|
Post by greenhert on May 23, 2022 21:27:56 GMT
|
|
sirbenjamin
IFP
True fame is reading your name written in graffiti, but without the words 'is a wanker' after it.
Posts: 4,979
|
Post by sirbenjamin on May 23, 2022 21:40:26 GMT
Why should governments be, purport to be, or strive to be on anyone's 'side'?!? This is why I'm so disillusioned with the whole lot. I want my government/state to be as small, as morally neutral, as inactive and as non-interventionist as possible. With the possible exception of crime, I don't want policies and laws based on 'taking sides', not even mine! The issue with that is that such a minimalist government is de facto on the "side" of whichever group of people happens to be rich and powerful in their country.
That's exactly what people who like heavy-handed government and who have vested interests in maintaining its presence want the useful idiots to believe. Scaremongering with zero basis in fact AND entirely without historical precedent because it's literally never been done before.
And because nothing remotely close to a true Libertarian ideology has ever really been tried there has never really been a proper ultra-right-wing government. Not here, not anywhere.
And, yes, many will say 'thank fuck for that', as is their privilege, but the same people - including some who claim to be right-wing - will invariably conflate all manner of arbitrary bullshit (nationalism, social conservatism, strong leadership, whatever) into a strawman 'Right' in order to have something does actually exist to rail against/support.
'Rich and powerful' exists primarily *because* of government busybodying, not in spite of it. The bigger the government, the more say they have in who gets to be rich and powerful.
I'm a realist. I know the number of people sharing my view is so tiny, and the system so stacked against them by the simple virtue of it being a system, that the best I can hope for is to get through a lifespan where the 'least bad' option predominates.
But I will not cease from mental fight.
|
|
batman
Labour
Posts: 8,719
Member is Online
|
Post by batman on May 23, 2022 21:42:50 GMT
"'Rich and powerful' exists primarily *because* of government busybodying, not in spite of it." Oh for goodness sake. You really believe that if there were less government people would be less obscenely wealthy? And you call yourself a realist? LOL.
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on May 24, 2022 5:44:08 GMT
Why should governments be, purport to be, or strive to be on anyone's 'side'?!? This is why I'm so disillusioned with the whole lot. I want my government/state to be as small, as morally neutral, as inactive and as non-interventionist as possible. With the possible exception of crime, I don't want policies and laws based on 'taking sides', not even mine! The issue with that is that such a minimalist government is de facto on the "side" of whichever group of people happens to be rich and powerful in their country. Of course traditional conservatives are on the side of the status quo, whatever that happens to be, on the grounds that experience has shown that change is always almost for the worst. This is a perfectly rational position, though of course it bears no resemblance to Johnsonian boosterism, as it is fundamentally pessimist about human nature, and human ability to take rational decisions.
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on May 24, 2022 8:39:42 GMT
The issue with that is that such a minimalist government is de facto on the "side" of whichever group of people happens to be rich and powerful in their country.
That's exactly what people who like heavy-handed government and who have vested interests in maintaining its presence want the useful idiots to believe. Scaremongering with zero basis in fact AND entirely without historical precedent because it's literally never been done before.
And because nothing remotely close to a true Libertarian ideology has ever really been tried there has never really been a proper ultra-right-wing government. Not here, not anywhere.
And, yes, many will say 'thank fuck for that', as is their privilege, but the same people - including some who claim to be right-wing - will invariably conflate all manner of arbitrary bullshit (nationalism, social conservatism, strong leadership, whatever) into a strawman 'Right' in order to have something does actually exist to rail against/support.
'Rich and powerful' exists primarily *because* of government busybodying, not in spite of it. The bigger the government, the more say they have in who gets to be rich and powerful.
I'm a realist. I know the number of people sharing my view is so tiny, and the system so stacked against them by the simple virtue of it being a system, that the best I can hope for is to get through a lifespan where the 'least bad' option predominates.
But I will not cease from mental fight.
You're missing my point. Obviously government policy has influenced who it is that's currently rich and powerful in our society, and I wasn't disputing that. My point was simply that if government ceases to exercise power over a particular sphere of society then they are effectively handing all the power over that sphere to whichever individuals, groups, classes, or organisations are already powerful within that sphere (regardless of how they got that power in the first place). Choosing not to influence something is being de facto on the side of everyone who already has influence over it. There may be a handful of exceptions, where somebody's influence is entirely dependent on ongoing, active, government support. But these are clearly the exception rather than the rule.
