The essence of Rightism?

The national socialist german workers' party more precisely. I think you're somewhat missing my point. I'm saying that even thought the actions and means differ, and are opposite very often, they still stem from the masculine values. Ask not what they did but why they did it and it becomes clearer. For the same reason, ask why stalin did what he did and you'll se his goals were very different from hitlers even though they are almost the same if just looking by actions. Goals and ends are what make the ideology, not the means. Also, i'm not saying that totalitarianism is a function of the right, not at all.

 

I think Hitler did what he did because he was crazy. I think Stalin did what he did because he was crazy. I do not think in either case because of their mentally instability, that ideology was driving anything, in fact I think both of them went against the grain of the ideologies they were supposed to represent. Lots of people would argue that Stalin drove the USSR far away from Lennins original intent and Hitler was not much of a "Workers Union" guy at all was he now?

 

Don't dismiss them as crazy. Psychopaths perhaps, but crazy people don't get to be dictators; some intelligence is required for that. Well, they did strive far away from what they started from yes, but they did develop their own versions of the ideologies. I'm not sure, but I think that hitler made life very good for the german workers.

 

I would note that in terms of outcomes... the outcomes of true social Libertarianism are closer to the outcomes of social liberalism.

The outcomes of fiscal Libertarianism are closer to fiscal conservatism......but only closer by a bit on some issues, but way off on others, like military spending.

Libertarian foreign policy is far removed from Liberalism and Conservatism.

 

Ah, I see. You equate "right" with "conservative", and use the actual definition of conservative. Makes sense, though I don't ever use it because it makes defining what "conservative" is very, very difficult and confusing for everyone.

I'd argue, though, that classical liberalism isn't quite the established way in the US of A. It was founded as such, but the standard now seems to be a worrying blur of government officials and business leaders, who are legislating (or sometimes not even that legitly) their own power increases. It's a far cry from a fascist state yet, but the trend is there (just as the "trend" in Europe is toward socialism).

 

Excellent post. I think that is the best breakdown of the two strains of Libertarianism I've read.

 

I think there are more strains....in descending order of credibility

Deontological.....Rothbard
Consequentialist.....Freidman and Johnson
LINO's (Libertarians in name only)....Paul, and Paul
Fox News Pseudo Libertarians...Ryan, and Stossel
Completely unrealistic and impractical Libertarians...Rand
Insane religious whackos occaisionally and unintentionally barfing up pseudo Libertarianism.....Glenn Beck

 

indeed. comparing and analysing ideologies are very interesting, truly.

 

Atleast the USA has much more of a classically liberal heritage than what europe has, and that explains the difference in the conservative movements of both. Maybe I could add another thing for conservatives: They don't like everything that's established, only if it works, and what they are trying to conserve they draw from the whole of the nations history, not just trying to preserve the current order. So if they think that somethings not right now they will look back in time where there was a system which worked better. if this paragraph makes any sense at all i'm not sure..

 

Intellectual atavism and the idea that property ownership is the ultimate life objective.

 

Nation comes from the Latin natio -- that which has been born. A nation, being about the idiosyncratic, arbitrary, and seemingly amoral characteristics of the people who live in it -- such as geography -- is defined by biology, because it is the essence of family, the root of all uncontrollable personal environmental idiosyncrasy. You don't choose your parents, your race, or your nation.

Correct.

It is the affirmation of the exercise of power. Power can exist in service to ideology, but fascism is the worship of power regardless of ideology.

 

Essence of Rightism = let your nuts hang

Essence of Leftism = castrate all nuts

 

Can't say I agree with this. Social liberalism is very authoritarian in nature. The idea that it is somehow hands-off is a ruse. The outcomes of unbridled social liberalism will inevitably result in bans on numerous things deemed "not good for society" (i.e. smoking, soft drinks, guns). Whereas the outcomes of true social libertarianism will typically leave all of these things on the table to be decided upon by the individual.

I think the notion that libertarianism is fiscally conservative and socially liberal is a common fallacy. In reality, it's fiscally conservative and socially just kind of its own thing.

 

The position itself emphasizes nothing more or less than the NAP. People's motivations for adhering to libertarianism may differ, but generally I've found them to be self-reliance, responsibility, and a desire to be accountable to oneself rather than the external will of others.

