Wanted to get some opinions on this topic. which do you consider the biggest threat to your personal liberty, authoritarians on social issues, or authoritarians on economic issues?
Social democrats by a long shot I think. They are more "fashionable" and "hip "and have better control on the way information gets presented.
Authoritarians on economics issues.
First of all, I wouldn't equate "authoritarians on social issues" with "neo-mercantilists." That said, I'd say that both social conservatives and mercantilists are better than social democrats. Social conservatives might ban a few of our social liberties (e.g. drug use, sodomy, swearing in public, etc.) and mercantilists might restrict trade in a few areas (e.g. impose a few tariffs and provide subsidies to domestic businesses), but social democrats always will continue to add onto their agenda. Theirs is a machine which never fails to churn out new and worse policies.
Political Atheists Blog
Jackson LaRose: Wanted to get some opinions on this topic. which do you consider the biggest threat to your personal liberty, authoritarians on social issues, or authoritarians on economic issues?
Both to an equal degree. The economic authoritarians are hip in the cities and on campuses but the social authoritarians are the heartbeat of every "right-thinking individual" in the center of country. I would beware them all and live amongst the caribou of alaska.
Neither of them are ever really libertarian on the other issue; so it doesn't matter. They all hate freedom.
Nielsio:Neither of them are ever really libertarian on the other issue; so it doesn't matter. They all hate freedom.
Agreed.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Nielsio: Neither of them are ever really libertarian on the other issue; so it doesn't matter. They all hate freedom.
I don't hate freedom, I just don't value it as much as you do.
Those who control the ends control the means. Thus, authoritarians on those who control the ends. Still, both working in conjunction is what I consider even more dangerous.
bloomj31: Nielsio: Neither of them are ever really libertarian on the other issue; so it doesn't matter. They all hate freedom. I don't hate freedom, I just don't value it as much as you do.
Do you freely choose to value freedom as such or did someone coerce you into saying that?
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
Daniel Muffinburg: Do you freely chose to value freedom as such or did someone coerce you into saying that?
Do you freely chose to value freedom as such or did someone coerce you into saying that?
I chose.
What the heck are "social issues"? Banning drugs, alcohol etc. seems to be interventionism in commerce to me.
Social Democrats, by a mile. They hold all the cards, and really have since WWI. The so called 'Neo-Mercantilists' are simply the Social Democrats useful idiots.
sicsempertyrannis: Social Democrats, by a mile. They hold all the cards, and really have since WWI. The so called 'Neo-Mercantilists' are simply the Social Democrats useful idiots.
fakename: sicsempertyrannis: Social Democrats, by a mile. They hold all the cards, and really have since WWI. The so called 'Neo-Mercantilists' are simply the Social Democrats useful idiots. Some of the neo-mercs. used to be social democrats.
Or vice versa.
sicsempertyrannis:Or vice versa.
To be sure. That's why I think they are both wrong for liberty and why any safety found in one is totally cancelled out by this fact.
fakename: sicsempertyrannis:Or vice versa. To be sure. That's why I think they are both wrong for liberty and why any safety found in one is totally cancelled out by this fact.
Well perhaps, by my point was that social democrats have held basically all state power the world over since WWI. The protectionist class hasnt been much of a factor since the 1930s, and even giving them a second thought is quixotic.
sicsempertyrannis:Well perhaps, by my point was that social democrats have held basically all state power the world over since WWI. The protectionist class hasnt been much of a factor since the 1930s, and even giving them a second thought is quixotic.
True. To an extent, I kind of (in a not serious way) liked hitler, mussolini, etc. for their willingness to put a stop to social democracy and its plan for world governance.
Of course the fascists wanted to replace that world governance with their own and they were unjust to their people so in that sense it's like defending the confederacy from the union -an intellectual no win scenario.
Yeah no one takes neo mercantilists seriously, its a philosophy that's been dead an buried for 2 centuries now, just about the only economic fallacy which will stay dead in economic circles, but your post doesn't match your title.
Certainly social Democrats however as there is far less resistance to them and economic authoritarianism often leads to social authoritarianism
I would say social democrats are better than conservatives. For the most part, social democrats have libertarian ends but nonlibertarian means, whereas conservatives have few libertarian ends. Hence social democrats are closer to libertarianism. As Molinari wrote in his "Letter to Socialists":
We are adversaries, and yet the goal which we both pursue is the same. What is the common goal of economists [i.e., classical liberals] and socialists? Is it not a society where the production of all the goods necessary to the maintenance and embellishment of life shall be as abundant as possible, and where the distribution of these same goods among those who have created them through their labor shall be as just as possible? … Only we approach this goal by different paths…. Why do you refuse to follow the path of liberty alongside us? … If you became certain that you had been mistaken as to the true cause of the evils which afflict society and the means of remedying them … you would come over to us.
AnalyticalAnarchism.net - The Positive Political Economy of Anarchism
OK, well how about social democrats vs. Chicago school "conservatives".
Chavez vs. Pinochet?
Sage: I would say social democrats are better than conservatives. For the most part, social democrats have libertarian ends but nonlibertarian means, whereas conservatives have few libertarian ends. Hence social democrats are closer to libertarianism. As Molinari wrote in his "Letter to Socialists": We are adversaries, and yet the goal which we both pursue is the same. What is the common goal of economists [i.e., classical liberals] and socialists? Is it not a society where the production of all the goods necessary to the maintenance and embellishment of life shall be as abundant as possible, and where the distribution of these same goods among those who have created them through their labor shall be as just as possible? … Only we approach this goal by different paths…. Why do you refuse to follow the path of liberty alongside us? … If you became certain that you had been mistaken as to the true cause of the evils which afflict society and the means of remedying them … you would come over to us.
