78
79

Conservative vs Liberal (i.redd.it)

TrueBCVoluntaryist が 投稿

全 45 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]magasilver 12 ポイント13 ポイント  (4子コメント)

This is quite good actually. The biggest problem with the right has always been a complete abdication to authority.

[–]TheGreatRohFULLY AUTOMOATED 🚁 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yes and they get fucked like in Berkeley. They assume all law enforcement is on their side because they claim to be law and order. The Berkeley riots were a good redpill.

[–]benjamindees2nd law is best law 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Overactive mirror neurons.

[–]SpanishDuke太陽と鉄 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

No? The American Right is literally founded upon classical liberal principles.

[–]busy_backspaceTruth is written in the stone. 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

The "American Right" is one or two generations away from helping nationalize the medical care industry. They've long since forgotten that they're supposed to be against Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare, etc. etc. etc.

[–]Pc_RetroAnti-Communist 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (25子コメント)

I don't see how it is contradictory to respect the armed forces and police while also believing in the second amendment.

[–]samsonkeaneEnjoying the Greatest Dark Comedy 27 ポイント28 ポイント  (17子コメント)

If you were to fight against a tyrannical government with an armed populace, you would be fighting against the police, the military, and you would be breaking loads of laws.

[–]HippeHoppeRECHT, FREIHEIT, ORDNUNG 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (7子コメント)

But that supposes that there is no distinction between the institutions the right supports (the present government, which is presumably non-tyrannical) and the institutions the right fears (a hypothetical future government, which is tyrannical and which we need to resist). The right doesn't support the second amendment so that you can fight an ongoing revolution against the current US government.

I don't see what's contradictory in saying "Civilians need guns to be able to resist a hypothetical Nazi Germany, but they should obey the current Weimar Republic".

[–]aletoledojustice derives freedom 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (5子コメント)

If the current government shouldn't be resisted, then how far must things go before a revolution occurs? The US founding fathers fought a war over a tea tax that didn't technically raise the price of tea.

[–]HippeHoppeRECHT, FREIHEIT, ORDNUNG 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (4子コメント)

If the current government shouldn't be resisted, then how far must things go before a revolution occurs?

Well that obviously depends on your view of the nature of government and the right of resistance. I have very strict views on the right of revolution - I basically think that people are entitled to revolt only in very limited circumstances where the government fails to even be a state in the proper sense at all. These would be cases in which the government doesn't even aim at the production of public justice (or its aims undermine the foundations of public justice), not just cases in which the government oversteps its bounds or fails. It's the difference, in Kant's terms, between despotism (which is to be improved but accepted) and barbarism (which is not a state). We can't specify in advance what a barbaric condition looks like, simply because we would be specifying general rules which can't capture particulars (that requires a faculty of judgment), but, to use a cliché, we know it when we see it. There are obvious differences between Nazi Germany and, say, contemporary Denmark - the former sent millions of people to death camps and slavery, the latter might tax its middle class too much.

The US founding fathers fought a war over a tea tax that didn't technically raise the price of tea.

I get that this meme is how US history is taught in high school, but there is a historical consensus that this is not accurate. I'd recommend The Creation of the American Republic: 1776-1787 by Gordon J. Wood for a modern interpretation of the causes of the American War of Independence.

[–]aletoledojustice derives freedom -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (1子コメント)

but there is a historical consensus that this is not accurate.

Sure the real reason the war was fought was to escape the european debts, but by that measure we should be fighting the US government to escape the enormous national debt and Federal Reserve System.

I guess I still don't see how you will ever arrive at a time to restart the system if today isn't ripe. Will it have to personally affect you before you start to oppose it?

[–]HippeHoppeRECHT, FREIHEIT, ORDNUNG 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Sure the real reason the war was fought was to escape the european debts,

This is also not the historical consensus view.

I guess I still don't see how you will ever arrive at a time to restart the system if today isn't ripe. Will it have to personally affect you before you start to oppose it?

That's because I don't believe in "restarting the system" - we have a system, sweeping it aside through violent revolution accomplishes nothing.

[–]Pc_RetroAnti-Communist 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Using you're "strict views" on revolution, do you think the American Revolution was justified? It seems to me that if we accept what you say, than the American Revolution wasn't justified.

[–]HippeHoppeRECHT, FREIHEIT, ORDNUNG 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

No, I don't think it was justified.

[–]natermer 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I don't see what's contradictory in saying "Civilians need guns to be able to resist a hypothetical Nazi Germany, but they should obey the current Weimar Republic".

