reply on: The Libertarian-to-Fascist Pipeline \ stacker news ~libertarian

181 sats \ 5 replies \ @k00b OP 16 Jun \ parent \ on: The Libertarian-to-Fascist Pipeline libertarian

I took him at his word here, that he was making the usual definitions of things a little squishy to make a point, and that he was trying to reveal something about some libertarians that he disagrees with:

So I want to get ahead of this now: I am actually trying to push on the definitions of what libertarianism and fascism are here a little bit. And I think it’s necessary, because I think we might need some better categories in order to make sense of some of the apparent contradictions we see.

I also believed what he said the paragraph before, that he isn't describing libertarians as fascistic generically, and instead attempting to reveal that some libertarians are more motivated by taking away positive rights from people they don't like, and gaining new non-violent but anti-social powers, than they are interested in securing negative rights for us all:

And I want to disabuse you of some potential worries up-front, and clarify that I am not saying that if you are a libertarian that you are fascist, or that you are on your way to becoming a fascist.

It's been a long time since I've spent time in these political boundary setting exercises. (I find them exhausting and myself ineffective at moving political boundaries.) I don't think he's arguing in bad faith even if I'd agree he's being somewhat inconsiderate to make a point. I do think some libertarians are libertarians for anti-social reasons and are mostly looking to protect their anti-sociality. It's their right to be anti-social, or fascistic, non-violently, but I wouldn't mind partitioning them out of my political tribe wherever they are.

I find myself wanting libertarianism to be concerned with the common good indirectly at the very least. I think the only thing he attacked in this article was an attitude that some libertarian bitcoiners have.

121 sats \ 4 replies \ @kepford 16 Jun

Thanks @k00b. I see what you are saying. I believe your would have written a better article FWIW. I don't disagree with your points here. I don't think these are unique to libertarians. People of all political stripes bring their morality to politics and claim they are Democratic or conservative for the greater good when that isn't true.

To me politics is about figuring out how to resolve conflict first and if your system requires everyone to be nice it is doomed to fail. Hoppe is trying to solve for a very real issue. Maybe his heart is filled with hate. But the point remains, if you have groups of people at moral odds I believe it is better to separate peacefully and try to win people over voluntary vs by force. He seems to gloss over that.

Thanks for your reply.

55 sats \ 3 replies \ @k00b OP 16 Jun

I don't think these are unique to libertarians.

Agreed. Political labels are camouflage as much as they are jerseys our teammates wear.

But the point remains, if you have groups of people at moral odds I believe it is better to separate peacefully and try to win people over voluntary vs by force.

100%

He seems to gloss over that.

I like to read and listen to people accepting they'll gloss over nearly everything, whether I agree with them or not, but I might just be exhausted to the point of having low standards. These days, I find myself mostly wanting to hunt for their point with them, friend or well-intended foe.

121 sats \ 2 replies \ @kepford 16 Jun

find myself mostly wanting to hunt for their point with them, friend or well-intended foe.

I do this with people I know. I tend to not do it in situations like this.

10 sats \ 1 reply \ @k00b OP 16 Jun

Tbh I think that’s a fair and good approach. I just find it easier to always do it, and sometimes it’s all that stands in the way of knowing someone new.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford 16 Jun

I probably should be more like that.