus, not my monkeys. But if you read up on it, that's what you just described in any case.
I see where you're coming from. Yes, private ownership with public regulation are elements that fascism and social democracy have in common, and that leads people to draw an equivalence between them.
The difference is in motive. Social democracy seeks to maximize the happiness of the people. Fascism seeks to glorify the state. So, although they may use similar means, the difference in ultimate goals makes all the difference in the world.
For a clear illustration, compare Germany of the 30's to Germany of today. In terms of the outward legal structure, not that much has changed. In terms of the economy and business world, not that much has changed. But in terms of health and human happiness, they're two different worlds, complete opposites, night and day.
I'm old enough to have learned that all the "-isms" are bullshit. Health and happiness are the only metrics that matter. Everything else is horseshit to lead astray the gullible. The only test of a system is, "does it maximize the health and happiness of the people?"
Zieborn wrote:He tells a very disjointed story. He is of the mind that "Libertarian" is "right." Michael Malice and Tom Woods would agree with him. There are worse people to have agree with you. At least he isn't defining "right" as "conservative." However, he then says, for no reason whatsoever that "Bottom line, the right is pissed off that they ever abolished slavery, and they want it to return one way or another." Given that he just defined the right as Libertarian, that's pretty dumb for a guy with a 150+ IQ. But then, he doesn't even know he's a national socialist yet.
There are many varieties and flavours of libertarian thought. Yes, some of them are leftist, some of them are anarchist, some of them are syndicalist.
Those are all interesting varieties of thought, but they're not the mainstream of the libertarian movement. The mainstream of the libertarian movement, something between 60 and 80% of libertarians, walks in lockstep with the neocons.
John Hospers, who was pretty much responsible for putting the Libertarian Party on the map, was originally a Republican politician. By far the most well-known libertarian politician of all time, Ron Paul, jumped back and forth between Libertarian and Republican parties a couple of times, and of course we all know where his demon spawn ended up.
Instead of nebulous generalities, let's talk about a specific example.
In the late 70s, and into the 80's, one of the cornerstone planks in the Libertarian Party platform in the U.S., and to a lesser degree in Canada, was the idea of privatising prisons and making the prisoners work to pay for their own upkeep. I'm sorry to say that I strongly supported this idea, along with most libertarians of the time. What could be more logical? Why should criminals continue to burden the taxpayer? Why should they sit around all day watching TV instead of earning their own keep?
Private prisons were trumpeted from every libertarian and quasi-libertarian pulpit. Reason Magazine, then and possibly even now the most influential libertarian publication, had an article about privatising prisons and privatising law enforcement pretty much every month. The Freeman had an article about it at least once every two or three months, Inquiry had an article about it at least once every two or three months, the National Rifleman had an article about it every two or three months, and so on and so forth.
The neocons made it their own, and it became Republican policy as well, and was widely successful.
Then begin the unintended consequences. With prisons making money, there was a motive to keep them well-stocked. The companies that make money from prisons spend a good part of it lobbying for minimum sentence laws and other such measures to help keep the prisons full. The prisoners are no longer liabilities; now they are assets. They might be called legal slaves. You used to get time off your sentence for working hard in a prison industry; now the best workers find themselves having parole inexplicably denied. They are assets, and the managers are finding excuses to not let them become free agents. LOL. The U.S. now and for a long time, has had
the world's biggest percentage of citizens in jail. 630 people per 100,000. Russia has half that many. Among the other high nations on the list are such beacons of freedom as El Salvador, Rwanda, and Turkmenistan. The next-highest G7 nation on the list is Britain, at 130, less than a quarter of the U.S. score.
The liberals warned us this would happen, and we laughed at them. My part in it was rather tiny, but even for my tiny part I am deeply regretful.
So yeah. In theoreticals and hypotheticals, there are a lot of varieties of libertarianism that are not right-wing. But when it comes down to nuts-and-bolts issues, the Libertarian Party walks (or at least did walk, in the 1980s, the decade that I was heavily involved) in lockstep with the rightist fringes of the Republican Party.