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on May 24, 2022 10:46:59 GMT
The issue with that is that such a minimalist government is de facto on the "side" of whichever group of people happens to be rich and powerful in their country.
That's exactly what people who like heavy-handed government and who have vested interests in maintaining its presence want the useful idiots to believe. Scaremongering with zero basis in fact AND entirely without historical precedent because it's literally never been done before.
And because nothing remotely close to a true Libertarian ideology has ever really been tried there has never really been a proper ultra-right-wing government. Not here, not anywhere.
And, yes, many will say 'thank fuck for that', as is their privilege, but the same people - including some who claim to be right-wing - will invariably conflate all manner of arbitrary bullshit (nationalism, social conservatism, strong leadership, whatever) into a strawman 'Right' in order to have something does actually exist to rail against/support.
'Rich and powerful' exists primarily *because* of government busybodying, not in spite of it. The bigger the government, the more say they have in who gets to be rich and powerful.
I'm a realist. I know the number of people sharing my view is so tiny, and the system so stacked against them by the simple virtue of it being a system, that the best I can hope for is to get through a lifespan where the 'least bad' option predominates.
But I will not cease from mental fight.
Is there a name for an ultra-right-wing libertarian government from an organisational point of view? Anarcho-fascist perhaps??
|
|
sirbenjamin
IFP
True fame is reading your name written in graffiti, but without the words 'is a wanker' after it.
Posts: 4,979
|
Post by sirbenjamin on May 24, 2022 12:43:41 GMT
That's exactly what people who like heavy-handed government and who have vested interests in maintaining its presence want the useful idiots to believe. Scaremongering with zero basis in fact AND entirely without historical precedent because it's literally never been done before.
And because nothing remotely close to a true Libertarian ideology has ever really been tried there has never really been a proper ultra-right-wing government. Not here, not anywhere.
And, yes, many will say 'thank fuck for that', as is their privilege, but the same people - including some who claim to be right-wing - will invariably conflate all manner of arbitrary bullshit (nationalism, social conservatism, strong leadership, whatever) into a strawman 'Right' in order to have something does actually exist to rail against/support.
'Rich and powerful' exists primarily *because* of government busybodying, not in spite of it. The bigger the government, the more say they have in who gets to be rich and powerful.
I'm a realist. I know the number of people sharing my view is so tiny, and the system so stacked against them by the simple virtue of it being a system, that the best I can hope for is to get through a lifespan where the 'least bad' option predominates.
But I will not cease from mental fight.
Is there a name for an ultra-right-wing libertarian government from an organisational point of view? Anarcho-fascist perhaps??
The moment one tries to make true Libertarianism 'organisational' is the beginning of the slippery slope of hypocrisy and becoming everything one dislikes. This is why the ideology - *my* ideology - will probably only ever exist in theory and concept. Not only does nobody have the guts to try it, but anyone who did would feel instinctively that they didn't have the right to do so. It's a fundamental paradox.
The modern-day Right generally understand and accept this, in the way that, say, early 20th century Russians or Cromwellites did not, hence in practice we tend towards pragmatism, compromise and settling for the 'least bad' rather than striving for something always likely to be out of reach in the name of ideological purity.
Consequently politics is reduced to what is the 'least bad' option realistically on the table, and what are the optimal compromises to be agreed upon.
|
|
|
Post by Alun Elder-Brown Esq on May 24, 2022 15:02:19 GMT
Ben Walker, the UKIP Party Chairman, has had his nomination papers receipted. So UKIP will - likewise Wakefield - be represented.
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on May 24, 2022 15:20:49 GMT
The issue with that is that such a minimalist government is de facto on the "side" of whichever group of people happens to be rich and powerful in their country.
That's exactly what people who like heavy-handed government and who have vested interests in maintaining its presence want the useful idiots to believe. Scaremongering with zero basis in fact AND entirely without historical precedent because it's literally never been done before.
And because nothing remotely close to a true Libertarian ideology has ever really been tried there has never really been a proper ultra-right-wing government. Not here, not anywhere.
