libertarian fascism

[Advocate]

We have to have a single world government to deal with world level issues. The environment will not be dealt with until after major disasters hit because there is no agreement between nations, it's a race to the bottom. World government is absolutely necessary, evil or otherwise. The notion of fascism is totalitarian. The state is all. The purpose of a state is to manage issues people cannot or will not manage themselves. A state is likewise necessary, evil or otherwise. In order to provide its citizens with maximum freedom, the state must first ensure adequate security. The state must have a monopoly on force, evil or otherwise. To attain maximum effectiveness at it's good or evil aims, a state must be efficient, and efficiency entails organization and delegation. A state, like a person, is most effective when it concentrates on fundamentals within it's realm of adequacy. In order to be efficient a well-ordered state will manage only the most crucial and central decisions at the top and delegate as much as possible downward, where locality of understanding is the most efficient management method. In other words, the state must control everything and delegate as much of that control as reasonably possible while maintaining it's own clearly stated objectives (which must include no less than protections of legitimacy, including at least transparency for the state, privacy for citizens, accountability, and oversight. Any freedoms which can reasonably be made available equally to all citizens can best be made in this framework of iron-fisted necessity tempered with a meaningful desire to maximize freedom only second.

[RCSaunders]

We have to have a single world government to deal with world level issues.

Who is we. I know millions of individuals who are getting along quite well without any government, much less a world-wide dictatorship. It's only the ignorant, lazy, and those incompetent to live their own lives without someone else tell them what to do who need a government. Are you one of them?

[henry quirk]

We have to have a single world government to deal with world level issues.

Who is we. I know millions of individuals who are getting along quite well without any government, much less a world-wide dictatorship. It's only the ignorant, lazy, and those incompetent to live their own lives without someone else tell them what to do who need a government. Are you one of them?

Advocate is the architect of the brave new world: but he won't actually live in it.

He'll manage it...from olympus.

[henry quirk]

We have to have a single world government to deal with world level issues.

Let's have your top five world-level issues (past or present).


The environment will not be dealt with until after major disasters hit because there is no agreement between nations, it's a race to the bottom.

I'm guessin your talkin' about that fiction industry-driven climate change. Plant trees: (fake) problem solved.


World government is absolutely necessary, evil or otherwise.

No, leavin' folks alone to make their own way as each sees fit: that there is absolutely neccessary.


The notion of fascism is totalitarian. The state is all. The purpose of a state is to manage issues people cannot or will not manage themselves.

No, the purpose of the state is to self-perpetuate by creatin' problems and then pretendin' to address those problems.


In order to provide its citizens with maximum freedom, the state must first ensure adequate security.

The state provides nuthin'. A man is naturally free, so the state can only diminish him. Any security beyond what me and Mr. 12 gauge provide for me & mine is an intrusion.


The state must have a monopoly on force, evil or otherwise.

As a proponent of a chartered natural rights libertarian minarchy, I believe in a minimal, local, constabulary; minimal, local, arbitration; minimal border defense; and a militia (that's everyone with a gun) to kill the other three when they overstep.

Monopoly on force? To hell with that noise.


To attain maximum effectiveness at it's good or evil aims, a state must be efficient, and efficiency entails organization and delegation.

The state ought to be blunted, stymied, made to stumble, and encouraged to self-cannibalize.


A state, like a person, is most effective when it concentrates on fundamentals within it's realm of adequacy.

Only thing the state is good at is stealin' money (and de-valuin' it), and regulatin' that which ought not be regulated (free men).


In order to be efficient a well-ordered state will manage only the most crucial and central decisions at the top and delegate as much as possible downward, where locality of understanding is the most efficient management method.

Let's have your top five most crucial and central decisions (past or present) requirin' anything more than locals to do the decidin'.


In other words, the state must control everything and delegate as much of that control as reasonably possible while maintaining it's own clearly stated objectives (which must include no less than protections of legitimacy, including at least transparency for the state, privacy for citizens, accountability, and oversight. Any freedoms which can reasonably be made available equally to all citizens can best be made in this framework of iron-fisted necessity tempered with a meaningful desire to maximize freedom only second.

Can't make heads or tails of this. K.I.S.S.

[Advocate]

We have to have a single world government to deal with world level issues.

Who is we. I know millions of individuals who are getting along quite well without any government, much less a world-wide dictatorship. It's only the ignorant, lazy, and those incompetent to live their own lives without someone else tell them what to do who need a government. Are you one of them?

I cannot prevent environmental catastrophe. You cannot prevent environmental catastrophe. We cannot prevent environmental catastrophe. Most current governments can't prevent environmental catastrophe. The rest of current governments won't prevent environmental catastrophe. If we don't get an efficient world government, we will get environmental catastrophe. No one will accept a world government, as previously noted Therefore we will get environmental catastrophe. Care to bet on it? This world view has predictive power.

