Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    "Rockwell's political ideology, like Rothbard's in his later years, combines a form of anarcho-capitalism with cultural conservatism and the Austrian School of economics."
    He can be a cultural conservative, a cultural liberal, or a worshipper of Cthulhu in his private life for all it matters - the point is that he's not willing to impose his cultural preferences on others by force, which in my book makes him a good deal more civilized than straightforward conservatives.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    Ok then, what about the gentleman in my avatar, Ron Paul, he is an advocate of the free market and the Austrian school, but socially supports a minarchist Government and individualism.
    Ron Paul is a conservative. He says so himself and he is involved in many Old Right circles.

    And in the US being an individualist makes you more likely to be a conservative not less.

    It isn't as simple as the political compass or whatever says it is.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DrunkHamster)
    He can be a cultural conservative, a cultural liberal, or a worshipper of Cthulhu in his private life for all it matters - the point is that he's not willing to impose his cultural preferences on others by force, which in my book makes him a good deal more civilized than straightforward conservatives.
    This is a typical "thin" libertarian mistake. First of all conservatives don't wish to "impose" by force and second of all of course his cultural preferences matter.

    One because they aren't just private, he would prefer a conservative society and second of all because there is a lot more to political philosophy than the NAP.

    You can say such emotive stuff and talk of voluntarism if you want but just because a society is based solely on voluntary decisions (which is impossible and utopian) that doesn't mean the society is good or desirable.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    Ron Paul is a conservative. He says so himself and he is involved in many Old Right circles.

    And in the US being an individualist makes you more likely to be a conservative not less.

    s.

    Regardless, his social ideaology would still be classed as left wing, no matter how many Old Right circles he is involved in.


    Also, in the US the term conservative is defined differently. An individual who held views similar to yours would be described as a "Neoconservative"
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    Regardless, his social ideaology would still be classed as left wing, no matter how many Old Right circles he is involved in.
    He's Christian, anti-abortion, critical of affirmative action, of the 1964 civil rights act and various other things.

    He calls himself a conservative.


    (Original post by Aeolus)
    Also, in the US the term conservative is defined differently. An individual who held views similar to yours would be described as a "Neoconservative"
    :eek3:

    You have no idea what you are talking about! But since I'm interested what is it about me that makes you think I'm a Neocon of all things?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Craig_D)
    I'm having to repeat myself here. Their insane plan includes deportation of none whites (they claim by "financial incentives", however I fear it will come to much worse than that if they get their chance). The result will be everyone being the same; white.
    Eh... The result will be everyone in Britain being the same, but they conceptualise humans as being fundamentally dissimilar (in both type and rank) based on their race, and seek to preserve and promote that perceived dissimilarity and hierarchy through racial segregation. That is the opposite of egalitarianism of the left kind.

    Yes, moderate economic right Tories may disagree with the more die hard Tories, it makes little difference, the Economic Right are pro-trade; ergo, my original point stands.
    Er, not really. Conservatism has no inherent ideological attachment to laissez-faire.

    And, yes, but they are clearly attempting to pull Labour voters that are from the Left, which shows that they can't be so different.
    What? Labour came up with that British jobs for British workers spiel because of the BNP. The BNP appropriated the slogan because they knew Labour were trying, vainly, to appeal to BNP voters. That doesn't mean that the idea is a left-wing policy simply because New Labour used it.

    As above, the 'old Labour' party were socialists - and they are trying to suggest that they are closer to Old Labour than New Labour are (therefore being somewhere on the left) and appeal to people that voted for socialists, so they can't be that different.
    Er... Yes they can. You think no former Tories have swapped their vote to the BNP? And that fact doesn't indicate that they are similar, just that they are trying to appeal to similar sets of voters. A voter may vote for any number of conflicting parties. They may vote for both Labour and the Tories. It's a lot more complicated than this, although I agree that they are primarily targeting former Labour voters, but that is more because they appeal to the working and lower middle class than because they appeal to the left.

    I would be willing to compromise to that. Perhaps their opinions on personal freedoms can be described as somewhat Right, but definitely not economically, which leads me to think an apt description would be Authoritarian-Left.
    Lenin was authoritarian left. The BNP are very much unlike Lenin. Except that they are both authoritarian.

