Stefan Molyneux

[Antoine de Saint-Exupéry]

Socialist economies tend to overproduce (wasting resources that could have been utilized to better lives) or underproduce (you're starving or being denied goods).

ah, yes. something like that could never happen in good ol' capitalism, of course.

also:

The difficulty is that most sane people align with leftish ideas, however if we share the same goal but a liberal's means of achieving it is measurably harmful, then I'm put in the awkward position of having to oppose him. So the question is: Do we permit liberals more leeway than fascists in spite of that both have the potential to destroy lives?

 

[Sundeki]

Yes, because they ban them on an ad hoc basis.

Some do, yes. More have explicit legal provisions against the existence of Nazis, but Nazis aren't the only kinds of fascists. When you look at the number of European countries that have active Fascist/Nazi movements today, it's clear that with the exception of a few, most of the others don't actually ban them. Germany, as an example, has many active Nazi and NeoNazi movements/parties, despite having (if I remember correctly) the most legal and active provisions to prevent the rise of another party like the NSDAP. Sweden has no specific nazi legal provisions, doesn't ban neonazi parties/groups and it's neonazi movements are no stronger, perhaps even weaker(it's difficult to tell, there's not very much data). Near as I can tell, state action of a non-totalitarian kind doesn't seem to affect the existence or strength of Nazi or Fascist groups, or the spread of such ideology.

I agree that we should invest in solving issues at the root of the problem, which has been an effective solution to 'extremism' for decennias, but this isn't true anymore (the internet changed everything, is my theory). The West, for the most part, isn't even in a recession yet we're dealing with extremist populists gaining traction. The last 10 years has seen dramatic reactionary political movements against the status quo and they don't seem to have halted.

We might not be in a recession(well technically, my country Australia, is in recession actually), but there's been many unresolved economic problems since the GFC in Western countries(even earlier in some cases) which, for whatever reason, are left completely unchecked. While a recession is usually the catalyzing force behind the emergence of these kinds of movements, a recession obviously isn't the only form of economic disruption or uncertainty. Combined with the problems presented by the migrant crisis/mass population movements in general, and the rise in terrorist attacks in western countries (which if I remember the study correctly are the key driving forces behind people backing right-wing populist parties), as well as the apparent ineptitude and disconnect of high level bureaucrats; the conditions which lead to the emergence of a polarized political system are actually there, even if they aren't quite severe enough to generate full blown fascist counter-reactions.

The reason that one may think fascism isn't a threat is because we spend considerable resources combatting it. Liberal democracies pour incredible amounts into combating racism and promoting liberal values, among others. Still, the advent right-wing populism encapsulates the same sentiments as fascism. For instance, where I live they hold ~20% of the seats in parliament. Not something to be ignored. The idea that the status quo is capable of addressing these issues without intervention is not only wrong but also incredibly short-sighted and irresponsible.

Fascism won't pop into existence in its purest, 1942, Hitlerst form, but most likely should be associated with the (early) characteristics thereof. Such as: antagonism of non-natives, appeal to strength, cult leadership, etc. Even Trump's posturing and following exhibit fashy characteristics; very capable of eroding liberal institutions. Although a lot of these people are not full-blown fascists, they are capable of cultivating bigger followings and more extreme ideas (if left unchecked). For example, when Trump was elected, racist organization felt emboldened to come out of the woodworks and even march the streets. Democracy is not an intemporal entity. You need a sufficiently large liberal (middle)class to uphold democratic institutions. And again: Combatting does not necessarily mean 'shutting down'.

I mean, sure, there is some kind of overlap between ordinary Nationalists, and Fascists. Just like how ideologically there's some kind of overlap between Marxism and even Social Democracy (which is why when the communist parties of Eastern Europe collapsed, most of their politicians ended up joining Social Democratic parties). And given enough of a decline in conditions, the driving force behind support for moderate socialist ideals that gives Social Democrats votes, could conceivably lead to support for explicitly Marxist parties (e.g Greece in 2008-now). And the same is of course true of ordinary nationalists and conservatives backing Ultranationalists. Near as I can tell, these cases we're talking about seem to be the result of purely material conditions, and not targeted anti-communist/anti-fascist/pro-liberal propaganda from the state or special interest groups.