Great quote, almost exactly why I'm no longer a lefty.
Sage: I would say social democrats are better than conservatives. For the most part, social democrats have libertarian ends but nonlibertarian means, whereas conservatives have few libertarian ends. Hence social democrats are closer to libertarianism.
I would say social democrats are better than conservatives. For the most part, social democrats have libertarian ends but nonlibertarian means, whereas conservatives have few libertarian ends. Hence social democrats are closer to libertarianism.
I'm not sure they have "more" goals in common with libertarians or not, since it's hard to measure such quantities if you examine beyond a bullet-formatted list. But they (in my opinion) have been leaving a "progressive" path of destruction far greater, with more stealth, and with a more successful propaganda campaign than the "conservative" movement has. (I think evidence of this can be seen in how the "conservative" movement now agrees, out of political necessity, with the "progressives" in so many fundamental areas. Not to mention that the term "free market" is a dirty word.)
For the OP- it's hard to pick but I'd lean towards economic restrictions aiming to "equalize wealth", "promote fairness", redistribute wealth and violate property rights over laws which aim to outlaw 'negative' behaviors. My reasoning is basically that without your property and full ownership of the fruits of your labor, what liberty is there left to be had? (I feel like I read this before in an essay, I know I've seen it somewhere.)
Another thing to consider is that restricting behavior can only be done in small parts due to the vast number of possible "unhealthy" habits and liberties, but you only have so much wealth that can be stolen. i.e. It's much easier to create a law to steal 90% of your income than to limit 90% of your "bad habits".
Wow, Sage is the only one who prefers social freedom to economic?
Well, I guess that makes sense on this forum, where the greedy come to meet!
To me the question was about which group I thought was a bigger threat not what I preferd, two seperate things
Jackson LaRose:Sage is the only one who prefers social freedom to economic?
Well, I would deny that such a dichotomy is coherent. Like Mises, I believe freedom is indivisible.
Sage:Well, I would deny that such a dichotomy is coherent. Like Mises, I believe freedom is indivisible.
Exactly, you can't have one freedom and not the other in those terms.
I don't think anyone is really saying that these freedoms aren't linked. The end result of both groups' actions is basically the same. When I read the question, I think the OP was asking about the methods these two groups use for limiting freedoms. One uses primarily economic regulation, wealth redistribution and so on, to enforce their agenda. The other (mostly?) uses politics seeking to prevent certain types of behavior or actions (including foreign coercion in this pot), allegedly preferring fewer economic limitations on what's left of the free market.
I think the economic methods are much more dangerous because they seem much more efficient at destroying freedom, not to mention the "political correctness" aspect which makes economic interventions popular (thus more dangerous).
Looks like the lovechild of the Star Wars Imperials, House Corrino of Dune and Miami gangsters.
Acted like all three, too.
Jackson LaRose: which do you consider the biggest threat to your personal liberty
which do you consider the biggest threat to your personal liberty
I would say that the biggest threat to personal liberty for most of us are our own thoughts, and the limitations imposed by those thoughts/assumptions and subsequent actions.
The second biggest personal liberty threat [for most of us, I imagine] is probably the government.
regards, onebornfree.
For more information about onebornfree, please see profile.[ i.e. click on forum name "onebornfree"].
Byzantine:The mercantilist regime at least recognizes the limits of its power to confiscate resources.
I would argue that neither recognize limits of power, they just distribute privilege to different sets of cronies.
Jackson LaRose: OK, well how about social democrats vs. Chicago school "conservatives". Chavez vs. Pinochet?
A threat to liberty in what sense? Pinochet = a CIA asset. Chavez = an anti-empire firebrand. No contest here.
Marko: A threat to liberty in what sense? Pinochet = a CIA asset. Chavez = an anti-empire firebrand. No contest here.
And yet Chavez is running his country into the ground, while Pinochet's Chile has today one of the strongest economies in South America. How could there be a contest between socialist ruin and a nominally free market regime is beyond me.
Jackson LaRose: Acted like all three, too.
I take it you are in the Allende > Pinochet crowd.
sicsempertyrannis: Marko: A threat to liberty in what sense? Pinochet = a CIA asset. Chavez = an anti-empire firebrand. No contest here. And yet Chavez is running his country into the ground, while Pinochet's Chile has today one of the strongest economies in South America. How could there be a contest between socialist ruin and a nominally free market regime is beyond me.
That is only money. Freedom has no price.
Marko: sicsempertyrannis: Marko: A threat to liberty in what sense? Pinochet = a CIA asset. Chavez = an anti-empire firebrand. No contest here. And yet Chavez is running his country into the ground, while Pinochet's Chile has today one of the strongest economies in South America. How could there be a contest between socialist ruin and a nominally free market regime is beyond me. That is only money. Freedom has no price.
So empty anti-empire rhetoric equals more freedom? It's alright; when Chavez finishes turning Venezuela into a marxist basket case, people will start voting with their feet.
Some good points from both sides of the field
The "Miracle of Chile", but at what cost?