Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've always found the right-libertarian philosophy to be extremely confused. They want freedom to do whatever they want but they also want to base everything off of capitalism which by definition means you can't do whatever you want unless you're rich. It just doesn't make any sense (unless of course you're already a billionaire in which case your world is already quite libertarian in reality).
Libertarianism is basically about negative rights - not so much about "do what you want", but more about "nobody is going to force you to do something you don't want". As an ethical system, think of it as utilitarianism which assigns infinite value to freedom from violent coercion. Everything else follows from that.
Untitled topic
501–510 of 766 posts
Re: undefined
#502Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hitler was a Socialist, not a right wing politician. That's what you Austrians/Germans get wrong. Hitler enacted a 70% income tax for the highest incomes, implemented a full welfare state, free childcare, free schools, free everything to force propaganda down their throats. He was an arts student (probably he would have done well with SJW's of today), a vegetarian, anti smoking, pro animal rights, anti religion etc.…
> Hitler was a Socialist, not a right wing politician. He was a right-wing populist that wanted to do "socialism" for the superior German race by enslaving Slavs etc. He actually hated the Soviet Union precisely because it was socialist. In fact Nazism actually means "Nationalist Socialism" = Nazism, which is not the "Socialism" of the soviets, but a right-wing, one race owns everything ideology, which is precisely w…
> And last but not least: Hitler himself frequently said and wrote that he is a Socialist. Not an International Socialist like the Soviet Union but a National Socialist.
International Socialism was the Soviets. By definition an international variant must be less racist and it's not surprising that a National variant was racist.
But the economy had similarities, it was controlled almost completely by the government. (to a greater extent in the Soviet Union than by the Nazis, but the Nazi economy certainly was no free market economy)
Re: undefined
#503Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Clinton openly stated during the election she wants to take away your right to bare arms I'm pretty sure going sleeveless will still be legal in a Clinton presidency. Spelling aside, it's still incorrect. Nobody is proposing a repeal of the 2nd Amendment. Basic gun control-- for example, requiring a criminal background check with no gun show loophole-- is not the same thing as taking away your right to own a gun.
There's no such thing as the "gun show loophole". It's a myth. There already are background checks. I can tell you've never even tried to own a gun.
Re: undefined
#504Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it's funny that he's supporting the party that is making an issue out of the "who can use which bathroom" deal. Transgender people just want to use the bathroom they align with, it's the GOP that's making up stories about how children are at risk or some shit. Theil is an idiot.
The bathroom they align with? Do you believe in male and female brains? What makes someone align with a gender? The whole trans thing is regressive, homophobic, and medically unsound. Beyond that, the bathroom safety issue for women is real.
Re: undefined
#505Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hitler was a Fascist / Authoritarian, not a Socialist. This confusion about Socialist vs Fascism is common because - as you point out - they enact similar policies, e.g. high taxes. There are numerous differences between the two. The biggest has to do with the relationship between the state and the individual: In a Fascist / Authoritarian regime, the individual is subordinated to the state. E.g. "The state knows what…
Why is it then that Socialist governments which are supposedly subordinated to the individual all seem to end up in having re education camps, Gulags, forced labour or concentration camps to crack down on dissenters. Why can't they let individual dissenting opinions exist beside their own hive mind ideology. Why do Socialist governments always try to get control over education to indoctrinate the next generation inst…
The don't actually, since Socialism does not discuss anything of that sort - it's an economic theory, not a political one.
What you're describing is authoritarianism, which is a mechanism for quickly and forcefully delivering ANY political ideology, not just socialism.
If you actually look at why i.e. Stalin and Castro did things the way they did, it was because they were afraid the "imperialists" in the West were working 24/7 to overthrow them (which they were) so they wanted to consolidate their grip on power to make that less likely to succeed.
The problem is, no-one ever left socialists alone, i.e. look at Nicaragua in the 1980s - they actually tried to implement liberal socialism. What happened? Regan sponsored the Contras to turn it into a right-wing state after his own gusto.
If there weren't constant efforts to overthrow socialists by the West, they probably wouldn't have turned to authoritarianism.
But again, authoritarianism is a forceful method to deliver a political change, just look at the number of right-wing military dictatorships in LA that used authoritarianism to deliver their will.
> Why do Socialist governments always try to get control over education to indoctrinate the next generation instead of allowing parents to raise their children however they see fit.
Because in the same way a parent does not have the right to kill their child, they should not have the right to i.e. teach their children creationism, in order to ensure a certain quality of life for all children, regardless if their parents are brainwashed or poorly educated.
> Why do Socialists always attack people who are successful for merely being successful.
They don't, but they think that perhaps you shouldn't be able to have $80 billion if the average personal wealth is $30,000 because you CERTAINLY didn't work THAT much harder than everybody else, it's mathematically impossible.
Also, Hitler was against the Jews, socialism isn't.
Re: undefined
#506If Thiel had really wanted to disrupt presidential elections, he could have thrown some money and social media connections behind Evan McMullin as a way of throwing a malotov cocktail into the race. It's his money, but if it were me I would not want to be associated with someone as vulgar as Trump.
Re: undefined
#507I wonder what his thoughts are about Trump nonconsensually groping women? A libertarian could not support such violence/coercion. [Edit: wow, off-topic?]
Re: undefined
#508Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, I had pretty major family problems for saying that I thought he was a lot of hot air and not actually that dangerous--with a disclaimer that I would never vote for him. Although my perspective on him has changed, it seems to me that the American left has turned into the authoritarian controlling power they so often claim to fight against.
>Although my perspective on him has changed, it seems to me that the American left has turned into the authoritarian controlling power they so often claim to fight against. Only if you consider Clinton to be leftist, which really doesn't make much sense. https://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2016
Re: undefined
#509> “Across the country, wages are flat. Americans get paid less today than 10 years ago,” he said. “But health care and college tuition cost more every year. Meanwhile, Wall Street bankers inflate bubbles in everything from government bonds to Hillary Clinton’s speaking fees. Our economy is broken. If you’re watching me right now, you understand this better than any politician in Washington D.C.” I would like to know…
“Across the country, wages are flat. Americans get paid less today than 10 years ago” His solution has been to advocate increased immigration. Yep, wages are flat, lets bring more people so more people can compete for fewer jobs.
Re: undefined
#510Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just like the US this year. This is not an exaggeration. Many people would have professional and personal consequences for supporting Trump in public. People like Peter Thiel and Scott Adams have enough money to not care. Scott isn't even endorsing him and he says that his speaking engagements have dried up. We may see a big difference between the polling and the election results this year. The Shy Tory Effect came t…
Scott Adams in his own words: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/150919416661/why-i-switched-my-...
Edit: I'm flipping through his blog and the extent to which politics, for him, is about the meta stuff is honestly kind of surreal