It's not a problem according to current political dogma. And according to current political dogma there is nothing inconsistent with the stated Liberal position either.

Both are completely and 100% consistent if you only are wiling to judge the positions by what the people that advocate those positions tell you.

but they should obey the current Weimar Republic"

The Weimar Republic wasn't a actual government per say. It's just a period in German history. The State Government didn't go away when Hitler took it over, it just stopped being so Republic-y. When Hilter gained power he did it legally and with the consent of other political parties in a coalition government. The Nazis were not even majority.

Nazi party gained a minority position in the Legislative portion of the government with about 33% of the vote, slightly less then they did previously.

Hitler was then appointed Chancellor to Reichstag, the German Parliament, by the President. In USA government it would mean he was in a similar position to being Vice president.

The President was already operating with emergency powers due to the hyper inflation/great depression, again similarly to the USA during that time period.

When Hitler burned down his own parliamentary building and blamed it on the Communists it convinced the government to give even greater powers to the President and put the country in a state of emergency. Then when the President died in 1934, Hitler took over and the special state of emergency allowed him to completely bypass the legislative branch, effectively becoming dictator.

Except for the black flag fire and the mass murder of his own supporters Hitler gained power legally.

And guess what?

I don't recall the police and military laying down their arms when the constitution was effectively nullified.

[–]FriendsNoTalkPolitic 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Fighting politicily for a change is not the same as physical violence

[–]Pc_RetroAnti-Communist 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (7子コメント)

But we aren't fighting the cops or army

[–]NoShit_94Taxation is Theft 18 ポイント19 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Yet.

[–]Pc_RetroAnti-Communist 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Because most people don't view the government as tyrannical. People want guns just in case they feel it becomes tyrannical, thus it is not contradictory to both respect cops and the Army while believing we need guns just in case.

[–]samsonkeaneEnjoying the Greatest Dark Comedy 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Who were the Americans fighting during the Revolutionary War? Were they obeying all the laws of their government? Were they standing beside and supporting the defense and police entities of the British government under which they lived?

[–]Pc_RetroAnti-Communist -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (2子コメント)

But we aren't in a revolution. I'm sure many of the people in the continental army had respect for the king before the war.

[–]samsonkeaneEnjoying the Greatest Dark Comedy 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (1子コメント)

I'm sure many of the people in the continental army had respect for the king before the war.

They were not respecting the king when they were preparing weapons with which to kill his soldiers, or when they were tar-and-feathering his customs agents and informants.

They had a distaste for the British government and their taxes for a long time, that is the only reason a revolution was possible at all. Do you think people would suddenly change these deeply held beliefs about supporting the police and troops the second laws came about which were truly tyrannical? 90% of a revolution happens before any shots are fired, in the minds of the people about to involve themselves.

[–]Pc_RetroAnti-Communist 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Okay, and I'm sure most republicans are nowhere near the point of wanting to overthrow the government. It's not a contradiction to say "I like the current administration, and respect them but would like weapons just in case it turns tyrannical."

[–]Baka_MDVoluntaryist 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Try breaking any of the laws you see as immoral and see who comes for you.

[–]backwardsmileyIndividualist Anarchist 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Fuck the troops and the states they protect.

I believe that anyone should be able to own a gun and that cops are goons who's purpose is to protect the state. Stop bootlicking.

A privatized force and a privatized army wouldn't serve the same purpose so we're not talking about the same institutions.

[–]Pc_RetroAnti-Communist -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (1子コメント)

3edgy5me

[–]backwardsmileyIndividualist Anarchist 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Says the anarcho-statist.

[–]bhknbrational anarchist 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Those cops and military will take away your guns if ordered to do so. Why would you respect someone whose moral compass is guided by politicians and would disrespect your rights without thought or conscious?

[–]Pc_RetroAnti-Communist 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

All I'm saying is that it's not contradictory.

[–]McDrMuffinMan 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Two things can be true at once, I never thought I had to be lecturing people on the right about that

[–]qemist -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Shhhh... you're supposed to think the 2A is safeguarding the revolution. You see the moment the feds step out of line we the people of r/ancap will rise up with our pea six shooters and overthrow the tyrants whose gunships, daisy cutters, nerve gas and nukes will not avail them.

[–]LOST_TALEAnarcho-Capitalist Invasion Defense Military Union 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

good. fuck them.

[–]Celcus1123 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

The Conservative one assumes the army, made up of Americans, will happily murder their fellow Americans. If the civil war happens a lot of vets would be on the peoples side.

