You keep forgetting that we’re often talking about the anarchist left, not the statist left. I will admit that much of the anarchist left is a lost cause but certainly not all of it. I don’t think libertarianism is necessarilly more likely to work on the statist-left or statist-right, but that we by no means should ignore the potential for converts from the statist left. Allies with statist-left politicians? No. Potential converts amongst the statist-left voters? Yes.
If anyone has any doubt about this then I recommend going any number of conservative forums (hannity forums, freerepublic, protestwarrior, politicalcrossfire etc.) and look for yourself. They’re filled with the average conservative voter.
But they support tax cuts, so they’re are allies!
But they hate corporations, so they are allies!
So is conservatism the definition of conservatism, or is it defined by the actions and beliefs of the people who call themselves conservatives?
Because I think we’re running into the domain of little Nicky’s “purge” rhetoric. The faux libertarians must go, because they are not real libertarians, and based on that, one could argue that many of today’s conservatives do not adequately address true conservatism.
By that metric, modern liberals are soft minded narcissitic socialists if DailyKOS is any example.
Do we really believe that today’s idiot or lowest common denominator is the benchmark for these paradigms?
Precisely. BrainPolice is applying a sliding scale when measuring the right and left separately. Heck, even collectively.
I am having a hard time believing that someone would make the case for welfarism over warfarism.
I’m sorry, is someone saying we should support statist liberals? I don’t care what flavor of anarchism they are as long as they don’t force it on me. If they can do that then it’s all-good.
Really? You don’t see one as being more destructive than the other? In one case I have something taken from me to feed to another person… in the other case I have something taken from me to kill another person. If I had to choose I’d rather have rampant welfare over rampant warfare.
I’d rather have rampant warfare over rampant welfare. Why? One of the two has proven itself never to end; the other always burns out.
I don’t follow your logic at all and have already refuted this in previous threads. The warfare state does not end. It has continued and grown perpetually. New enemies are manufactured when older ones go away. The warfare state apparatus does not usually dissapear when war is over. They just find a new enemy. For example, what happened when the cold war ended? The warfare apparatus merely turned to “radical Islam” and “terrorism” as the new enemy. The warfare state doesn’t “burn out”. It’s arguably the most serious problem facing us today. We’ve practically had perpetual war for decades.
Furthermore, as minorgrey points out, warfare actually murders people. I consider murder to be much more serious of a crime than theft. I’d most certainly rather be cheated out of some of my money than to be killed. At least I’m still alive after being robbed. The same can’t be said of warfare, which is merely institutionalized mass-murder. Also, the warfare state is funded through the exact same means as the welfare state. It involves just as much wealth redistribution, only the wealth is redistributed to wealthy elites and industries instead of poor and disabled people.
I don’t see how wealth redistribution + murder is superior to wealth redistribution to poor folks. The rationale you give for why welfare is so bad is part of the same reason why warfare is bad. So your distinction strikes me as nonsensical if not hypocritical or inconsistant.
You think that socialist programs haven’t killed people? Are you serious? Socialist planning has probably killed more people than every war combined, ever. It’s ruined the lives and liberty of billions more than that.
In addition, wars have come and gone through history; tens of thousands have been fought, and all of them have ended. Welfare states are self-perpetuating; warfare states will inevitably fall. I’ll go search for the thread you’re referencing, we had an excellent discussion going.
The warfare state is a state-socialist program. A huge one that makes up approximately 1/3 of the federal budget. That’s not minor! It involves just as much central planning and wealth redistribution as any welfare scheme. It requires the exact same means that any left-liberal domestic program does. This website is full of resources providing an economic analysis of the effects of the warfare state, and it’s not pretty. So once again, why do you make a distinction where none exists? They’re two heads of the exact same hydra. Except one directly murders people. I don’t deny that the welfare state leads to deaths as well, but they are not direct murders in the way that the warfare state perpetuates.
No, no, no. I’m talking about warfare states. The military-industrial apparatus itself. It does not go away after a single war. It is self-perpetuating as well. Military intervention abroad breeds the conditions for future military intervention, and military planners make a career out of finding new enemies so that more wars can be fought. Throughout the whole ordeal, even in so-called “peace-time”, the military continues to be funded through extortion money and be full of government bureaucracy. Over the past century, the American warfare apparatus has done nothing but grow and grow, and we’ve practically been in a state of perpetual warfare. So your claims are simply false. I don’t understand this perspective.
This is a bit of an over-generalization. While your characterization is certainly true in some cases, it would be just as accurate to say that modern rightists are, at their core, confused, inconsistent nationalists who view the state as their god and taxation as tithe money.
Whatever the state says or demands they accept as truth or law without thought; or rather, for them it becomes truth or law (they are uber-relativists in this regard). As I mentioned (somewhere) in an earlier thread, whatever (obvioustly inchoate) individualist/libertarian bent still exists in the heart of the typical rightist is just the effect of the right’s appealing to tradition to justify policy and having been strongly associated with individualism/libertarianism in the past (viz. the old right).
In other words a libertarian-minded individual and a statist-minded individual are equally likely, after being introduced to politics, to label themselves ‘conservative’ and eventually become an ugly amalgam of the two.
After reading that tell me how is it in line with what we are after.
Conservatives support the state, the average liberal supports the state, no one should be saying we should align ourselves with statist liberals or conservatives. If you’re not an anarchist then align yourself with whatever group makes you feel good but I’m not about to work with statists to reach my goals.
Um, yes. The leaders of these movements say equally retarded things. Conservatives is a loosely defined group… so is liberal. I’ve never met a conservative that was ok with eliminating the state and I haven’t seen many average liberals rally for it either (thought they seem to be more comfortable with me saying I’m an anarchist then when I say it to a conservative).
Newsflash, most people don’t care about politics or political philosophy… they don’t call us radical for nothing.
I’m typing up a separate response, but I refreshed and saw this. This simply proves my point in another thread that “anarchist” is now synonymous with “black flag-waving car-burning leftist”.
That is the pop-culture mischaracterization of anarchists. And I don’t see how anything in minorgrey’s posts proves such a ridiculous “point”. All she pointed out was that in her experiences liberals are slightly more comfortable with her saying that she’s an anarchist. How does this prove that anarchists are “black flag-waving car-burning leftists”?
…because I have encountered the exact same reaction that she has.
As soon as I explain what I actually believe, though, they change their attitude from, “we probably agree, but you’re much more radical than I am”, to, “YOU’RE AN EVIL RIGHT-WINGER WHO WON’T MAKE THE RICH PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE”.
I’ve experienced similar knee-jerk attacks from “the right”. As soon as I explain my position on foreign policy and war, it’s “you’re a defeatist defender of the Islamo-fascists who hates America! Move to Cuba, commie!”. Or as soon as I explain my position on immigration and borders to a paleoconservative, it’s “you’re an evil one-worlder who supports vagrancy and tresspassing!”.
It goes on and on and on and on and on and on and on and…
Very true; in fact it should be a dead giveaway by the rhetoric used to defend it (i.e. war is commonly rationalized by the attackers by saying they have a duty to “help” the people whose lives they are destroying), which is very similar to that used by those calling for wealth redistribution.
Being self-perpetuating should be distinguished from being self-sustaining. Both are the former but neither of them is the latter.
… and, incidentally, when I explain that funding a military is no different from funding welfare; or when I make them realize that they oppose welfare on the grounds that it’s income-redistribution while at the same time support a tax-funded military, they see the light. I’ve seen it happen several times.
In fact, it was a leftist who supported war and welfare that initially caused me to come to that very conclusion.