Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How do you know? You could ask for support for the claim from the person who made it, but it certainly isn't "for damn sure" unless you have a convincing counter-argument.
I'd note that two conflicting assertions were made, neither with support.
Libertarians believe in neo-feudalism though. They view property rights as more important than democracy and human rights. Just like the landed elite and lords of feudal medieval times with their huge properties and their private armies.
Abolishing the borders in order to create a permanent oligarchy and ensuring that the worker bees have no rights and fight between themselves for the scraps given to them is just a natural part of the right wing ideology. The billionaire class here in America fund this ideology, largely absent in the rest of the world, because they have been able to convince a substantial section of the population that the only potentially democratic institution we have; the government, is evil and must be destroyed. According to this theory, super rich private property owners should be allowed to do what they want, without interference from democracy, and use their private thugs to enforce it.
a. the welfare state is state sanctioned theft and should be eliminated.
b. borders and citizenship are statist concepts that should be eliminated.
They are not smart enough to understand that you can't do "b" without first doing "a", otherwise disaster will be the result. All they understand is that if they get "b" without getting "a" at least they're getting one of the items on their list, so it must be a good thing. This is why even though they understand that they will probably never get "a", they still support "b", and to hell with the consequences. This realization was the first thing that helped me understand that I am not a libertarian, and I'm glad I'm not. They have some good ideas, but not a lick of sense.
Libertarians believe in neo-feudalism though. The view property rights as more important than democracy and human rights. Just like the landed elite and lords of feudal medieval times with their huge properties and their private armies.
That's not an accurate analogy, in my opinion.
Feudalism was almost always within the context of Empire, with a King at the helm.
Sure, the Lords often had wide latitude and / or effectively overthrew the King (see the English Revolution and the introduction of Parliamentarianism), but for the most part they did not live in what modern Libertifa would consider a Libertarian environment.
The King was meant to and often did check them for the good of the Kingdom. What the King's motivations were for doing so at any point in time varied. Though, a Kingdom adhering to the early / the traditional notion of Kingship, and I would argue any healthy monarchy, would have often done so for the good of the Kingdom (community).
What Libtifa argues for would be much worse than any prior known Kingdom within Europe. You'd have o reference Africa to come up with a correlate.
Quote:
Abolishing the borders in order to create a permanent oligarchy and ensuring that the worker bees have no rights and fight between themselves for the scraps given to them is just a natural part of the right wing ideology.
I agree with your general sentiment up until the last statement. You are not describing Right Wing ideology. You are describing practical communism. Note that Antifa, who are communists, advocate for this. The modern Right does not. Libertarians are not Right Wing. They are a communist tool, with less street courage than Antifa.
Note the ability of the Far Left to rise to significant power in various institutions in the USA only in the post WWII period in which Libertarianism substituted for the previous notions of Right Wing politics. That is by design. Libertarianism's sole purpose is to open the door for the Far Left.
Actual Right Wing ideology has no economic position because politics is only very indirectly effected through the economic sphere. This is because politics, by definition, is a function of human ethno-cultural relationships (within and between). Not economics. There is no political power for a purely economic group, without backing from a powerful ethnic group, because economic relationships do not come close to inspiring the type of personal loyalty or inter-generational power-building that lasting cultural relationships do.
Any political agent who tries to define politics in the economic sphere is trying to fool you into giving up all political power for the benefit of an outside hostile group.
Right Wing ideology will always see economic policy and philosophy as a tool to forward its original goal: the integrity of the Kingdom (tribe) against Chaos. Economic policy can always be switched out according to circumstances.
Here is the ancient Egyptian concept of Chaos and the defense against it:
What you think that you know of "Right Wing Politics" is merely post WWII liberal libertarianism that sought to reduce opposition within the Right against the Left.
Opening borders invites Apep and Seth, agents of Chaos against the Kingdom. Mythologically speaking. Doing so was always antithetical to Right Wing politics.
Doing so, however, would be perfectly harmonious with (and necessary for) Communism's globalist concept and long-stated internationalist goals.
To bring he point home, the image that you paint below is perfectly reflective of conditions in the old Soviet Union:
Quote:
Abolishing the borders in order to create a permanent oligarchy and ensuring that the worker bees have no rights and fight between themselves
LOl on the OP link, I agree with the poster - typical Libertarian stuff. On the conversation below:
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandsthetime
Don't they have higher IQs than both liberals and conservatives?
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dark Enlightenment
Probably, but they do nutty stuff, like write long impressive posts only to delete them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by saltine
smartest persons in the room I’ve been told
What evidence do you have have that Libertarians have high IQs.
FWIW I do think Libertarians are more trusting and optimistic about how humans can behave but their naivete on the history of humanity in regards to how we actually live our lives in comparison to a Libertarian-esque (especially anarcho-libertarian-esque) society shows for me that they don't have a lot of ability to deal with reality.
I'll note that if any IQ assessment shows that they are more intelligent, that provides additional incentives for me to further not consider IQ assessment as proof of anything in regards to intelligence lol.
I read books and so come to know things. I am not aware of any serious historian who considered "too much diversity" a problem for Rome, at all.
Grift and corruption, certainly. Concentration of wealth, the loss of the citizen family farms. Patrician families abandoning the idea of maintaining the empire in favor of maintaining their own riches. Unemployment, inflation, demoralization with the entire institution. Leading to people not valuing citizenship, refusing to fight for Rome, mercenaries being brought in. In modern terms we'd say the social contract broke down. Some blame lack of innovation, as well. Some even blame Christianity...
But multi-volume books have been written about the Fall of Rome, and each author of course sees it through the lens of his own experiences and his own time.
Libertarians believe in neo-feudalism though. They view property rights as more important than democracy and human rights. Just like the landed elite and lords of feudal medieval times with their huge properties and their private armies.
Abolishing the borders in order to create a permanent oligarchy and ensuring that the worker bees have no rights and fight between themselves for the scraps given to them is just a natural part of the right wing ideology. The billionaire class here in America fund this ideology, largely absent in the rest of the world, because they have been able to convince a substantial section of the population that the only potentially democratic institution we have; the government, is evil and must be destroyed. According to this theory, super rich private property owners should be allowed to do what they want, without interference from democracy, and use their private thugs to enforce it.
Couldn't have said it better.
Who else loves to rail about the tyranny of big government, but say little or nothing about private parties who are left alone to oppress others?
If you use the government to demand a decent wage and fair treatment, you're an evil socialist.
If Trump uses the government to take peoples' property via eminent domain, build a a failed casino, declares bankruptcy and doesn't pay his contractors, that means he's a smart businessman.
Well, that was interesting. I'm not much for libertarianism, but this writer at least takes his stance to a logical conclusion that may not ultimately benefit him, and that's praiseworthy.
Social engineering based on hopeful ends is the virtue of a statist. Of course he's talking about things that may not ultimately benefit him. Freedom is a crapshoot.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I’ve been told
