So I got downvoted into oblivion on a post about socialism because I think that socialism is doomed to fail no matter what form, even national socialism.
Explain why national socialism is a better economic system than libertarian capitalism, assuming a white, Christian* ethnostate.
*Preferably Catholic and Orthodox, not butt-fucking Protestants
You are viewing a single comment's thread. View all
1
WeedleTLiar on scored.co
1 year ago1 point(+0/-0/+1Score on mirror)
>It goes something like "me first, fuck everyone else".
I think the steel-man of Libertariabism would be "I'm so responsible that I don't need to be governed".
For example, my country requires automatic traction control and ABS brakes in new cars. *I* don't need this, because I know how to drive, but others need to be governed because they're idiots. Same with left turn signals, speed limits, safety inspections, even driver's licenses. If none of that existed, I would drive pretty much the same as I do now because it's just the correct way to drive, so I don't like having these laws.
The problem is, if I'm at least an average driver, most people are worse than me. If any retard can get behind a wheel and do whatever he wants, as fast as he wants, you get India, which I also don't want.
On top of that, I didn't build my car. If I did, I didn't build the parts. If I did, I didn't smelt the metal and process the plastic. If I did, I didn't obtain the raw ore/oil etc. Someone else has to do at least some of this and I can't realisitically check every stage for quality. If my wheel falls off because of poor metalurgy or corners cut during assembly, I'm fucked. Someone needs to hold the dummies to account for their actions, or they'll get away with whatever they can.
Ideally, I think Libertarianism is an individual ideology necessary for small government, but not actually a system of government at all. You can never have a Libertarian country; at best it would be some other system that would barely require paid government positions because most people take on the responsibilities that otherwise fall to governments.
I think the steel-man of Libertariabism would be "I'm so responsible that I don't need to be governed".
For example, my country requires automatic traction control and ABS brakes in new cars. *I* don't need this, because I know how to drive, but others need to be governed because they're idiots. Same with left turn signals, speed limits, safety inspections, even driver's licenses. If none of that existed, I would drive pretty much the same as I do now because it's just the correct way to drive, so I don't like having these laws.
The problem is, if I'm at least an average driver, most people are worse than me. If any retard can get behind a wheel and do whatever he wants, as fast as he wants, you get India, which I also don't want.
On top of that, I didn't build my car. If I did, I didn't build the parts. If I did, I didn't smelt the metal and process the plastic. If I did, I didn't obtain the raw ore/oil etc. Someone else has to do at least some of this and I can't realisitically check every stage for quality. If my wheel falls off because of poor metalurgy or corners cut during assembly, I'm fucked. Someone needs to hold the dummies to account for their actions, or they'll get away with whatever they can.
Ideally, I think Libertarianism is an individual ideology necessary for small government, but not actually a system of government at all. You can never have a Libertarian country; at best it would be some other system that would barely require paid government positions because most people take on the responsibilities that otherwise fall to governments.