I guess that is sort of manly, but it doesn't mean libertarians are all tribal fiends trying to be the biggest man, and it doesn't say anything about libertarianism itself, since that can be fully summarized in the NAP.

 

pedophile comes from latin ped, meaning foot, and greek philos, meaning 'love of the likeable' (in contrast with eros, which would be erotic and romantic love) so if we're to make any sense of it pedophile would mean the 'appriciation of feet' quite litterally. My point being, that words change their meaning.

I already explained that it's not racial. If the basis of the nation is religion you can just move there and be part of the nation if you have the same religion, same with language and citizenship. If it's basis is race, you'll have a hard time if you're another race of course but not all nationalisms are racial. As I said, look up civic nationalism.

You're confusing fascism with totalitarianism and authoritarianism. Fascism's usually both but it's not the same as totalitarianism and authoritarianism aren't encompassing ideologies, only a way for an ideology to express itself, whilst fascism is an ideology.

 

Nor does manly mean being tribal and trying to show you have the biggest dick. That's actually unmanly as a real man would be confident and restrained, having no need to show what would be obvious.

 

Alright, so we agree then.

 

That seems to be generally true, though there are always exceptions. It is, at least, more accurate than the description of right as simple traditionalism.

 

The word pedophile is derived only from Greek. The Latin root ped has nothing to do with it. You need a better English dictionary.

 

Civic nationalism is not nationalism. Nationalism must be separate from republican ideologies or it doesn't mean anything. You can't say that you're a nationalist and then qualify it with "but I wouldn't support my nation if it had a communist/totalitarian/theocratic/democratic state", because then you don't believe in the sovereignty of the nation or it being above all other standards. Standards are a matter of individual choice, so a national identity must be based on those things which are outside of choice, and race is one of them. Family, however, is the most fundamental one because it is the relationship we have with other people that both materially defines us and that we do not chose, and race is just an extension of family.

I define fascism as the view expressed in this quote by Thomas Carlyle:

"not till a later epoch does he discern that all Power is Moral, that the grand point is the distinction for him of Good and Evil, of Thou shalt and Thou shalt not."

 

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/paedo-

 

Hmmm is this about the right side of the spectrum? Thats a shifting concept.

If its about conservatism, which occuoies most of the right side then read the book The Reactionary Mind.

Some of have described conservatism as the praxis of keeping and regaining power. Thats why there is very little common ideal about it, its about power for elite groups.

 

Good points....but one man's authoritarianism is another man's noble cause. Creating laws against abortion and gay marriage are an infringment of civil liberties to liberals and libertarians, and a noble jsutified cause for social conservatives.

See what I mean about you can shoe horn any political behavior into any ideological spectrum you dream up?

I disagree, unbridled social Libertarianism would allow all manner of freedoms that social liberals and conservatives would view as noble causes, or infringments of libertes depending.

Libertarians are against laws that prohibit gay marriage, abortion, drugs, gun control, drinking, sugary drinks, etc..

Fiscal Libertarians don't want the government to spend money on anything, and they want almost no taxes to be collected. While that's not "conservative" I guess...it could more accuratly be called "fiscal minimalism"

 

It depends for Libertarians on whether or not they see the fetus as a human life. Judge Napolitiano is pro-life, because he sees two bodies involved, not just one. You also have the two Pauls in with Libertarians for Life.

Bit of an exaggeration don't you think? Fiscal Conservatives are usually Constitutionally inclined, so what they want, is the Government is to spend money only on those things it was specifically empowered to carry out, like defense, and infrastructure construction, themselves constrained by nominal limits to make sure they aren't spending for their own sake.

Then Again, I suppose going from a few Trillion a year to less than $1 Trillion could be looked at as "hardly anything".

 

The Libertarian platform is not "pro life". Rather, it opposes passing any laws that prohibit the mother/family from making the decision to abort a fetus, and reproductive issues.

One of the things pseudo/Fox News Libertarians do is cherry pick the Libertarian platform on fiscal issues, and ignore the differences on soclial issues. Napolitano is a Fox News Libertarian, just like Stosell.

Yes, it was both an exageration and a gross generalization...only done to enhance the contrast.