[Advocate]

We have to have a single world government to deal with world level issues.

Who is we. I know millions of individuals who are getting along quite well without any government, much less a world-wide dictatorship. It's only the ignorant, lazy, and those incompetent to live their own lives without someone else tell them what to do who need a government. Are you one of them?

Advocate is the architect of the brave new world: but he won't actually live in it.

He'll manage it...from olympus.

There's a good reason gurus live on mountaintops.

[Advocate]

>Let's have your top five world-level issues (past or present).

There are many overlapping existential answers to that question. Off the top of my head, in no particular order; climate change, overpopulation, anti-intellectualism, land use, ... that might be sufficient.

>No, leavin' folks alone to make their own way as each sees fit: that there is absolutely neccessary.

That there is why people created governments and stuff like the Magna Carta. Natural law and common law are insufficient for modern circumstances.

>No, the purpose of the state is to self-perpetuate by creatin' problems and then pretendin' to address those problems.

That's a modern society sure enough, but it's not the archetype.

>The state provides nuthin'. A man is naturally free, so the state can only diminish him. Any security beyond what me and Mr. 12 gauge provide for me & mine is an intrusion.

And how does someone provide their own shotgun? Sounds clear to me that you want regression in most senses.

>As a proponent of a chartered natural rights libertarian minarchy, I believe in a minimal, local, constabulary; minimal, local, arbitration; minimal border defense; and a militia (that's everyone with a gun) to kill the other three when they overstep.

I'm with you up until militias. That would just mean militias will have a monopoly on force. It's only a matter of scale. Someone must keep the peace and it's best for that to be a unified force that everyone understands, even if you're going to throw a revolution. It's also necessary for efficiency, which is a universal good for any good system.

>The state ought to be blunted, stymied, made to stumble, and encouraged to self-cannibalize.

We've been there before and many gave their lives to overcome it.

>Only thing the state is good at is stealin' money (and de-valuin' it), and regulatin' that which ought not be regulated (free men).

Ok, you hate the idea of government, got it.

Let's have your top five most crucial and central decisions (past or present) requirin' anything more than locals to do the decidin'.

Basically the same as the first list. Why would it be different? My whole point is that those things Cannot and Will Not be handled at less than a world level because local mitigation is insufficient to the task.

>Can't make heads or tails of this. K.I.S.S.

The simple version is the title.

[henry quirk]

There are many overlapping existential answers to that question. Off the top of my head, in no particular order; climate change, overpopulation, anti-intellectualism, land use, ... that might be sufficient.

the climate is fine; the world is not overpopulated; anti-intellectualism is par for the course, same as it always was; the only land use problem is local and involves over-regulation and regulatory abuse


That there is why people created governments and stuff like the Magna Carta. Natural law and common law are insufficient for modern circumstances.

gov was created to give slavers a leg up; the Magna Carta is a codification of natural rights; natural rights get a bad rap from -- surprise, surprise -- folks who wanna get a leg up...natural rights, codified, is sufficient for everyone


That's a modern society sure enough, but it's not the archetype.

nope..the state is always a leash...always


And how does someone provide their own shotgun?

I bought mine from a private dealer (a gunshop in Lafayette, Louisiana), not from the state (but, sure as shit, the state profited from the purchase)


Sounds clear to me that you want regression in most senses.

yes


I'm with you up until militias. That would just mean militias will have a monopoly on force. It's only a matter of scale. Someone must keep the peace and it's best for that to be a unified force that everyone understands, even if you're going to throw a revolution. It's also necessary for efficiency, which is a universal good for any good system.

everyone who has a gun is militia...this includes the constabulary, the arbiters, and the border patrol so, there's no monopoly; yes, someone must keep the local peace...I trust me; efficiency is not, nor should it ever be, the goal for gov or a community


We've been there before and many gave their lives to overcome it.

No gov, once in place & runnin' for a good while, has ever been encouraged to hobble itself: you're just plain wrong on this


Ok, you hate the idea of government, got it.

yep, and with good reason


The simple version is the title.

in other words: another bad idea

[henry quirk]

Who is we. I know millions of individuals who are getting along quite well without any government, much less a world-wide dictatorship. It's only the ignorant, lazy, and those incompetent to live their own lives without someone else tell them what to do who need a government. Are you one of them?

Advocate is the architect of the brave new world: but he won't actually live in it.

He'll manage it...from olympus.

There's a good reason gurus live on mountaintops.

they live on peaks cuz it makes for good marketing

[RCSaunders]

We have to have a single world government to deal with world level issues.

Who is we. I know millions of individuals who are getting along quite well without any government, much less a world-wide dictatorship. It's only the ignorant, lazy, and those incompetent to live their own lives without someone else tell them what to do who need a government. Are you one of them?

