Strawman?
Everything isn't tyranny or no tyranny. Again, let's take the anarchists view. Going by your white or black picture he might call supporting a national military to be tyranny too. Well, that doesn't really mean anything considering probably the freest people of all time lived under a nation with a national military. It is quite clearly a gradient with shades of grey and not just black v. white.
Strawman is appropriate
Is this a plea for fifty shades of tyranny? Either you can decide for you and I can decide for me free from government coercion or we cannot. Today, for anything that matters we cannot. The government's busybody bureaucrats have decided for us. That is not freedom. The government has moved beyond the powers we give it through the Constitution.
What does an anarchist have to do with a government that is constrained by a written constitution? I look to your first word above. It is appropriate.
Is this a plea for fifty shades of tyranny? Either you can decide for you and I can decide for me free from government coercion or we cannot. Today, for anything that matters we cannot. The government's busybody bureaucrats have decided for us. That is not freedom. The government has moved beyond the powers we give it through the Constitution.
What does an anarchist have to do with a government that is constrained by a written constitution? I look to your first word above. It is appropriate.
In what way, my dear Sage?
Do you believe that national socialism was not a strain of socialism? And Italy's fascists? Do you also strip from their their socialist beliefs?
The Nazis advocate the 3rd Way (as do Social Democrats though that's as far as the comparison goes), the fascists advocate corporatism. Capitalism and socialism never factor into it. I won't deny that fascism has it's roots in socialism but socialism has it's roots in capitalism and nobody with 2 brain cells to rub together would put Marx and Rockefeller in the same category.
We clearly define limited government differently. And everyone does because it isn't an exact definition. Just because someone defines it differently than you does not mean they support tyranny- that is a misuse of the word tyranny. And if coercion is your concern, then you need to realize that government is hardly the only form of coercion which is why there is a role for government. But that aside, I'd rather look at it all on a cost-benefit basis (and note that costs/benefits are not limited to financial measures)- I want to maximize long-term utility. Liberty often goes along with that, which is why I am generally pro-liberty, but I am not an absolute libertarian because I reject all ideology- sometimes liberty isn't the best thing (i.e. legalizing murder). Liberty is a vague term though and harder to define and agree upon, whereas utility is easier to work with. And after all, isn't the end point of most pro-liberty arguments increased utility anyway?
Noted and rejected
And yet the roots of Nazism and fascism are clearly part of leftist socialism. I reject your complaint.
Liberty or Tyranny?
It is actually simple. Usually.
To be clear that is why we have written Constitutions.
Actually, it does. If the government is essentially unconstrained, as ours is today, and the individual is largely constrained, as we are today, then we live in tyranny. That is how the framers defined it and I agree with them.
Government is the only entity that can take my property and my life.
Do you not see that what you have just described must always end in tyranny? AS soon as you decide that someone else will decide for me then we are well down that path.
Liberty is where you get to decide for you and I get to decide for me.
It is actually simple. Usually.
And the roots of Marxism are in Classical Liberalism, your argument holds no water.
You need to read a history book. Capitalism is a necessity in Marxism as it provides the foundation for his Utopian society. Look at any other form of socialism and you see the same thing, every socialist ideology operates under the same economic rules as capitalism, the difference lies in who profits (the investor in capitalism, the worker in socialism).
So again, while fascism was an evolution of socialist ideas, you can't make your argument without also arguing that socialism is capitalism.
Which one would you recommend?
I have only read three of Radical Karl's works. Capital, his Critique of the Gotha Program, and the Communist Manifesto. He makes it clear that his goal is the elimination of capitalism first by destroying the ability of anyone to accumulate capital (progressive income taxes), by destroying the capitalists (impugn, malign, make them appear to be the enemy) and by developing a dictatorship of the proles to transition from capitalism to communism (the Democratic Party).
Your words. Not mine. This view explains a great deal about you as Tecoya's thanks does about him.
So you deny that you compared fascism to socialism? I assure you, while not verbatim, those are indeed your words.
Thanx...a disagreement with your interpretation of basic economic theory does indeed say a lot about the individual that does so.
I am not stating you are wrong...simply that we disagree.
Try it sometime, as it tends to create a level of respect.
Socialism is NOT Capitalism
You wrote, "So again, while fascism was an evolution of socialist ideas, you can't make your argument without also arguing that socialism is capitalism."
You wrote, "So again, while fascism was an evolution of socialist ideas, you can't make your argument without also arguing that socialism is capitalism."
No. Fascism is a kind of socialism. But socialism is NOT capitalism.
Yes....obviously.
That comment was accurate in my opinion.
Perhaps your jab at the thanks I gave involved someting other than the obvious.
Then my comment stands. If you believe that socialism is a form of capitalism there is no hope of a conversation. We live in two different worlds.
Similar threads
