CDZ Libertarianism Is Dead, Authoritarianism Is Coming

[Liminal]

The intellectual and moral discrepancies of Libertarianism makes for an easy transition to an authoritarian movement.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Agreed and inevitable, I think, as government and cultures and economic forces and technology continue to become more global.

 

[Liminal]

Agreed and inevitable, I think, as government and cultures and economic forces and technology continue to become more global.

I think the effects of a high tech, immediate gratification society, constantly in communication with one another, has been a net average dumbing down of people everywhere. The wealth of choices doesn't make them smarter, it only confuses them more.

 

[gipper]

It is funny that the neocon statist George Will speaks up now. Has he ever said much about Obama's or W's authoritarianism?

If Trump were not running, would George be saying anything? I think not. He is of the establishment and for the establishment.

 

[Liminal]

It is funny that the neocon statist George Will speaks up now. Has he ever said much about Obama's or W's authoritarianism?

If Trump were not running, would George be saying anything? I think not. He is of the establishment and for the establishment.

As if Trump isn't part of the establishment. Is that because he's one of the buyers instead of one of the bought?

 

[gipper]

It is funny that the neocon statist George Will speaks up now. Has he ever said much about Obama's or W's authoritarianism?

If Trump were not running, would George be saying anything? I think not. He is of the establishment and for the establishment.

As if Trump isn't part of the establishment. Is that because he's one of the buyers instead of one of the bought?

He is of the establishment, yet the establishment hates him. It must be because they know he will not kowtow to their demands, which is a very good thing for the vast majority of Americans...I tend to think.

 

[Liminal]

It is funny that the neocon statist George Will speaks up now. Has he ever said much about Obama's or W's authoritarianism?

If Trump were not running, would George be saying anything? I think not. He is of the establishment and for the establishment.

As if Trump isn't part of the establishment. Is that because he's one of the buyers instead of one of the bought?

He is of the establishment, yet the establishment hates him. It must be because they know he will not kowtow to their demands, which is a very good thing for the vast majority of Americans...I tend to think.

It's bound to be good for at least one American anyway.

 

[Fishlore]

The intellectual and moral discrepancies of Libertarianism makes for an easy transition to an authoritarian movement.

Your observation makes a lot of sense, as far as the American strand of libertarianism as represented by Drs. Paul and the Libertarian Party goes. American libertarianism is just reactionary anarchism. The rest of the world has a quite different definition of liberty than our "Whoopee! I'm not in jail!"

 

[gipper]

It is funny that the neocon statist George Will speaks up now. Has he ever said much about Obama's or W's authoritarianism?

If Trump were not running, would George be saying anything? I think not. He is of the establishment and for the establishment.

As if Trump isn't part of the establishment. Is that because he's one of the buyers instead of one of the bought?

He is of the establishment, yet the establishment hates him. It must be because they know he will not kowtow to their demands, which is a very good thing for the vast majority of Americans...I tend to think.

It's bound to be good for at least one American anyway.

That is one way to look at it, but a might be short sighted. Millions of Americans are pissed off at the political and billionaire class who have been running things so badly for so long. Trump is promising change, but the establishment wants to continue the status quo.

IMO we have had decades of bad leadership from the establishment. Time to try something different. Could be bad or good...but we KNOW continuing the status quo will be BAD.

 

[Holos]

The precepts initiated within this thread for the furthering of Libertarianism is by its own standards creasing (diminishing) the possibility for Libertarianism to become succesful.

There is nothing wrong with Authoritarianism, exactly because there is nothing wrong with any form of political organization. Authoritarianism is best represented in a complete established State - which doesn't mean at all it rejects improvement. On the contrary, it thrives from contributions, and an ideal authoritarian state is usually assumed to have also been established from previous contributions.

I disagree it is Libertarianism, in any form whatsoever, that makes for an easy transition to Authoritarianism. Not that Libertarianism has no capacity to effectuate a transition to Authoritarianism, but that Libertarianism cannot be assumed to be either a source of improvement rejection or targeted as moral and intellectual discrepancies.

Libertarianism is not dead, it cannot be dead by its own very foundation coming from "liberty". Any appointed constriction (usually by nature authoritarian) is not necessarily applicable and won't be applicable to Libertarianism if it won't ultimately benefit Libertarianism as the form of organization that it is, thriving from other functioning political formats.

Authoritarianism has already been established abundantly in many places, therefore it would be redundant and even offensive to anounce its future arrival.

 

[gipper]

The precepts initiated within this thread for the furthering of Libertarianism is by its own standards creasing (diminishing) the possibility for Libertarianism to become succesful.

There is nothing wrong with Authoritarianism, exactly because there is nothing wrong with any form of political organization. Authoritarianism is best represented in a complete established State - which doesn't mean at all it rejects improvement. On the contrary, it thrives from contributions, and an ideal authoritarian state is usually assumed to have also been established from previous contributions.

I disagree it is Libertarianism, in any form whatsoever, that makes for an easy transition to Authoritarianism. Not that Libertarianism has no capacity to effectuate a transition to Authoritarianism, but that Libertarianism cannot be assumed to be either a source of improvement rejection or targeted as moral and intellectual discrepancies.

Libertarianism is not dead, it cannot be dead by its own very foundation coming from "liberty". Any appointed constriction (usually by nature authoritarian) is not necessarily applicable and won't be applicable to Libertarianism if it won't ultimately benefit Libertarianism as the form of organization that it is, thriving from other functioning political formats.

Authoritarianism has already been established abundantly in many places, therefore it would be redundant and even offensive to anounce its future arrival.

Authoritarianism is the form of government most of mankind has been forced to suffer under throughout human history. It continues today even though it has shown itself to be ALMOST always tyrannical, corrupt, and murderous. Giving unlimited power to any one man or group of men, is dangerous and deadly...and very stupid considering what we know today.

 

[Holos]

The precepts initiated within this thread for the furthering of Libertarianism is by its own standards creasing (diminishing) the possibility for Libertarianism to become succesful.

There is nothing wrong with Authoritarianism, exactly because there is nothing wrong with any form of political organization. Authoritarianism is best represented in a complete established State - which doesn't mean at all it rejects improvement. On the contrary, it thrives from contributions, and an ideal authoritarian state is usually assumed to have also been established from previous contributions.

I disagree it is Libertarianism, in any form whatsoever, that makes for an easy transition to Authoritarianism. Not that Libertarianism has no capacity to effectuate a transition to Authoritarianism, but that Libertarianism cannot be assumed to be either a source of improvement rejection or targeted as moral and intellectual discrepancies.

Libertarianism is not dead, it cannot be dead by its own very foundation coming from "liberty". Any appointed constriction (usually by nature authoritarian) is not necessarily applicable and won't be applicable to Libertarianism if it won't ultimately benefit Libertarianism as the form of organization that it is, thriving from other functioning political formats.

Authoritarianism has already been established abundantly in many places, therefore it would be redundant and even offensive to anounce its future arrival.

Authoritarianism is the form of government most of mankind has been forced to suffer under throughout human history. It continues today even though it has shown itself to be ALMOST always tyrannical, corrupt, and murderous. Giving unlimited power to any one man or group of men, is dangerous and deadly...and very stupid considering what we know today.

I am not disagreeing. Are you going to add anything to the discussion?