A resurgent right (Germany's Extreme Right Gathers Strength)

expatica ^ | 10 Feb 2005 | expatica

[dog breath]

Since some of my American mutt ancestry is German I always wish the Germans well. There are so many serious problems with Germany that need addressed that I am afraid that these Neo Nazis will make worse not better. The using of these very real problems to promote their agenda may make the German public back away from dealing with them at all.

[Killing Time]

Nazi is short for Nationalsozialistiche Deutsche Arbeiterpartei or National Socialism which equals the agenda of the DNC

Oh for goodness sake, whatever you think about the Dims they have no program for setting up extermination camps for Jews, gays, communists and gypsies (think about who at least three of these groups vote for).

You are as ridiculous as the Bush=Hitler crowd.

[Rembrandt_fan]

I meant 'liberal' in its Hobbesian sense. The word was hijacked by guys like Kenneth Galbraith to mean something else entirely. When you hear the word 'liberal' applied to an American politician nowadays, it means left-leaning/socialist; this has not always been so.

[monday]

"I've seen that quiz, it's terrible."

lol.... ok, kjvail doesn't like it. Duly noted;^)

[monday]

"Socialism is flawed, I think, because it refuses to recognize the true nature of humanity. I'm with Hobbes and Locke on this one. The beauty of liberal democracy (combined with a free market economy) is that it allows people to pursue their own interests AND contribute to the polity."

I'm with you on that one. F.A.Hayek's Road to Serfdom is another good book on the inherent flaws of Socialism.

[kjvail]

I'm well aware of that and I am using it in the European sense - my assertion remains and history proves liberal democracy always leads to socialism.

Human nature is such it can do nothing else, for the poor will always outnumber the rich. Take a look at Hoppe's Democracy: The God that Failed . An excerpt on point:

In particular, democracy is seen as promoting an increase in the social rate of time preference (present-orientation) or the "infantilization" of society. It results in continually increased taxes, paper money and paper money inflation, an unending flood of legislation, and a steadily growing "public" debt. By the same token, democracy leads to lower savings, increased legal uncertainty, moral relativism, lawlessness, and crime. Further, democracy is a tool for wealth and income confiscation and redistribution. It involves the legislative "taking" of the property of some – the haves of something – and the "giving" of it to others – the have-nots of things. And since it is presumably something valuable that is being redistributed – of which the haves have too much and the have-nots too little – any such redistribution implies that the incentive to be of value or produce something valuable is systematically reduced. In other words, the proportion of not-so-good people and not-so-good personal traits, habits, and forms of conduct and appearance will increase, and life in society will become increasingly unpleasant.

Democracy of any type only assures the most opportunistic, ruthless and skilled demogogues will ever be elected to high office as Hoppe illustrates in Why Bad Men Rule . The West will never throw off the yoke of socialism until the give up the idol of democracy.

[Rembrandt_fan]

To paraphrase Churchill (since I can't remember the exact quote): 'Democracy may be a terrible form of government but it is also the best we have...' or something like that. I also have some passing familiarity with the Hoppe quote you offer. I am always leery of 'must' and 'always' statements in a political discussion. Whenever these absolute terms are used, a single counter-example renders them a fallacy.

George Washington, for example, refutes the "Democracy of any type only assures the most opportunistic, ruthless and skilled demogogues..." statement. The ascendance of this American Cincinnatus belies the truth of Hoppe's argument (and yours).

[monday]

"The West will never throw off the yoke of socialism until the give up the idol of democracy."

You forget the influence of technology. Todays most productive individuals and corporations are increasingly international and with the use of technology are less tied to any one location or government than in the past. While this is taking place already on a limited scale, in the future governments will increasingly have to compete for these individuals and corporations if they want the benefits they can bring.

Even though the man on the street may want to vote himself a condo on the beach from the government, practical considerations will mean that only those governments who provide a liberal and relatively unregulated working and trading environment for the most productive will have the means to ensure that it's citizens stay employed and happy.

It will be survival of the fittest in terms of governments. A sort of social political Darwinism.

Democracies don't HAVE to end in failure.

[MHalblaub]

There are more fascists in the US than you can think of.

Just look on the reverse of a each Mecury head dime
http://www.coinfacts.com/dimes/mercury_head_dimes.html
you got one so called "fasces" (Latin).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fasces
"fascio" (Ital.) or "fascis" (pl.) were the symbols of Mussolini's party but not only.

[kjvail]

Churchill's comment has always been quoted by democratists absent the context and background. I found this article by J. K. Baltzersen interesting, Churchill on democracy revisited

Todays most productive individuals and corporations are increasingly international and with the use of technology are less tied to any one location or government than in the past

And government is busy keeping trying to keep up with them with ever expanding centralizing bureaucracies and nascent world government. A world democracy can only result in a Chinese/Indian coalition government that would immeadiately begin redistributing the wealth of the West. This Jacobin worship of democracy is going to come back and bite us hard.

