It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Fascism Is Far Left, Not Far Right on Political Spectrum

page: 56
23
<< 53  54  55    57  58  59 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 10:43 AM
link   
Untried politico-economic theories often work "on paper" ... like communism, the various libertarian utopias, etc.

Theoretically, of course.
edit on 10Fri, 28 Aug 2015 10:47:24 -050015p102015866 by Gryphon66 because: Noted




posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 10:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp
Yes, I was just adding that there is a happy medium between statism and AC.

I agree, I'm apolitical. I'm not rooting for one side or the other but to those who say any government is wrong, minarchy is not right.


Don't get me wrong, I will argue the merits of AC but, I generally do so because the principals are easiest to explain sans political considerations though, they will work almost as well in a minarchist framework.

AC will never work unless everyone agrees to it.

We can't even agree on the meaning of a handful of words.



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 10:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Semicollegiate

I would say that anarchists are worst off in that department.


Which ones?

The violent Left Anarchists or the non-violent Right?




posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 10:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Semicollegiate

I would say that anarchists are worst off in that department.


Rothbard has the best argument for AC which attempts to account for external aggression.

To summarize, he believes that the effectiveness of an armed invasion is dependent upon the existing political structure to enforce the terms of any surrender and thus, provide the manpower to subdue their own citizens.

Without such a political infrastructure, invasion is simply too costly to succeed.

I dunno, maybe, maybe not but, I'm not in a rush to try it in this world right now.



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 10:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

The socialist part of a mixed economy still makes socialist economic mistakes. Those mistakes require further intervention by the government to "fix" them. Socialist "fixes" treat a symptom, something that can be seen, and ignore the underlying problem.

The mixed economy will always evolve into a command economy just like rocks fall down.



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 11:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
Which ones?

Ones like this one

The mixed economy will always evolve into a command economy



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 11:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
a reply to: Gryphon66

The socialist part of a mixed economy still makes socialist economic mistakes. Those mistakes require further intervention by the government to "fix" them. Socialist "fixes" treat a symptom, something that can be seen, and ignore the underlying problem.

The mixed economy will always evolve into a command economy just like rocks fall down.



Yes, "mixed economy" being a euphemism for protectionism and other interventionist policies. These policies are just as prevalent among Republicans as Democrats.

"The sincerity of those who advocate protectionism, socialism, and communism is not here questioned. Any writer who would do that must be influenced by a political spirit or a political fear. It is to be pointed out, however, that protectionism, socialism, and communism are basically the same plant in three different stages of its growth. All that can be said is that legal plunder is more visible in communism because it is complete plunder; and in protectionism because the plunder is limited to specific groups and industries. Thus it follows that, of the three systems, socialism is the vaguest, the most indecisive, and, consequently, the most sincere stage of development.

But sincere or insincere, the intentions of persons are not here under question. In fact, I have already said that legal plunder is based partially on philanthropy, even though it is a false philanthropy.

With this explanation, let us examine the value — the origin and the tendency — of this popular aspiration which claims to accomplish the general welfare by general plunder."

-Frédéric Bastiat



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 11:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp
Rothbard has the best argument for AC which attempts to account for external aggression.

That sounds like a strawman.

In any case the real threat is internal. In that example the real threat is an existing political structure. At that point anarchists or no longer on board anyway.



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 11:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: greencmp
Yes, I was just adding that there is a happy medium between statism and AC.

I agree, I'm apolitical. I'm not rooting for one side or the other but to those who say any government is wrong, minarchy is not right.


Don't get me wrong, I will argue the merits of AC but, I generally do so because the principals are easiest to explain sans political considerations though, they will work almost as well in a minarchist framework.

AC will never work unless everyone agrees to it.

We can't even agree on the meaning of a handful of words.


Minarchism is like social security. Its a rip off, but I still want the money back that I have paid in.

That is, minarchism relates to the special circumstances of mega States and their aftermath.

