I'm mixed on this. Yeah, point and laugh at the lolbertarian, I'm ready, but hear me out.
First, the good: Antifa are a plague, and a bunch of these shitstains deserve prison. They should have been dealt with a long time ago. Also, revenge is cathartic; I'm so fucking done with leftists, especially the ones more aligned with violence. I am absolutely in favor of cracking down on Antifa and leftists, and this does make me feel warm and fuzzy.
The bad: I have never been in favor of "modifier" laws. Arrest someone for murder, not for being in a gang and murdering someone. Arrest someone for driving drunk, not there being an open container in the car (this can include a closed but no longer sealed container.) Arrest someone for beating someone else, not for hating them. And so on.
Terrorist designators are arguably an infringement on free association and, although we all hate Antifa, it's also important to keep in mind that, although leftist, Antifa is, at least on paper, an American anti-government group. If the president can just declare your group a terrorist threat, and this becomes normalized, what's to stop it being used against someone like the Proud Boys or (pretending for a moment they're not feds) Patriot Front? If anything, that would be easier; leftists still control a lot of the media, and you have existing "well respected" groups like the SPCL and ADL already saying these right wing groups are terrorists. If we open the door, the next Dem will crack down on us even harder.
So I am worried about the precedent. You can and should go after Antifa, but you don't need new laws to do it.
everything is a slippery slope because our government is deeply corrupt.
But, there's not really any organization on the right can come close to antifa or blm in terms of destructiveness and terrorism. And I don't count fed plants like proud boys
As a minarchist: unfortunately, I think we're already well past the point of being concerned about being declared a terrorist organization. Obama already used this a decade ago with absolute impunity. The FBI was just trying to declare the conservative mothers movement against DIE and transing their kids as a terrorist campaign. Fuck, remember when Ted Cruz had to call them out for declaring the Gadsden Flag on his boot to be terrorist symbol?
I agree with the problem you've laid out and your assessment, the same way I agree with having too many executive orders, and having too heavy tariffs, but those are now secondary problems. I think there are millions of Americans who are radicalized to the point of terrorism and murder, and are simply too cowardly and weak to carry it out, but they may still assist in terrorism in a Battle of Algiers style if they witness it.
Genuinely, if they hadn't put chemicals in the water to turn the freakin' frogs gay, I think there would have been a Holocaust by now, or something similar.
This fucking sucks, but we're already down the hill. The question is whether or not we land on our feet or crash into a rock before we start climbing back up.
Yup. Unfortunately, principles only get you so far.
I've always warned against utopianist thinking, and I suppose that has to apply to operating the levers of power too. All the problems I laid out already exist, so it doesn't necessarily make sense to avoid using them. I'm still worried about the slippery slope, though. Maybe not in legal precedent, but in people's acceptance of it. I do worry that, even if it's good at the moment, Trump's "fascism" is actually leading us in a dangerous direction. Perhaps a necessary one, but there's still some worrying signs.
It really is a tricky situation. Because something needs to be done, clearly. But some of what is being done is pushing us in a bad direction, even if it's also solving bad problems. It's a conflict between principles, and surrendering to the enemy. Doing nothing clearly isn't an answer.
I don't think it's a betrayal of principles. The problem with Liberalism is the Universalism, because they are misapplying the idea of "Everyone is Christ's Children" to the planet and assuming the moral expansion of that.
Liberalism is political, not religious. It must be bound by political boundary conditions. Those who seek to kill liberalism and everyone who follows it can't be defended by Liberalism.
The nightwatchmen state of Liberalism doesn't look inward over the walls, it looks outward because those are where the threats are.
If you let the wolves in and say they should have as much protections as the chickens, then this is obvious nonsense. If you let werewolves in, and they bite people, and now you have former citizens who are werewolves, you still don't offer them equal protection. They are an active and ongoing threat.
Moreover frame this from the Civic Nationalist perspective: someone who is a heritage American, but is a traitor, is not an American.
King John is English because he is English no matter what he does. This isn't the case with Americans. Benedict Arnold isn't American, he's British, because he's a traitor. A traitor is never an American. And a traitor that opens the gates for enemies to pour in is intolerable.
If I framed this as "Nazis", not one Liberal/Leftist you know would disagree with anything I said. Suddenly I say that Leftists and Communists are antithetical to Liberalism, and they start freaking out. No. Wrong. They are antithetical to Liberalism and a Civic Nation, and must be removed. Even as Americans they have no right to be here. Liberalism is for Liberals, not Communists who seek to kill them.
The Liberal project of the US has been invaded by, and subverted by, Communists. They need to leave.
The government will do whatever it wants, whenever it wants, if it can get away with it. Principles and laws were long ago proven to be worth less than the paper they are printed on. If the government wants a right wing organisation out of the way, they will use whatever justification (or no justification at all) to do so, regardless of 'precedent'.
I think we are now at the point of naked power politics, so when the hammer comes down on my foes rather than me, I'm not going to waste my time standing on principle.
It also really depends on how "antifa" membership is defined.
The antifa label gets pretty liberally & loosely applied by the right to any leftists that fit the profile based on physiognomy, beliefs & modifications. Almost the equivalent to leftists throwing around the Nazi label.
But Andy Ngo a few years back in his book about the org that official membership with antifa nationwide was only about 600 or so.
About a hundred years too late but better now than never.
Figures it'd take someone close to him dying for it to happen, but it finally happened.
He needed a public event to do it. Still not sure this is enough for the courts.
About fucking time. Now put Soros and his son at the top of the most wanted list and start hunting.