Democracies don't HAVE to end in failure.

There are no success stories in the history of mass democracy. The only democracies that were even moderately successfully were small, isolated communities. This is why every political mind prior to Locke (Even Hobbes was a royalist) despised democracy as I do.

[Drammach]

That's nonsense too, the political spectrum is not a circle.

Just sayin'...
There are different paths.. different viewpoints..

The Exact center of this revised "Nolan chart" is total Anarchy...

I can easily envision a "chart", circular in nature, that places anarchy at point 0 degrees.. in which different degrees of freedom and control result in a merging at the 180 degree mark.. which is a Totalitarian government..
Whether one reaches that point through democratic liberalism to socialism to Communism, or from conservatism to authoritarianism to fascism, is irrelevent..

The end result is the same..
Total control, Zero Freedom...

[Drammach]

Aaghh.. mistyped the source link for that..

source link

[Killing Time]

Not sure I understand your point.

[Killing Time]

This is getting silly. Left wing and right wing are shorthand originally derived from the seating arrangements of the French revolutionary National Assembly.

I tend towards the view that such shorthand is practically useless in a world where Tony Blair is supposedly a man of the left while Jacques Chirac is supposedly a man of the right.

However, I do tend to think that the words "National" and "German" are more important than "socialist" in Nazi - the socialist bit was very much an afterthought by the "old" Nazis and you really wouldn't have wanted to be a leftist of even the most moderate stripe with the Gestapo on the loose.

I'll keep on saying it. Decent US conservatives should not imagine for a moment that they have anything in common with any of these Euro neo-Nazis. They are Hitler worshipers who, given half a chance, would have the gas ovens back up and running as quick as you could say "Juden raus".

[kjvail]

The fundamental problem with this type of chart is it democracy biased. Democracy does not equal freedom, it never has and it never will. History teaches us quite the opposite actually as is well illustrated in the classic Liberty or Equality

The American model – democracy – must be regarded as a historical error, economically as well as morally. Democracy promotes shortsightedness, capital waste, irresponsibility, and moral relativism. It leads to permanent compulsory income and wealth redistribution and legal uncertainty. It is counterproductive. It promotes demagoguery and egalitarianism. It is aggressive and potentially totalitarian internally, vis-à-vis its own population, as well as externally. In sum, it leads to a dramatic growth of state power, as manifested by the amount of parasitically – by means of taxation and expropriation – appropriated government income and wealth in relation to the amount of productively – through market exchange – acquired private income and wealth, and by the range and invasiveness of state legislation. Democracy is doomed to collapse, just as Soviet communism was doomed to collapse.

Hans-Hermann Hoppe

Demokratie. Der Gott, Der Keiner Ist’

As entertaining as it can be to banter will the average democratist I have work to do and I know its pointless in any case. Democracy is in the blood of Americans I think, we are programmed with it from birth along with the automatic assumption that all other forms of government = tyranny. Buchanan was half-right, the West is dying - he just fails to identify the root cause - demon-cracy.

[monday]

"And government is busy keeping trying to keep up with them with ever expanding centralizing bureaucracies and nascent world government."

and given the extreme efficiency with which government operates </sarcasm, you are confident that they are capable of keeping up? I'm not.

"There are no success stories in the history of mass democracy."

There are no success stories of any form of government over the long term. All have evolved and/or fallen to revolution.

I am curious. Keeping in mind that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely, what form of government would you prefer to a Democratic Republic?

[Killing Time]

You must not have voted Republican last year then?

[Killing Time]

Sorry, just read your profile so I now know the answer to my last question.

[kjvail]

I am curious. Keeping in mind that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely, what form of government would you prefer to a Democratic Republic?

Another oft-mischaracterized and badly used quote from the interpid Lord Acton (not my favorite philsopher to start with, although he did have the virtue of being Catholic at least) From my "about" page:

I'm a monarchist and therefore I despise democracy and republicanism, but it is what we have so I support the major party closest to my views and that would be the Constitution Party.

I support the restoration of Christendom including all illegally deposed monarchs of Europe (Hapsburgs and Bourbons in particular) and the social Kingship of Jesus Christ as authoritatively adminstered by the Holy Roman Catholic Church.

Meet some of my friends

Ping for the "Crown Crew"

FReepmail me to get on of off this list

[kjvail]

and given the extreme efficiency with which government operates </sarcasm, you are confident that they are capable of keeping up? I'm not.

Sorry missed this part.

Modern democractic government is extremely efficent at one thing and one thing only - amassing power. I have no doubt we are headed for a world state. It is the only direction it can go unless the entire democratic structure disintigrates prior to it's attainment.