    I agree on this. They have no real policy other than just being racist. I don't think Nick Griffin gives a damn about Left or Right, he just picks policies that involve using as little foreigners and ethnic minorities as possible.
    But nationalism is an ideology that is demonstrably right-wing.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    I'm not a socialist.
    Look. Get some context. Read my goshdarned posts.

    If one takes a broad definition of socialism as anything short of a completely radical individualism, the fact you seek to promote and preserve conceptual collectives like the nation, the race, and particularly that you are willing to use the state to do so, you are in that sense a socialist. (A better word might be collectivist.

    Being opposed to capitalism, for example (and you do not fully embrace it in that you support protectionist policies for God knows what reason), because it conflicts with the imperative of the race-nation-culture-state is not left-wing simply because it is in opposition to capitalism.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    He's Christian, anti-abortion, critical of affirmative action, of the 1964 civil rights act and various other things.
    He is anti-abortion yes, but as a strict constitutionalist he will not make it illegal, instead leaving it to be decided by the people at a state level, this is also his reason for opposing the civil rights act, he believed that America already had one in the Constitution. He does not condone state coercion and is heavily critical of centralised power. You can twist it whatever way you want. It is glaringly obvious his views socially lean to the left.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    He is anti-abortion yes, but as a strict constitutionalist he will not make it illegal, instead leaving it to be decided by the people at a state level, this is also his reason for opposing the civil rights act, he believed that America already had one in the Constitution. He does not condone state coercion and is heavily critical of centralised power. You can twist it whatever way you want. It is glaringly obvious his views socially lean to the left.
    Absolutely none of that is left wing at all.

    (Original post by Aeolus)
    Ok then would you mind answering a few questions?

    Do you support gay marriage?

    What kind of foreign policy do you advocate?

    Are you a supporter of the war on drugs?

    Do you believe in the right to bear arms?

    Are you a supporter of the Terrorism Act?
    No.

    Broadly, mild isolationism.

    Yes.

    Yes as guaranteed in the 1689 Bill of Rights (but extended to non-Protestants of course).

    No.
    Offline

    14
    (Original post by Marsha2112)
    But of course:teeth:



    The incentive is, that you love brain surgery and want to have a meaning to your life rather than bloody money, walking home every day knowing you may have changed someone's life, and have contributed to your community
    But thats not enough of an incentive. Lots of people wouldnt be arsed. Wed have a nation of lowly skilled workers, contributing little to the economy. Completely stifles any kind of ambition or entrepreneurship.
    Offline

    14
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    Absolutely none of that is left wing at all.


    No.

    Broadly, mild isolationism.

    Yes.

    Yes as guaranteed in the 1689 Bill of Rights (but extended to non-Protestants of course).

    No.
    Dirty neo-con.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Turdburger)
    But thats not enough of an incentive. Lots of people wouldnt be arsed. Wed have a nation of lowly skilled workers, contributing little to the economy. Completely stifles any kind of ambition or entrepreneurship.
    Well, I dunno...if people are that money obsessed then we're doomed, but wouldn't you rather take an interesting job you love for 40k than a boring one for 60k?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    This is a typical "thin" libertarian mistake. First of all conservatives don't wish to "impose" by force and second of all of course his cultural preferences matter.

    One because they aren't just private, he would prefer a conservative society and second of all because there is a lot more to political philosophy than the NAP.

    You can say such emotive stuff and talk of voluntarism if you want but just because a society is based solely on voluntary decisions (which is impossible and utopian) that doesn't mean the society is good or desirable.
    I think you're wrong; there really isn't anything more to political philosophy than the NAP. There certainly is a distinct and substantial realm of moral philosophy, but the great insight of libertarianism is (and, by extension, the great fault of conservatism is ignoring) that private morality and political morality do not necessarily coincide. Most questions of morality can and should be dealt with outside of the realm of institutionalised coercion that is the state.