And, yes, many will say 'thank fuck for that', as is their privilege, but the same people - including some who claim to be right-wing - will invariably conflate all manner of arbitrary bullshit (nationalism, social conservatism, strong leadership, whatever) into a strawman 'Right' in order to have something does actually exist to rail against/support.
'Rich and powerful' exists primarily *because* of government busybodying, not in spite of it. The bigger the government, the more say they have in who gets to be rich and powerful.
I'm a realist. I know the number of people sharing my view is so tiny, and the system so stacked against them by the simple virtue of it being a system, that the best I can hope for is to get through a lifespan where the 'least bad' option predominates.
But I will not cease from mental fight.
Nor, presumably, will your sword sleep in your hand....
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,286
Member is Online
|
Post by YL on May 24, 2022 17:18:51 GMT
Neil Parish isn't standing.
|
|
|
Post by aargauer on May 24, 2022 17:53:02 GMT
Is there a name for an ultra-right-wing libertarian government from an organisational point of view? Anarcho-fascist perhaps??
The moment one tries to make true Libertarianism 'organisational' is the beginning of the slippery slope of hypocrisy and becoming everything one dislikes. This is why the ideology - *my* ideology - will probably only ever exist in theory and concept. Not only does nobody have the guts to try it, but anyone who did would feel instinctively that they didn't have the right to do so. It's a fundamental paradox.
The modern-day Right generally understand and accept this, in the way that, say, early 20th century Russians or Cromwellites did not, hence in practice we tend towards pragmatism, compromise and settling for the 'least bad' rather than striving for something always likely to be out of reach in the name of ideological purity.
Consequently politics is reduced to what is the 'least bad' option realistically on the table, and what are the optimal compromises to be agreed upon.
Theres a gaping hole for a free market party in British politics. If PR ever comes in, we will likely get that option, even if it's only good for 10 or 15%.
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on May 24, 2022 18:43:12 GMT
The moment one tries to make true Libertarianism 'organisational' is the beginning of the slippery slope of hypocrisy and becoming everything one dislikes. This is why the ideology - *my* ideology - will probably only ever exist in theory and concept. Not only does nobody have the guts to try it, but anyone who did would feel instinctively that they didn't have the right to do so. It's a fundamental paradox.
The modern-day Right generally understand and accept this, in the way that, say, early 20th century Russians or Cromwellites did not, hence in practice we tend towards pragmatism, compromise and settling for the 'least bad' rather than striving for something always likely to be out of reach in the name of ideological purity. Consequently politics is reduced to what is the 'least bad' option realistically on the table, and what are the optimal compromises to be agreed upon.
Theres a gaping hole for a free market party in British politics. If PR ever comes in, we will likely get that option, even if it's only good for 10 or 15%. I think a left socialist party would probably get about the same vote, which would at least provide more genuine choice.
|
|
|
Post by markgoodair on May 24, 2022 18:54:23 GMT
Ben Walker, the UKIP Party Chairman, has had his nomination papers receipted. So UKIP will - likewise Wakefield - be represented. £1000 they will never see again.
|
|
sirbenjamin
IFP
True fame is reading your name written in graffiti, but without the words 'is a wanker' after it.
Posts: 4,979
|
Post by sirbenjamin on May 24, 2022 19:25:06 GMT
That's exactly what people who like heavy-handed government and who have vested interests in maintaining its presence want the useful idiots to believe. Scaremongering with zero basis in fact AND entirely without historical precedent because it's literally never been done before.
And because nothing remotely close to a true Libertarian ideology has ever really been tried there has never really been a proper ultra-right-wing government. Not here, not anywhere.
And, yes, many will say 'thank fuck for that', as is their privilege, but the same people - including some who claim to be right-wing - will invariably conflate all manner of arbitrary bullshit (nationalism, social conservatism, strong leadership, whatever) into a strawman 'Right' in order to have something does actually exist to rail against/support.
'Rich and powerful' exists primarily *because* of government busybodying, not in spite of it. The bigger the government, the more say they have in who gets to be rich and powerful.
I'm a realist. I know the number of people sharing my view is so tiny, and the system so stacked against them by the simple virtue of it being a system, that the best I can hope for is to get through a lifespan where the 'least bad' option predominates.
