[ SECRET POST #4049 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #4049 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.











Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 44 secrets from Secret Submission Post #580.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[thewakokid]

Well, extremeist ideas are almost by definition unsound, but I don't get how people can rationalise wanting small government and wanting to make sure the government steps in to help their ideologies?

I admit, I don't really know what somone who calls themself right wing would want, but as the right wing is a political stance dedicated to acquiring governmental control to secure their way of life, I can't see how any of that fits with libertarian ideals - which I do feel pretty secure on speaking about - about keeping government out of peoples business.

[feotakahari]

I’ve also seen right wing used as a description for people who want the church to control everything. They’re big on freedom from government interference, so they might qualify as right-wing libertarian.

[thewakokid]

Don't they want the church intermingled with the government? I mean, Maybe there are some low teir libertarians out there who would be happy with the church running the government, but I can't say that that really falls in line with libertarian values.

Assuming they are willing to stick with their libertarian values once their guys get into the government. Power corrupts, and all that. but as an Ideology, I just don't see how it could work.

[(Anonymous)]

I'm not sure that "extreme right wing" necessarily entails aggressive state intervention - you could have, for instance, corporatist societies, or societies in which nominally non-governmental market mechanisms are used to achieve right-wing ends, or a free market but only within a right-wing social context enforced by authoritarian government action.

But generally, I'm thinking of the paleolibertarian current here, people like Ilana Mercer and Hans-Herman Hoppe, and then also definitely a bunch of people in the neo-reactionary movement, particularly Mencius Moldbug.

[(Anonymous)]

Well, they kind of warp it: if the rights of people they don't like are legally enshrined, then the government is interfering in their live.

E.g. if you, as a business owner, can't discriminate against gay people (or any other group that you happen to dislike), then the government is infringing upon your freedom.

It comes from a misreading of negative vs positive rights (which is itself a fraught and dicey concept). The logic is that only negative rights are valid, because they exist irrespective of government, whereas positive rights necessarily involve government intervention. And given that anti-discrimination law falls into the positive rights column, it's both invalid and contrary to the ideal of small government.

A gay person who is not allowed to marry and not allowed to patronize area businesses and not allowed to hold a job is not being treated unjustly so long as he is still technically able to own property, speak his mind, and defend his own life against attackers. That's right-wing libertarianism.