I'm mixed on this. Yeah, point and laugh at the lolbertarian, I'm ready, but hear me out.
First, the good: Antifa are a plague, and a bunch of these shitstains deserve prison. They should have been dealt with a long time ago. Also, revenge is cathartic; I'm so fucking done with leftists, especially the ones more aligned with violence. I am absolutely in favor of cracking down on Antifa and leftists, and this does make me feel warm and fuzzy.
The bad: I have never been in favor of "modifier" laws. Arrest someone for murder, not for being in a gang and murdering someone. Arrest someone for driving drunk, not there being an open container in the car (this can include a closed but no longer sealed container.) Arrest someone for beating someone else, not for hating them. And so on.
Terrorist designators are arguably an infringement on free association and, although we all hate Antifa, it's also important to keep in mind that, although leftist, Antifa is, at least on paper, an American anti-government group. If the president can just declare your group a terrorist threat, and this becomes normalized, what's to stop it being used against someone like the Proud Boys or (pretending for a moment they're not feds) Patriot Front? If anything, that would be easier; leftists still control a lot of the media, and you have existing "well respected" groups like the SPCL and ADL already saying these right wing groups are terrorists. If we open the door, the next Dem will crack down on us even harder.
So I am worried about the precedent. You can and should go after Antifa, but you don't need new laws to do it.
That door was opened decades ago. Only the left walked through it.
Beating them with their own stick is not a bad thing.
everything is a slippery slope because our government is deeply corrupt.
But, there's not really any organization on the right can come close to antifa or blm in terms of destructiveness and terrorism. And I don't count fed plants like proud boys
As a minarchist: unfortunately, I think we're already well past the point of being concerned about being declared a terrorist organization. Obama already used this a decade ago with absolute impunity. The FBI was just trying to declare the conservative mothers movement against DIE and transing their kids as a terrorist campaign. Fuck, remember when Ted Cruz had to call them out for declaring the Gadsden Flag on his boot to be terrorist symbol?
I agree with the problem you've laid out and your assessment, the same way I agree with having too many executive orders, and having too heavy tariffs, but those are now secondary problems. I think there are millions of Americans who are radicalized to the point of terrorism and murder, and are simply too cowardly and weak to carry it out, but they may still assist in terrorism in a Battle of Algiers style if they witness it.
Genuinely, if they hadn't put chemicals in the water to turn the freakin' frogs gay, I think there would have been a Holocaust by now, or something similar.
This fucking sucks, but we're already down the hill. The question is whether or not we land on our feet or crash into a rock before we start climbing back up.
Yup. Unfortunately, principles only get you so far.
I've always warned against utopianist thinking, and I suppose that has to apply to operating the levers of power too. All the problems I laid out already exist, so it doesn't necessarily make sense to avoid using them. I'm still worried about the slippery slope, though. Maybe not in legal precedent, but in people's acceptance of it. I do worry that, even if it's good at the moment, Trump's "fascism" is actually leading us in a dangerous direction. Perhaps a necessary one, but there's still some worrying signs.
It really is a tricky situation. Because something needs to be done, clearly. But some of what is being done is pushing us in a bad direction, even if it's also solving bad problems. It's a conflict between principles, and surrendering to the enemy. Doing nothing clearly isn't an answer.
I don't think it's a betrayal of principles. The problem with Liberalism is the Universalism, because they are misapplying the idea of "Everyone is Christ's Children" to the planet and assuming the moral expansion of that.
Liberalism is political, not religious. It must be bound by political boundary conditions. Those who seek to kill liberalism and everyone who follows it can't be defended by Liberalism.
The nightwatchmen state of Liberalism doesn't look inward over the walls, it looks outward because those are where the threats are.
If you let the wolves in and say they should have as much protections as the chickens, then this is obvious nonsense. If you let werewolves in, and they bite people, and now you have former citizens who are werewolves, you still don't offer them equal protection. They are an active and ongoing threat.
Moreover frame this from the Civic Nationalist perspective: someone who is a heritage American, but is a traitor, is not an American.
King John is English because he is English no matter what he does. This isn't the case with Americans. Benedict Arnold isn't American, he's British, because he's a traitor. A traitor is never an American. And a traitor that opens the gates for enemies to pour in is intolerable.
If I framed this as "Nazis", not one Liberal/Leftist you know would disagree with anything I said. Suddenly I say that Leftists and Communists are antithetical to Liberalism, and they start freaking out. No. Wrong. They are antithetical to Liberalism and a Civic Nation, and must be removed. Even as Americans they have no right to be here. Liberalism is for Liberals, not Communists who seek to kill them.
The Liberal project of the US has been invaded by, and subverted by, Communists. They need to leave.
The government will do whatever it wants, whenever it wants, if it can get away with it. Principles and laws were long ago proven to be worth less than the paper they are printed on. If the government wants a right wing organisation out of the way, they will use whatever justification (or no justification at all) to do so, regardless of 'precedent'.
I think we are now at the point of naked power politics, so when the hammer comes down on my foes rather than me, I'm not going to waste my time standing on principle.
It also really depends on how "antifa" membership is defined.
The antifa label gets pretty liberally & loosely applied by the right to any leftists that fit the profile based on physiognomy, beliefs & modifications. Almost the equivalent to leftists throwing around the Nazi label.
But Andy Ngo a few years back in his book about the org that official membership with antifa nationwide was only about 600 or so.
Same thread but on the Communities.win side of things.
Didn't he already do this during his first term in 2020?