On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 15:50:36 -0600, RD Sandman
wrote:

Bluesfan2U wrote in
:

On 1/24/2012 12:41 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
wrote in
:

On 1/23/2012 7:54 PM, Scout wrote:


wrote in message
...
On 1/23/2012 5:31 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
. net wrote in
:



"RD wrote in
message ...
Tom Gardnermars@tacks wrote in
:

On 1/21/2012 3:54 PM, Ramon F Herrera wrote:
On Jan 18, 6:02 pm, God's wrote:

she was nothing but a liberal freshman congressman of no
particular distinction before the shooting. After the
shooting she sits at the right hand of God. That's just
emotionally based nonsense on the part of the bleeding
heart crowd


That comment, from the side that brought to us:

- Dan Quayle
- George Bush
- Sarah Palin
- Christine O'Donnell
- a long etcetera

Lt. Kennedy was elected in part thanks to the PT-109 incident
and the death in the war of his brother Joe. He went on to
become the 2nd. most admired US president (after Lincoln
(*)).

-Ramon

(*) They were both killed by the far right.


Far right libtards like Hitler, Stalin, Marx and Mao...and
YOU!

Tom, Hitler was a fascist. That is right wing regardless of
what they wanted to call the Nazi party.

Which I never understood that because if you look at the
definitions and more importantly what Hitler actually
did....fascism is simply a specialized form of socialism.
Politically, it's a matter of opinion.

Oh, ****......you figured that one rather quickly.

Since if you go far enough to the right or left you end up with
a dictatorship of some sort. So basically the political spectrum
wraps back upon itself and is thus more of a loop than a line.

Bingo!! It is definitely NOT a line from left to right......or
vice versa.

Because a
right wing dictatorship is pretty much impossible to distinguish
from a left wing dictatorship, the only difference seems to be
at how you arrive at that condition, not what the condition is.
So on a social scale the far left and the far right meet.

Yes, indeedy...

Economically Hitler was
very much on the left hand side of the equation. So when one
looks at the political reality there was little difference
between say, Hitler and Stalin, and both were well over on
socialist side economically.

I suppose what I'm saying is that a linear function (left/right)
really isn't very accurate depiction. I tend to prefer more of a
circular political plot since as mentioned the extreme political
right is the same as the extreme political left. If you wish to
combine that with an economic scale then the shape would be more
of a cylinder than anything else. With raw unadulterated
capitalism at one end of the cylinder, and raw unadulterated
socialism at the other.

So politically Hitler could be said to be extreme left wing just
as easily as it can be said he's extreme right wing, and for
that matter you could say the same of Stalin. So politically
they were all but the same. Economically they both shared strong
socialist views. Thus with no real difference in political
outcomes and thus only economic differences really existed.
While Stalin was more socialist economically than Hitler, Hitler
was certainly well to the socialist left economically.

So in either case you are talking a form Dictatorship with a
socialist economic system, or to put that in poly-speak.
Authoritarianism with socialist economics.
Into which category both Stalin and Hitler neatly fit.

The other thing I tend to do is to look at the definitions:

Fascism - A political theory advocating an authoritarian
heirarchical government (as opposed to democracy or liberalism)

Socialism -
1. A political theory advancing state ownership of industry
2. An economic system based on state ownership of capital

Communism -
1. A political theory favoring collectivism in a classless
society 2. A form of socialism that abolishes private ownership

Actually socialism was understood to be but a step toward
communism. Socialism requires a state to hold all property in
common. Communism requires no state.

Much like you claim for Libertarianism......just at the other end
of the economic spectrum.




Both in their pure form (and we both understand nothing political is
pure) are I think just about the same except that the Libertarian
form of anarchy retains private ownership of property and requires
no government to enforce that right

Actually, Libertarianism DOES require a form of government. How else
can they protect the rights of one from the rights of another?

Actually, if you believe their statement of Principles, they can not
have a form of government. They maintain that everyone is sovereign
and maintain that they believe in sole dominion for everyone. If
everybody is king, and is not subject to the rules made by other
people, then there can be no effective government.

I see you have pointed out their flaw. With nobody capable of judging
another not to speak of enforcing law (since to do so would subjugate
the individual's dominion and reject the concept of individual
sovereignty for everyone, there is no way for society to protect the
rights of its citizens. It is every dog for himself.

Which is anarchy which is not libertarianism.

Now, take a look at the definition of anarchy.....it is a state of
lawlessness and disorder (*usually* as a result of a failure of
government)

Libertarianism is a ideological belief in freedom of *thought and
speech*.

I apologize for being a nit-picker here, but that definition of
anarchy is what might be called the American colloquial definition. To
most people in the world, and in the US before around 1910, it was
something very different.

Wikipedia has some good discussions of it, although they slice and
dice it six ways to Sunday, as they usually do:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy

I think it's accurate to say that libertarianism and anarchy, or at
least anarcho-capitalism, blend into each other along a fuzzy line.
Not all proponents of either would accept being that close to the
other, but at the edges, both do. Murray Rothbard may be more
libertarian but he defined himself as an anarcho-capitalist.

The platform of the Libertarian Party sounds like it's well off the
mark from anarchy in its colloquial form. (But it's not far off from a
letter to Santa Claus. g) But I would contend that most people who
call themselves libertarians are really anarcho-capitalists. Our
friend Strabo is *deep* into the anarcho-capitalist camp, but I think
he calls himself a libertarian, IIRC.

The key point here is that the definition of anarchy as ungoverned
chaos is a minority view, and confined almost exclusively to the US.
The irony is that individualist anarchy in its early days, the 1840s,
was as much a US phenomenon as a European one, and continused that way
until just after 1900.

--
Ed Huntress