Liminal
Gold Member
The intellectual and moral discrepancies of Libertarianism makes for an easy transition to an authoritarian movement.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.Agreed and inevitable, I think, as government and cultures and economic forces and technology continue to become more global.
As if Trump isn't part of the establishment. Is that because he's one of the buyers instead of one of the bought?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.
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.As if Trump isn't part of the establishment. Is that because he's one of the buyers instead of one of the bought?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.
It's bound to be good for at least one American anyway.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.As if Trump isn't part of the establishment. Is that because he's one of the buyers instead of one of the bought?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.
The intellectual and moral discrepancies of Libertarianism makes for an easy transition to an authoritarian movement.
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.It's bound to be good for at least one American anyway.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.As if Trump isn't part of the establishment. Is that because he's one of the buyers instead of one of the bought?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.
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.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.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.