The Atlantic Tells Us About “Good” and “Bad” Liberty
(media.communities.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (58)
sorted by:
Not really, rights and liberties exist as a reaction to impositions applied by rules over the world. It is only the west that founded a philosophy on the idea and applied it universally in order to prevent generalized tyranny.
It's unfortunate that the east and south live as slaves to their rapists and killers, but I'm not prepared to accept slavery because of the threat of subversion.
And it is the duty and moral obligation of every man to remove that sovereign by any means necessary. This is normally because the very concept of human freedom is the most subversive weapon against all authority. So, any freedom is a subversive threat to any order. In response, many sovereigns are prepared to systematically exterminate most, if not all, of their entire population with foreign armies in order to maintain an order that they impose, because allowing any dissent, of any kind, can undermine that order. They will always accept that hollowing out your lands and re-populating it with loyal foreigners is better than allowing your own subjects to reject your assertions, even if your assertions are patently insane and damaging.
The problem with most sovereigns is that they, without exception, are the most dangerous threat that any society faces at any time. The fact that any and all freedom of any kind can be seen as subversion of the order they impose, justifies unlimited atrocities. The more totalizing the sovereign's scope, the less dissent can be tolerated.
Both the American Revolution, and the English Civil War, explicitly demonstrates why Kings and Sovereigns can't be trusted. In both cases, the unflinching rejection of the King to disruption of their government's absolute authority, lead to them allying with foreigners to kill their own subjects and murder their own people. This because to every authoritarian, it is better to have most of your population die, rather than to have any one person disobey. Most importantly: at no point is the sovereign prepared to believe that he is wrong.
This is the lolbert idea of freedom that only works for a society of 120IQ white boys that reproduce without women. If you haven't noticed over the last two years, most people desperately want someone to tell them what to do, which isn't a bad thing. A vicious king can be less free than a virtuous slave, as a man has as many masters as his vices. Classical tyranny, as described in Plato's Republic, is when slaves and women are elevated to positions of power over better men. Somehow tyranny has been redefined to mean when sovereignty simply exists, which is delusional as the existence of sovereign power is inescapable.
Classical liberty comes from order.
???
Meaning that it can't exist. Women destroy the utopian conceptions of libertarianism by their very nature.
Order is an emergent property of Chaos.
Chaos is an emergent property of Order.
The idea that that only white people can have freedom, when it is white people who are the primary source of the destruction of that freedom with Leftist shows this is nonsensical.
Yes, the political Left cultivated a culture of slaves for nearly a century. That's actually a bad thing.
Cool, cool, so you've never read a single history book in your life then?
History is literally filled to the brim with not only viscous kings, but in some cases, literal psychopaths who are kings, queens, lords, duchy's, dukes, etc. They normally survive all possible challenges, because no one can hold them to account before opposition murders them.
I would honestly expect better from you, since you've at least read the history of gender.
Literally not where the word tyrant comes from. Tyrants, and their tyranny, is simply when someone (typically some kind of gang or factional leader) takes over a city state.
Plato's Republic, in and of itself, was a tyranny by the fact that his Philosopher Kings would have unchecked power, and are effectively a good description of the environment we have at this very second, with self-anointed intellectualists declaring themselves the unchangeable arbiters of the world.
It is the self-anointed "Better Men" that we should seek to uncompromisingly remove from society, given their utterly unaccountable nature, and the fact that no human suffering can dissuade them from their arrogance.
Your Whig history is silly and cringe. Most people never felt any effect on their lives from the king. Crazy kings mostly terrorized their court, while good kings uplifted the nation.
This is a good demonstration that lolberts and socialists are practically indistinguishable. Both are seeking to liberate the individual from any responsibilities, which is characterized as oppression. Both are progressive diseases that tear at the fabric of society. Go read Hoppe to find some non-cringe libertarianism that bridges to monarchy.
Spez: Here is some Mosca.
-The Ruling Class
You should define what you mean by lolberts, because it's a vague made up epithet for an already vague set of ideas held by a broad spectrum of people. But libertarians - except for the fringe "I just want big government to legalize all drugs and guns and shield me from social responsibility" - are individualists, while socialists are collectivists. They may be Liberals, but they couldn't be indistinguishable unless you ignored that most important dimension.
Assinine beyond words considering how Feudal systems worked. When you had peasants pledging their children's children to their direct lords, who were forced by feudal order to pledge their absolute loyalty to barons, and then to kings; and kings had literally unlimited scope and power to make law by decree; the idea that people just didn't feel the effect of kings is laughably insane. Not to mention the Guild system which was aligned entirely with the monarchy's control over the economy.
The Magna Carta was built as a kind of threat to the power of an English King who was literally imprisoning people at will. Oliver Cromwell fucking banned Christmas and the English made a protest song about it. Being caught with this song's lyrics was a death sentence. Hell, during the Hundred Years War, the English troops burned and pillaged through French villages, murdering with impunity, in order to demonstrate that the French King couldn't protect them, in order to recruit the population into swearing allegiance to the English king. We can also talk about the English Crown's courts that were set up to impose the King's power over the general population in the "Star Chamber".
And all that is from England, which by all respect had one of the least repressive, violent, murderous, and freedom loving of monarchies that I'm aware of. You try any dissent with the French, Austrians, Hungarians, Spanish, or Portuguese; they'll kill your whole family.
That's to say nothing of non-European civilizations of other eras. We can talk of the first Totalitarian state: Ancient Egypt. We can talk about how Caesar's ascent to power relied on manipulating grain and land re-distribution schemes. We can talk about the Spartan king's control over pregnancies by killing daughters with infanticide. We can talk about how Tokugawa in Japan made northern forests sacred in order to secure the wood supply of the country, and regularly executed people seen attempting to cut trees. He also exterminated the Portuguese. And fuck, do I really have to explain why Vlad The Impaler was an absolute autocrat who terrified the absolute bejesus out of everyone in Wallachia at all times? Or are we going to pretend that impaling 300,000 people just doesn't have an impact on anyone. Oh yeah, I forgot the Ottomans. I'm sure the Ottomans and their Janissaries made of stolen subjugated children didn't effect anyone either.
Seriously, where the fuck do you get this idea that a monarch basically doesn't effect his own people? Even by your standard, the concept of the sovereign is that he shouldn't betray his own subjects because he effectively owns them and wants them to improve. It's not true, but that should be your argument. Not that they are unrelated. By the very nature of "having the right to destroy subversion", a King gives himself the unrestrained right to control all aspects of the lives of his subjects.
Daft idiocy. The entire concept of a Liberal Philosophy is that a man is his own sovereign, and therefore his responsibilities are his own mandate to fulfill. Not that he doesn't have them. Your ignorance of Liberalism doesn't mean that it's the same as Leftism, which is inherently anti-Liberal.
And literally no part of that stops anyone from being a violent, bloodthirsty, savage. In fact, all it does is allow the subordinates to make excuse for it, and continue institutionalizing slaughter.
The Feudal Ages repeatedly show both the general population and subordinate barons lamenting the rise of bad kings which no one can do anything to stop for multiple decades at a time. The wrong king gets into power, sorry: but you're just gonna have to deal with arbitrary beheadings for the next 40 years.