Five myths about antifa

[WingedHussar]

My point is authoritarianism eliminates individual rights.

The rhetoric of individual rights seems to do that just fine. Women argue for their individual right to choose. Homosexuals argue for the individual right to have their lifestyle treated just like a holy marriage. The foreigners imported into this nation argue for the individual rights of more foreigners to be admitted into this nation. The pornographer also argues for his individual right to spread his filth. “Non serviam” was probably the most pure and honest assertion of individual rights ever.

If conservatives would just acknowledge that the point of authority is to discriminate against evil and socially undesirable behaviors, they would be far more honest and probably successful too.

 

[RhodesianSon]

Yes, and sometimes that’s necessary.

 

[JonNC]

The rhetoric of individual rights seems to do that just fine.

See. There it is. The idea that Inherent individual rights are simply rhetoric could have come from any number of 20th century tyrants.

Women argue for their individual right to choose.

They have an individual right to choose, as long as it doesn’t affect the right of the film to be born.

Homosexuals argue for the individual right to have their lifestyle treated just like a holy marriage.

They have the right to call it whatever they want. They don’t have the right to impose it on others.

The foreigners imported into this nation argue for the individual rights of more foreigners to be admitted into this nation.

And no where is that deemed a right.

The pornographer also argues for his individual right to spread his filth.

And you and I have the right to ignore it, condemn it for the filth it is.

Non serviam” was probably the most pure and honest assertion of individual rights ever.

Not if it interferes with the rights of others.

If conservatives would just acknowledge that the point of authority is to discriminate against evil and socially undesirable behaviors, they would be far more honest and probably successful too.

The point of authority is singular: to protect individual rights. Living in a secular society, there are things people do that I believe violate God’s law. I can speak out against it, but as long as it doesn’t interfere with the rights of others, it is tyrannical to stop it.

 

[JonNC]

Yes, and sometimes that’s necessary.

As soon as one does that, no rights are safe.

 

[RhodesianSon]

I’ll rephrase, people don’t have the right to engage in any and every act of depravity or degeneracy that pops into their head, and all rights have limitations on their exercise based on the common good moral guidance of society.

 

[JonNC]

I’ll rephrase, people don’t have the right to engage in any and every act of depravity or degeneracy that pops into their head

True, if it impacts or harms others.

and all rights have limitations on their exercise based on the common good moral guidance of society.

True. I have the right to free speech, but there are laws against slander, and against inciting violence.

 

[RhodesianSon]

Then we’d agree that some level of authoritarianism is a necessary and integral part of any government. Keeping it within acceptable limits and what is an acceptable limit is where debate will arise.

 

[Nepperhan]

Nope, you’d like to keep deflecting for the very poor OP.

Either respond to the points I made, or retreat.

That’s laughable.

 

[Nepperhan]

Really. So, you think we have less freedom today than the colonists did.

Early Americans and colonists had far more prohibitions in their laws (including gun regulations) than we have today. Many would call that less freedom, but please don’t hijack this thread.

 

[WingedHussar]

See. There it is. The idea that Inherent individual rights are simply rhetoric could have come from any number of 20th century tyrants.

Strawman, I never said it was rhetoric. I just pointed out the real world results of the rhetoric. I used to be a libertarian like you, but then I experienced the real world and saw that it just does not work, despite the theory sounding great on paper.

The point of authority is singular: to protect individual rights. Living in a secular society, there are things people do that I believe violate God’s law. I can speak out against it, but as long as it doesn’t interfere with the rights of others, it is tyrannical to stop it.

First off, nobody effectively has the expertise to navigate all the pitfalls and stumbling blocks life puts in our way. That is why God gives us community and authority to work together on these issues. So do you think the government restricting the ability of minors to view internet pornography is a restriction on free speech?

The point of authority is to establish order and stability and ultimately to see that God’s will is done on Earth as it is in Heaven.

Early Americans and colonists had far more prohibitions in their laws (including gun regulations) than we have today. Many would call that less freedom, but please don’t hijack this thread.

Not hijacking, just trying to hash out fundamentals. Those gun regulations usually required every able-bodied male citizen to maintain a musket with powder and shot and to be proficient in its use. I would be down for regulations like that.