In AC the only border in the world would be around the naturally-born-altruist state.

In Minarchism, the border might be there but all of the passports would be from the altruist state, and no one would check them.

There were no passports until after WW1. Before WW1, all you needed was travel fare to go anywhere in the world.




edit on 28-8-2015 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 11:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: greencmp
Rothbard has the best argument for AC which attempts to account for external aggression.

That sounds like a strawman.

In any case the real threat is internal. In that example the real threat is an existing political structure. At that point anarchists or no longer on board anyway.


He was just addressing the legitimate question of what defense an AC region might have against statist expansionism.

It is an argument born from Mises' observation that India could not have been subjugated by Britain without its caste system.



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 11:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: greencmp
Yes, I was just adding that there is a happy medium between statism and AC.

I agree, I'm apolitical. I'm not rooting for one side or the other but to those who say any government is wrong, minarchy is not right.


Don't get me wrong, I will argue the merits of AC but, I generally do so because the principals are easiest to explain sans political considerations though, they will work almost as well in a minarchist framework.

AC will never work unless everyone agrees to it.

We can't even agree on the meaning of a handful of words.


Minarchism is like social security. Its a rip off, but I still want the money back that I have paid in.

That is, minarchism relates to the special circumstances of mega States and their aftermath.

In AC the only border in the world would be around the naturally-born-altruist state.

In Minarchism, the border might be there but all of the passports would be from the altruist state, and no one would check them.

There were no passports until after WW1. Before WW1, all you needed was travel fare to go anywhere in the world.


That could very well be, as you pointed out the tariffs and other elements of our constitution make it proto-socialistic.



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 11:19 AM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

Yeah but nobody had asked that question.

The question was about minarchy being acceptable to an anarchist. I think the post above yours answers that.



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 11:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: greencmp

Yeah but nobody had asked that question.

The question was about minarchy being acceptable to an anarchist. I think the post above yours answers that.


And why would it be any more acceptable to an anarchist than a statist?

It is the definition of compromise that each side is disappointed with the result of the agreement and would prefer to renegotiate but have no choice for whatever reason.



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 11:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp
And why would it be any more acceptable to an anarchist than a statist?

It wouldn't. That was the point.


It is the definition of compromise that each side is disappointed with the result of the agreement and would prefer to renegotiate but have no choice for whatever reason.

Yes that is what it would be. It would be up to the individual to say how they feel about it. Makes no difference to me.



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 11:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: greencmp
And why would it be any more acceptable to an anarchist than a statist?

It wouldn't. That was the point.


It is the definition of compromise that each side is disappointed with the result of the agreement and would prefer to renegotiate but have no choice for whatever reason.

Yes that is what it would be. It would be up to the individual to say how they feel about it. Makes no difference to me.


Perhaps it was my use of the word "happy" in happy medium that was confusing.

I didn't knowingly intend to project willing capitulation by either side.



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 11:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp
Perhaps it was my use of the word "happy" in happy medium that was confusing.

I didn't knowingly intend to project willing capitulation by either side.

I understand what you are saying but at that point an anarchist would point out that it would be coercion.



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 11:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: greencmp
Perhaps it was my use of the word "happy" in happy medium that was confusing.

I didn't knowingly intend to project willing capitulation by either side.

I understand what you are saying but at that point an anarchist would point out that it would be coercion.



Well it would be, what would statists say?
edit on 28-8-2015 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 11:42 AM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

That's a tough one because, while anarchists are all or nothing, statists come in a rainbow of flavors.



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 11:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: greencmp

That's a tough one because, while anarchists are all or nothing, statists come in a rainbow of flavors.


I think they would all say, "that's not enough coercion".



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 11:50 AM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

Would minarchists say that because they uphold some form of government so, they would be included in that bunch.

It is after all what you are proposing.



edit on 28-8-2015 by daskakik because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
23
<< 53  54  55    57  58  59 >>

log in

join