Originally posted by inimalist
let me try and put it this way. You basically say, "look at how diverse libertarian ideology is, it covers everything but fascism":
There are libertarian ideas that are so extremely to the right that we can hardly call them libertarians. I think they call themselves authoritarian libertarians (and in fact may have a nice overlap with the version of fascism to which I was alluding...the obvious point here is that I was not referring to this form of libertarianism when I used words like "diverse" or "most forms". No one thinks, "Gee...I think libertarians mostly believe in an authoritarian system". In fact, that superficially seems opposed to most forms of libertarianism).
There are libertarians so far to the left that they are literally called left libertarianism.
Then there's everything inbetween and not-between. The American Libertarian movement is so diverse that you can hardly lock it down with sweeping statements. The only thing I can see that is common among them is the superficial proposition that most forms hold individual liberty to be valuable* (I reference this, multiple times, throughout my post).
The fascism comment? And tongue-in-cheek comment that is NOT supposed to be taken literally. "Third-kind" is the take-away message: something that is supposed to be so different that it creates an obvious contrast. When someone says "fascist", they are not referring to the uncommon iterations where "individual liberty is preserved": that's very obvious. They are talking about the third kind of politics where minute details of an individual's life is run by the government and bla bla bla. Basically, this: "Fascism opposes multiple ideologies: conservatism, liberalism, and two major forms of socialism—communism and social democracy."
We can do the same with American Democrats and Republicans. There is huge diversity in each significant political movement.
Originally posted by inimalist
1) as an anarchist this is kind of funny. Libertarians, sure, have some diversity in their political ideology, but ultimately, they have a very limited view on government policy that centers around individual rights rather than the idea of a social contract. Sure, you can make individual rights policy arguments for or against some issues (public health care, education, etc), but the idea that they represent this massively heterogeneous group of individuals, idk, I disagree to say the least.
That strongly depends on which libertarians you're talking about. Ever hear of the anarcho-libertarians? I would say that you yourself are an anarcho-libertarian. That form seems to be spreading almost memetically among young male American Atheists these days.
Originally posted by inimalist
2) that does sort of imply that you think the only type of ideology that is counter to libertarian ideology is a form of fascism, as if a libertarian could believe anything that isn't fascism. This is off for a couple of reasons:
Let's take a step back:
I said that libertarianism is extremely diverse, so you should have concluded anything but the above.
The fact that I said it would be "scary as ****" when I referenced Fascism, you should conclude that I was referring to the exact opposite of "individual liberty*" fascist flavors.
To do so is to miss the point on purpose but I am not sure why you are doing that (I skipped to the end and you even say you don't think I believe in only 2 political positions). You actually have to go out of your way, counter-intuitively to my point, to come to this conclusion.
Originally posted by inimalist
a) ideologies that don't center on individual rights can actually come to the same policy conclusions that libertarians do. On health care, for instance, social contract based ideologies can generate either pro or anti healthcare policies based on their interpretation of social rights and norms. unless you are saying the social contract itself is a fascist concept, libertarianism has no exclusive claim to non-fascism.
I would reword the above to the following:
"a) ideologies that don't center on individual rights can actually come to the same policy conclusions that some flavors of libertarianism. On health care, for instance, social contract based ideologies can generate either pro or anti healthcare policies based on their interpretation of social rights and norms. Unless you are saying that the social contract itself is a a red-herring to your point about fascism. No political philosophy has an exclusive claim to non-fascism but this point is also obvious."
Originally posted by inimalist
b) fascism itself can be individual oriented and, in fact, can come to the exact same policy conclusions as libertarianism does for the very same reasons.
To me, what I read from your above statement is the following: "let me find exceptions to anything you say rather than understanding your point."
I am aware that that is what people do when talking about politics so I do not think you're being obtuse.
Originally posted by inimalist
Fascists and libertarians differ, obviously, with respect to voting rights and a couple of other things,
Ugh
Just a couple of other things? Well, before I blow you off for saying something like that, I very well could be ignorant, here.
Define fascism and make sure you use the commonly defined form of fascism and not an obscure flavor just to make your point.
Originally posted by inimalist
but by definition, there are almost no policies or ideological justifications that are mutually exclusive between fascism and libertarianism."
Find a better political philosophy that is more opposed to the extreme diversity found in the American Libertarian movement (I find that task largely impossible and fascism still seems to be the best fit for opposing the one commonality*. I find the fascist state to be the most opposed because it suppresses individualism**.
By doing so, you can have your cake and eat it, too. You've focused so much on the word "fascism" that you've missed the point entirely.
My point was never to rage at fascism but only to find another political ideology that would be so different from most forms of libertarianism as to provide a contrast. When people think about fascism in a conversation, even if Political Science professors, they don't think about uncommon or even theoretical forms of fascism: that would be very silly and illogical.
Furthermore, it should have been quite obvious the statement was tongue-in-cheek because I actually paused, asked "what" and used fascism. It was the first thing I could think of off the top of my head that seemed the most ideologically opposed to the American Libertarian movement. Even after I have had time to think long and hard about it, I still cannot think of a better contrast to the COMPLETE American Libertarian movement.
Originally posted by inimalist
idk, I certainly don't think you actually believe there are only 2 political positions (fascism vs libertarianism), but that is sort of the most obvious interpretation of what you said.
If you knew that that wasn't my point, why did you bring it up? And, no, that's not the most obvious interpretation to what I said. The most obvious interpretation is, "oh, he's just showing a contrast to make his point about how diverse libertarianism is because being completely opposed to such a diverse political movement is sure to have repercussions against one's own political beliefs."
To give a better example:
"Man, I completely hate animals".
"Oh yeah? Guess you hate your cats and yourself, then, right?"
Spoiler:
**"Fascism supports a socially united collective national society and opposes socially divided class-based societies and socially-divided individualist-based societies."
**Now, keep in mind, that out of all political philosophies, I understand/comprehend fascism the least. It just doesn't make sense to me. It doesn't jive with me. Maybe it is due to how much I disagree with it and the "logic" employed.