    Now, as it happens, my 'thick' views are reasonably libertarian also, in the sense that I don't see why, say, there is anything ethically dubious about someone who chooses to take drugs in the privacy of his own home or is attracted to members of the same sex. But if someone believes that these are morally wrong, I have no problem with that view - I think it is something on which reasonable people can differ (of course if they think the state should forceably stop them, then I do have an issue). Maybe one day, when the tide of the state is rolled back, it will be worthwhile discussing these issues with fellow travellers. But in the meantime, like I said, I don't care if they are cultural conservatives, cultural liberals, or followers of Cthulhu - as long as we agree that the state should get the hell out of people's lives, we are all libertarians.
    Offline

    14
    (Original post by Marsha2112)
    Well, I dunno...if people are that greedy then we're doomed, but wouldn't you rather take an interesting job you love for 40k than a boring one for 60k?
    Boring one. For my childrens sake. If I was 50 and childless the interesting one.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    Ok then (bearing in mind we are discussing the American definition of NeoCon here)

    Would you make Gay marriage illegal under federal law?

    Would you have invaded Afghanistan and Iraq?

    Would you make drugs illegal under federal law?
    "Gay marriage" is an oxymoron.

    Iraq, no. Afganistan, not sure.

    Yes.

    I want to read your verdict and justifications.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    He is anti-abortion yes, but as a strict constitutionalist he will not make it illegal, instead leaving it to be decided by the people at a state level, this is also his reason for opposing the civil rights act, he believed that America already had one in the Constitution. He does not condone state coercion and is heavily critical of centralised power. You can twist it whatever way you want. It is glaringly obvious his views socially lean to the left.
    I actually think you're wrong here, in the sense that it's fairly obvious that Ron Paul is more culturally sympathetic to conservative ideals than anything else (have you seen Bruno yet?). So to the extent that the left-right dichotomy applies to personal views, he is on the right. But of course if it's about your willingness to have the state enforce your personal morality, then you're correct. This is why talk of left/right is a bit silly, IMO.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DrunkHamster)
    I think you're wrong; there really isn't anything more to political philosophy than the NAP. There certainly is a distinct and substantial realm of moral philosophy, but the great insight of libertarianism is (and, by extension, the great fault of conservatism is ignoring) that private morality and political morality do not necessarily coincide. Most questions of morality can and should be dealt with outside of the realm of institutionalised coercion that is the state.

    Now, as it happens, my 'thick' views are reasonably libertarian also, in the sense that I don't see why, say, there is anything ethically dubious about someone who chooses to take drugs in the privacy of his own home or is attracted to members of the same sex. But if someone believes that these are morally wrong, I have no problem with that view - I think it is something on which reasonable people can differ (of course if they think the state should forceably stop them, then I do have an issue). Maybe one day, when the tide of the state is rolled back, it will be worthwhile discussing these issues with fellow travellers. But in the meantime, like I said, I don't care if they are cultural conservatives, cultural liberals, or followers of Cthulhu - as long as we agree that the state should get the hell out of people's lives, we are all libertarians.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDtpu...e=channel_page

    You might like this guy's stuff. He is an intelligent libertarian.
    Offline

    14
    (Original post by aeolus)
    Ok then would you mind answering a few questions?

    Do you support gay marriage?

    What kind of foreign policy do you advocate?

    Are you a supporter of the war on drugs?

    Do you believe in the right to bear arms?

    Are you a supporter of the Terrorism Act?

    Would you make Gay marriage illegal under federal law?

    Would you have invaded Afghanistan and Iraq?

    Would you make drugs illegal under federal law?
    Ooo can I have a go.

    Yes
    Freetrade. Minimal political union
    No
    No
    No
    No
    No No
    No

    Do I get to be Hilary? Please say no
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DrunkHamster)
    I actually think you're wrong here, in the sense that it's fairly obvious that Ron Paul is more culturally sympathetic to conservative ideals than anything else (have you seen Bruno yet?). So to the extent that the left-right dichotomy applies to personal views, he is on the right. But of course if it's about your willingness to have the state enforce your personal morality, then you're correct. This is why talk of left/right is a bit silly, IMO.
    There is far more to the issue that "enforcing" morality. Most of the socially "progressive" concepts and ideas wouldn't exist or have been achieved without the welfare state. There also the issues of families and communities and so on that a lot of libertarians ignore.

    Too many libertarians think that they can throw off social issues when they clearly can't. There is no such thing as "private" morality.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDtpu...e=channel_page

    You might like this guy's stuff. He is an intelligent libertarian.
    I read his blog on occasion, needless to say I think he's wrong; I'm surprised you're a fan of his given that his version of 'thick' libertarianism is waaaaay to the left of your style of conservatism.
 
 
 
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.