 

[Almalexia]

...unless the existing political system is totally incompetent.

Not to really wade into this debate (or any, really), but, where have you been living the last few decades/ever?

 

[Flin Flon]

@Monty, the difference is that I can have a conversation about efficiency. No socialist (that I've seen) can. You can be the first if you want. We can go over microeconomics; you can bring up ANY study YOU want and we can go over it.

Just finished my thesis - I have the time. You'll have my fullest attention.

@Sundeki, the second paragraph has some correct parts. But, I'm sorry, overall that post is a poor understanding of things. And I suddenly realize why leftists hate us.

 

[Sundeki]

...unless the existing political system is totally incompetent.

Not to really wade into this debate (or any, really), but, where have you been living the last few decades/ever?

I differentiate between incompetence, and corruption and maliciousness. I am of the opinion that high level politicians, as a general rule, are very intelligent. They're just self serving, corrupt, narcissistic, etc. Incompetence means lack of ability. They have the ability, just not the moral fiber.

@Sundeki, the second paragraph has some correct parts. But, I'm sorry, overall that post is a poor understanding of things. And I suddenly realize why leftists hate us.

Uhh, ok. A statement of "u dumb" is more proof of your own lack of understanding than anything else. Thanks anyway.

 

[Flin Flon]

I don't think you're dumb, but we're just going to talk past each other if we're not working from the same presuppositions; which I'm not opposed to grounding. It's that I have a slight advantage because I dibble in metascience and ethics, and no one likes to be lectured and I'm sure as hell not gonna signal I'm wrong on something I'm not.

 

[Sundeki]

I don't think you're dumb, but we're just going to talk past each other if we're not working from the same presuppositions; which I'm not opposed to grounding. It's that I have a slight advantage because I dibble in metascience and ethics, and no one likes to be lectured.

Whatever you say, chief.

 

[Antoine de Saint-Exupéry]

suffering in the name of efficiency is of course not a problem.

 

[Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James]

I don't think you're dumb, but we're just going to talk past each other if we're not working from the same presuppositions; which I'm not opposed to grounding. It's that I have a slight advantage because I dibble in metascience and ethics, and no one likes to be lectured and I'm sure as hell not gonna signal I'm wrong on something I'm not.

隐藏

 

[Moose!]

 

[Sundeki]

lol

 

[Pixel]

It's that I have a slight advantage because I dibble in metascience and ethics, and no one likes to be lectured and I'm sure as hell not gonna signal I'm wrong on something I'm not.

holy living **** you just can't make this stuff up.

 

[Vermillion_Hawk]

This is what Humanities-based pseudosciences do to people.

 

[Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James]

*economics

 

[Vermillion_Hawk]

Even worse.

 

[Flin Flon]

ALRIGHT

If anyone wants to contest anything I've said before (preferably on substance as opposed to additude), then you're welcome to try. Otherwise, suck my ****.

One thing that I'm gonna concede, is that, I'm a layman and probably not qualified to sufficiently accurately represent **** (so that other people get wtf is being said).

I realize how smug I come off. However, I consciously opted for "meta-science and ethics", because, it was less pretentious than something like "metaphysics" or vague like "philosophy". The alternative to that was writing boring walls of text no one bothers with. So yea, to reiterate, suck my ****.

This is what Humanities-based pseudosciences do to people.

Please please please please don't make me point out the complete retardation of this statement.

 

[Vermillion_Hawk]

Glad to see you're charitable enough not to subject us to the full extent of your pretentiousness.

 

[Flin Flon]

You're welcome. Do you want me to point out why you're retarded?

 

[Vermillion_Hawk]

I'm probably too retarded to understand your explanation.

 

[Silen]

I always come here for a laugh.