But I will not cease from mental fight.
Nor, presumably, will your sword sleep in your hand.... Glad somebody got it...
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on May 24, 2022 19:32:47 GMT
Nor, presumably, will your sword sleep in your hand.... Glad somebody got it...
or if you prefer an 80s dub version
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on May 24, 2022 19:36:23 GMT
The moment one tries to make true Libertarianism 'organisational' is the beginning of the slippery slope of hypocrisy and becoming everything one dislikes. This is why the ideology - *my* ideology - will probably only ever exist in theory and concept. Not only does nobody have the guts to try it, but anyone who did would feel instinctively that they didn't have the right to do so. It's a fundamental paradox.
The modern-day Right generally understand and accept this, in the way that, say, early 20th century Russians or Cromwellites did not, hence in practice we tend towards pragmatism, compromise and settling for the 'least bad' rather than striving for something always likely to be out of reach in the name of ideological purity.
Consequently politics is reduced to what is the 'least bad' option realistically on the table, and what are the optimal compromises to be agreed upon.
Theres a gaping hole for a free market party in British politics. If PR ever comes in, we will likely get that option, even if it's only good for 10 or 15%. Yes, people keep saying this.
Unfortunately the people most likely to support such a party in this country are generally very unenthusiastic about PR
And as with a left party, there almost certainly wouldn't be just one.
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on May 24, 2022 20:12:22 GMT
Is there a name for an ultra-right-wing libertarian government from an organisational point of view? Anarcho-fascist perhaps??
The moment one tries to make true Libertarianism 'organisational' is the beginning of the slippery slope of hypocrisy and becoming everything one dislikes. This is why the ideology - *my* ideology - will probably only ever exist in theory and concept. Not only does nobody have the guts to try it, but anyone who did would feel instinctively that they didn't have the right to do so. It's a fundamental paradox.
The modern-day Right generally understand and accept this, in the way that, say, early 20th century Russians or Cromwellites did not, hence in practice we tend towards pragmatism, compromise and settling for the 'least bad' rather than striving for something always likely to be out of reach in the name of ideological purity.
Consequently politics is reduced to what is the 'least bad' option realistically on the table, and what are the optimal compromises to be agreed upon.
Well, the problem is that if you remove govt control, organisations like the Mafia, or the Soviets, or the Church, tend to fill the vacuum. And before you know it, everyone's life is being controlled again, one way or another. The human race just seems to evolve towards hierarchy. I think mostly we all just try to pragmatically survive as best we can.
|
|
|
Post by aargauer on May 24, 2022 20:24:56 GMT
Ben Walker, the UKIP Party Chairman, has had his nomination papers receipted. So UKIP will - likewise Wakefield - be represented. £1000 they will never see again. Will you see yours again?
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on May 24, 2022 20:44:50 GMT
The moment one tries to make true Libertarianism 'organisational' is the beginning of the slippery slope of hypocrisy and becoming everything one dislikes. This is why the ideology - *my* ideology - will probably only ever exist in theory and concept. Not only does nobody have the guts to try it, but anyone who did would feel instinctively that they didn't have the right to do so. It's a fundamental paradox.
The modern-day Right generally understand and accept this, in the way that, say, early 20th century Russians or Cromwellites did not, hence in practice we tend towards pragmatism, compromise and settling for the 'least bad' rather than striving for something always likely to be out of reach in the name of ideological purity.
Consequently politics is reduced to what is the 'least bad' option realistically on the table, and what are the optimal compromises to be agreed upon.
Well, the problem is that if you remove govt control, organisations like the Mafia, or the Soviets, or the Church, tend to fill the vacuum. And before you know it, everyone's life is being controlled again, one way or another. The human race just seems to evolve towards hierarchy. I think mostly we all just try to pragmatically survive as best we can. The Mafia are a very good example of just that phenomenon. As far as anyone can tell, the removal of Roman government from Britannia seems to have given us a range of warlords of uncertain origin, whose modus operandi appears to have resembled the Mafia in many respects.
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on May 24, 2022 21:51:46 GMT
Nor, presumably, will your sword sleep in your hand.... Glad somebody got it... ”Somebody”? Most people on this forum got it, probably. It reminds me of the book by Simon Heffer.
|
|