[–]narutouzPaleoLibertarian Minarchist -3 ポイント-2 ポイント  (2子コメント)

For the last time Lolbertarians, you guys are not anarchists. The police and military would exist in ancapistan. Their services would simply be privatized.

Also most cops are conservatives who support gun ownership. The people wanting to kill cops are anarcho communists who are not your friends.

[–]bertcoxClose Enough 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (1子コメント)

But are cops that shoot Daniel Shaver in a hotel hallway your friends? Andrew Thomas; Dylan Noble; James Scott; they would dispute that cops are their friends, well they can't because their dead. Anarchists would love privatized police, they would then be accountable to their stockholders, clients, and public relations to some degree. The war is not against An_com's, its against the State having the power to kill you, or take your stuff.

[–]xpatriTheOneLaw 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

its against the State having the power to kill you, or take your stuff.

Tshirt time

[–]YoureAllCasuals -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (7子コメント)

The US government is not tyrannical, or at least not to the people supporting our laws and cops. It's actually admirable that despite their respect for rule of law and authority, they still advocate for the right to own firearms in case that authority is abused. The "liberal" is logically inconsistent as fuck though, as usual.

[–]Argosy37Anarcho-Capitalist 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (1子コメント)

The US government is not tyrannical, or at least not to the people supporting our laws and cops.

Except for the fact that it steals a huge portion of my income. But oh no, it's not tyrannical.

[–]YoureAllCasuals -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

It's not to the point where you or any major percentage of the population are doing anything about it. "Tyranny" is a strong description of something you are perfectly content with living under.

[–]muuh-gnuSi, mi general! Inmediatamente, mi general! -4 ポイント-3 ポイント  (4子コメント)

The "liberal" is logically inconsistent as fuck though, as usual.

The liberal is less logically inconsistent than the average ancuck in this sub. Most liberals are mostly dishonest and intentionally lying, but the ancucks actually do believe their own shit.

[–]YoureAllCasuals -3 ポイント-2 ポイント  (3子コメント)

you'll have to use a more descriptive term than "ancuck". I don't know what kind of anarchist you're referring to. You have a good point about "liberals", though, it probably is (mostly) dishonesty rather than stupidity.

[–]muuh-gnuSi, mi general! Inmediatamente, mi general! -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (2子コメント)

you'll have to use a more descriptive term than "ancuck".

Your average Gold'N'Black dickless NAP-thumper like for example /u/Anen-o-me, who would rather spend his life as a marxist slave than to actually fight them, because human rights n shit, countering anti-marxist statements with arguments like:

  • "you should be ashamed of yourself"

  • "Marxists are still people deserving of human respect."

  • "you are a piece of shit and deserve to be treated as such"

  • "You are providing fodder for antifa"

  • "You are part of the problem."

  • "you are gearing up to be a tyrant"

  • "Ethically muddy"

etc.

This guy is an utter, hopeless, complete, accomplished, defeatist, pacifist, submissive cuck, and there a LOT of them on this sub, and probably orders of magnitude more on goldNblack.

Ancucks are the guys who are so weak, that they would have flat out voluntarily submitted to Nazis or Soviets instead of fighting them.

[–]YoureAllCasuals 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Oh, well I agree there too. "You can't shoot back until their bullet is in the air" kind of autistic application of the NAP irks me. Obviously, that's an exaggeration, but I do not think marxists should be tolerated in a free society. It's illogical to act under the pretense of the NAP while marxists do not. The only reason they might seem to do so is that they lack the ability to subjugate you for now. The moment they have the numbers to do so, they won't be "respecting" your NAP. It's like waiting for the fuse on a stick of dynamite to reach the explosive before you toss it away.

[–]Anen-o-me𒂼𒄄 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

but I do not think marxists should be tolerated in a free society.

The answer is either free association--walk away from them and form your own private city where marxists are not allowed.

Or murder them.

Anyone saying murder is their first choice has to explain why they aren't unreasonable monsters, as long as the Marxists haven't literally picked up arms and started attacking people at random--which they have not.

One does not require one's opponent to respect the NAP to live by the NAP, which governs reasonable uses of force, and judging what is unreasonable on the part of others. This does not prohibit attacking first if you have a reasonable expectation that an attack is imminent on their part.

But that attack must actually be reasonable, not of the kind that says, "They are leftists therefore they can be murdered extrajudicially." No, that cannot be ethical.

If you become an animal and ignore ethics to fight these people, all you will do is institute laws of the jungle, not something better than we have now.

[–]ThisIsABotThatDoStuf -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

bruhhhh