|
nutranurse posted:I've always wanted to ask a libertarian this (but I know few in real life because they're crazy fuckers and tend to be racist): Why would a minority want to forgo government protection of their rights in order to embrace the libertarian "get government out of everything so I can be a feudal lord" creed? I think it's an important question, as demographics begin to skew more in favor of non-whites libertarians will have to convince non-whites that their policies will actually benefit the traditionally disenfranchised. The main thing is that you might have good reason to distrust political hierarchies if you're a minority. Namely, the application of state power is predetermined by those in control of state power, and by accepting "protection" from the government, you're accepting the expansion of existing class and social divisions. So for example, a minority group that is subject to greater state protection might see that expressed most directly in the form of abusive police powers. The power to redistribute wealth will not ultimately benefit the minority group, as the distribution will be determined -- and strengthened -- by those in control of the wealth. Most (smart) libertarians I know will tell you that the choice between the Democrats and Republicans is a choice between Goldman Sachs and the oil industry. Either way, when you have a state, the power will be in the hands of someone, and most likely it'll be those with the greatest existing wealth and power. And you could go full-leftist and establish some kind of socialist regime that will redistribute wealth in an equitable manner, but the actual history of those regimes has shown that you won't have egalitarianism, but the creation of a new power elite that enslaves the people it claims to uplift. Of course, as you very rightly point out, the problem with the libertarian argument is that they're advocating for a pure economic hierarchy complete with feudal lords. -- Edit: So another example would be gun control. So like we need gun control to prevent privileged white guys from shooting minorities. This was an argument made after Trayvon Martin was murdered. But when you see strict gun control laws as actually practiced, the enforcement is directed most heavily at black communities through stop and frisk policies. A lot of young black men end up going to jail. Again: this strengthens pre-existing hierarchies. I've also seen a critique of some radical feminists who've argued against the presumption of innocence in rape cases, with pushback against this from libertarian-oriented MRA types. Okay the MRA guys are a bunch of creeps. But you can see a long history in America of black men being falsely accused of violating white womanhood, particularly in the South during Jim Crow, so expanding state powers against the accused in such criminal cases (in the name of protecting women) might disproportionately harm minorities. Edit: If I was a libertarian political strategist, one thing I'd aim at like a laser are the class tensions between white urban progressives and the black working and middle class. I live in Austin which is seeing a remarkable net decline in the African-American population even as the city remains one of the fastest-growing cities in the U.S. And this is in stark contrast to the nearby metropolises of Dallas and Houston, which have large and growing black populations. (I believe some of the fastest-growing.) And this is curious as Austin is considered far and away more progressive than the other two cities. And you can make the argument that progressive urban policies, such as Austin's attempt to slow suburban sprawl, its environmental no-go zones, stricter zoning and building codes, etc. have combined to reduce affordability compared to cities with more libertarian-oriented policies like Houston. The libertarians have quite deliberately built a coalition with white ethnic populists though so I don't expect that to happen. BrutalistMcDonalds fucked around with this message at 14:09 on May 23, 2014 |
#
¿
May 23, 2014 13:27
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 30, 2024 19:23 |
|
|
Huh. That's fascinating. I'd also be interested in reading more about the links between post-war libertarianism and pre-war domestic pro-fascist movements.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 13:36
|
|
|
Arri posted:Anarchism is inherently rooted in lack of hierarchy and acceptance of collectivism. One of these capitalism is unable to survive without and the other capitalism opposes. There is no such thing as an AnCap no matter how much they want to try to distort anarchism to fit their fygm world view. tbp posted:No I meant socialism. BrutalistMcDonalds fucked around with this message at 17:58 on May 23, 2014 |
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 17:50
|
|
|
Tias posted:No they can't. The sum of the anarchist critique of AC is that anarchism is BOTH opposition to illegitimate state coercion and capitalism. Anarchism grew from the communist labour movement of the 1880s, and using the label for anti-socialist viewpoints make little sense. Incidentally, this is also why "socialist anarchists" don't consider Stirner, Tolstoy, Godwin etc. anarchists. Well, not to belabor the distinction but I'd argue left-wing anarchism would be inherently coercive regardless. It shares a similar paradox native to anarcho-capitalism, in that both remove government and also the system of checks and balances by which government polices itself. Essentially this means both systems (so to speak) abolish the liberal state but also abolish the system that serves to correct against any one group from establishing too much power. In the libertarian case, this paves the way for the rule of private tyranny and coercion by proxy -- hired guns paid for by a landowner, just to use a general example. In the left-wing anarchist case, this paves the way for rule by private conspiracies and assassins.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 18:31
|
|
|
MadMattH posted:That's a pretty big means of coercion though. Non-cooperation is a type of force.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 18:56
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 30, 2024 19:23 |
|
|
VitalSigns posted:There are no Libertarians in uncertified unregulated submersibles trapped at the bottom of the ocean quote:The petty bourgeois is hostile to the idea of development, for development goes immutably against him; progress has brought him nothing except irredeemable debts. National Socialism rejects not only Marxism but Darwinism. The Nazis curse materialism because the victories of technology over nature have signified the triumph of large capital over small. The leaders of the movement are liquidating “intellectualism” because they themselves possess second- and third-rate intellects, and above all because their historic role does not permit them to pursue a single thought to its conclusion. The petty bourgeois needs a higher authority, which stands above matter and above history, and which is safeguarded from competition, inflation, crisis, and the auction block. To evolution, materialist thought, and rationalism – of the twentieth, nineteenth, and eighteenth centuries – is counterposed in his mind national idealism as the source of heroic inspiration. Hitler’s nation is the mythological shadow of the petty bourgeoisie itself, a pathetic delirium of a thousand-year Reich.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2023 23:55
|
|