I cannot prevent environmental catastrophe. You cannot prevent environmental catastrophe. We cannot prevent environmental catastrophe. Most current governments can't prevent environmental catastrophe. The rest of current governments won't prevent environmental catastrophe. If we don't get an efficient world government, we will get environmental catastrophe. No one will accept a world government, as previously noted Therefore we will get environmental catastrophe. Care to bet on it? This world view has predictive power.

Environmental catastrophes have been predicted as imminent for the last 100 years, and not one of those predictions transpired. Worry about it all you like, and if it really bother's you, take Robert Heinlein's advice: "When you're worried or in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout."

There definitely is a danger of disaster, but it's not from any threat to the, "environment," but from all the gullible paranoid idiots who clamor to be save by the government from every new non-existent pending catastrophe.

I wish the environment would change, and the sooner the better, and I want it to change to whatever condition you and all the other gullible idiots who believe the government propaganda fear the most.

[Advocate]

Who is we. I know millions of individuals who are getting along quite well without any government, much less a world-wide dictatorship. It's only the ignorant, lazy, and those incompetent to live their own lives without someone else tell them what to do who need a government. Are you one of them?

I cannot prevent environmental catastrophe. You cannot prevent environmental catastrophe. We cannot prevent environmental catastrophe. Most current governments can't prevent environmental catastrophe. The rest of current governments won't prevent environmental catastrophe. If we don't get an efficient world government, we will get environmental catastrophe. No one will accept a world government, as previously noted Therefore we will get environmental catastrophe. Care to bet on it? This world view has predictive power.

Environmental catastrophes have been predicted as imminent for the last 100 years, and not one of those predictions transpired. Worry about it all you like, and if it really bother's you, take Robert Heinlein's advice: "When you're worried or in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout."

There definitely is a danger of disaster, but it's not from any threat to the, "environment," but from all the gullible paranoid idiots who clamor to be save by the government from every new non-existent pending catastrophe.

I wish the environment would change, and the sooner the better, and I want it to change to whatever condition you and all the other gullible idiots who believe the government propaganda fear the most.

I think wishing disaster on everyone to prove your ego right disqualifies you from having a valid opinion.

[RCSaunders]

I cannot prevent environmental catastrophe. You cannot prevent environmental catastrophe. We cannot prevent environmental catastrophe. Most current governments can't prevent environmental catastrophe. The rest of current governments won't prevent environmental catastrophe. If we don't get an efficient world government, we will get environmental catastrophe. No one will accept a world government, as previously noted Therefore we will get environmental catastrophe. Care to bet on it? This world view has predictive power.

Environmental catastrophes have been predicted as imminent for the last 100 years, and not one of those predictions transpired. Worry about it all you like, and if it really bother's you, take Robert Heinlein's advice: "When you're worried or in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout."

There definitely is a danger of disaster, but it's not from any threat to the, "environment," but from all the gullible paranoid idiots who clamor to be save by the government from every new non-existent pending catastrophe.

I wish the environment would change, and the sooner the better, and I want it to change to whatever condition you and all the other gullible idiots who believe the government propaganda fear the most.

I think wishing disaster on everyone to prove your ego right disqualifies you from having a valid opinion.

Well don't worry about it. My wishes have no more efficacy than a Christian's prayers.

The truth is, 99% of the human race is rushing head-long to disaster, no matter what you or I wish, and sadly they deserve it.

[Advocate]

Environmental catastrophes have been predicted as imminent for the last 100 years, and not one of those predictions transpired. Worry about it all you like, and if it really bother's you, take Robert Heinlein's advice: "When you're worried or in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout."

There definitely is a danger of disaster, but it's not from any threat to the, "environment," but from all the gullible paranoid idiots who clamor to be save by the government from every new non-existent pending catastrophe.

I wish the environment would change, and the sooner the better, and I want it to change to whatever condition you and all the other gullible idiots who believe the government propaganda fear the most.

I think wishing disaster on everyone to prove your ego right disqualifies you from having a valid opinion.

Well don't worry about it. My wishes have no more efficacy than a Christian's prayers.

The truth is, 99% of the human race is rushing head-long to disaster, no matter what you or I wish, and sadly they deserve it.

I concur. We're Doomed!

[henry quirk]

I think wishing disaster on everyone to prove your ego right disqualifies you from having a valid opinion.

Well don't worry about it. My wishes have no more efficacy than a Christian's prayers.

The truth is, 99% of the human race is rushing head-long to disaster, no matter what you or I wish, and sadly they deserve it.

I concur. We're Doomed!

sourpusses, the both of you

[RCSaunders]

I concur. We're Doomed!

Well, speak for yourself.

They're doomed, because they have chosen to depend on society, or government, or some political party or movement to save them, when that is what is destroying them. Only those that know their own life depends on one thing, and one thing only, what they choose and do.

Quite frankly, the world and I will be quite glad to be rid of them.