 

[Nepperhan]

Those gun regulations usually required every able-bodied male citizen to maintain a musket with powder and shot and to be proficient in its use.

Actually, they were restrictions as to who could own guns and where they could be carried. Not restrictions as to mandatory readiness. Many people are mistaken as to that fact.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

Still too vague. Plenty of people advocated government intervention in the economy pre-fascism and wrote about how a “free market” had deleterious effects on the culture.

I’m not trying to offer a perfect abstract definition of fascism. I even said in my post that pretty much all countries ended up adopting corporatist elements into their economy. The fact is that you don’t need to come up with abstract definitions for these things because they existed as concrete political and social movements. I think that “fascism” as it existed in Italy and Germany in the 20th century is a dead movement, and will not come back. What remains of fascism as an economic phenomenon has been adopted by every developed nation.

communism, socialism

What, in your eyes, is uniquely communist or socialist? I have my own understanding, but the fact is that people use these terms to refer to a wide range of systems that were all totally different. Even when I spoke about the Soviet planned economy a while back you claimed that it wasn’t the economy of the USSR that was bad, but rather its “communism.” What does this mean? It implies that communism is not an economic system.

The fact is that anyone who likes fascist Italy or Germany from a totally abstract position should like the USSR. It was an ethno-nationalistic state with an economy only loosely distinct from a corporatist one.

At any rate, when I commented on you specifically liking fascism I wasn’t trying to give the perfect definition of it. You appeal to fascism in a way that does not rely on any kind of perfect definition of it as a political system. You appeal to its central figures, you call for a revival of its symbolism (fasces), and you justify it as a specific historical phenomenon, using examples. I think your attempts now to deny the existence of fascism is a cover for your admiration of it.

 

[JonNC]

Then we’d agree that some level of authoritarianism is a necessary and integral part of any government.

No, I don’t agree that’s what authoritarian is. Authoritarian is government power outside of that granted by the people.

 

[JonNC]

Early Americans and colonists had far more prohibitions in their laws (including gun regulations) than we have today. Many would call that less freedom, but please don’t hijack this thread.

You forgot the independence part.

 

[JonNC]

Strawman, I never said it was rhetoric. I just pointed out the real world results of the rhetoric.

I enjoyed the doublespeak.

I used to be a libertarian like you, but then I experienced the real world and saw that it just does not work, despite the theory sounding great on paper.

I’m a constitutional conservative. So again, you’re supporting authoritarianism. I’m not sure why you complained about what I wrote.

First off, nobody effectively has the expertise to navigate all the pitfalls and stumbling blocks life puts in our way.

So you want authoritarian government to decide for us?

That is why God gives us community and authority to work together on these issues. So do you think the government restricting the ability of minors to view internet pornography is a restriction on free speech?

We have the power to restrict minors from a lot of things. That’s appropriate because they are minors. We have compulsory education, they can’t buy certain consumer products, they can’t drive on public roads.
Using minors as an excuse to give government power to take the rights of adults is absurd.

The point of authority is to establish order and stability and ultimately to see that God’s will is done on Earth as it is in Heaven.

Only within the strict limits of the constitution.

 

[RhodesianSon]

It’s still an exercise of authority that will go against someone’s idea of freedom.

 

[RhodesianSon]

Only within the strict limits of the constitution

And when the constitution permits things God doesn’t?

 

[JonNC]

It’s still an exercise of authority that will go against someone’s idea of freedom.

But it is not authoritarianism.

Authoritarianism is a form of governmentcharacterized by strong central power and limited political freedoms.[1] Political scientists have created many typologies describing variations of authoritarian forms of government.[1] Authoritarian regimes may be either autocratic or oligarchic in nature and may be based upon the rule of a party or the military.

 

[JonNC]

And when the constitution permits things God doesn’t?

We are not a theocracy. You and I have an obligation to live our lives in response to grace.

You’re using the same argument leftists use to impose social welfare programs. We respond to grace by helping the least of His children. He does not call us to force others to.

We can and should speak out against immorality and actions that are contrary to God’s law.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

Do you really not see the problem with appealing to some random definition on the internet? People will have different ideas of what “authoritarianism” consists of. Even the state you advocate will seem far too strong and centralised to a radical libertarian who wants children to be able to buy heroin.