Authoritarian vs Libertarian vs Capitalist

A child attempts to jump off a 100m high balcony, thinking that it is capable of flying. An authoritarian, libertarian, and capitalist observe this and react to it.

Authoritarian: You will not jump off the balcony. Your perception of reality is flawed and the outcome you expect (flying) is not what you will get, instead you will fall and most likely die and certainly get seriously injured. I will restrict your choice for your own good and for the good of society, at the very least until/if you become mature and aware enough to make your own decisions.

Libertarian: You have the freedom to do whatever you want. Everybody lives in their own magical separated universe where their actions have no consequences on the society at large or other people and my only goal is to ensure people can do whatever the fuck they want to do as long as they don’t prevent other people from doing the same. Your jumping off the building doesn’t prevent me from doing the same, so feel free to jump, child.

Capitalist: yells to the kid Yeah kid, go ahead and jump, I’m sure you’ll start flying the moment you do. whispers to the authoritarian/libertarian: I’ll bet you a hundred that the kid won’t fly and that he’ll just fall and die instead.

I hope you don’t intend this as an argument for a particular social order, or even as a description of the differences between competing theories of social order. Society isn’t a child jumping off a balcony, and neither authoritarianism, libertarianism, nor capitalism are theories of what to do when a child tries to jump off a balcony. Those theories deal with society as a whole, and deal mostly with the adults in a society.

Yes, that was the intention of my post.

The average person’s understanding of politics is indeed insufficient for them to have any relevant say in political matters and if they aren’t controlled and guided they will lead everybody, including themselves, into certain doom like a child would jump off a balcony and fall due to its false understanding of reality.

The point is that libertarianism is hopelessly delusional and that capitalism is perverted and obsessed with the materialistic. I guess I also could have included communism/egalitarianism, where a child jumps off the balcony but also forces everybody else to jump along, cause misery likes company.

The average authoritarian’s understanding is pretty poor too. Look at how often strong central governments have just totally fucked everything up by trying to make decisions on behalf of their people. Capitalism has shown itself to be significantly more effective at allocating resources and satisfying social needs. The world has prospered as market economics have taken over. And government control has been shown vulnerable to corruption, rent-seeking, and co-opting by special interests to the detriment of the many.

Authoritarianism’s track record is abysmal. Classical liberalism’s isn’t perfect, but it’s a damn sight better.

I didn’t have just any authoritarianism in mind, I had something like the 3rd Reich. Obviously I am against authoritarian systems like communism. And I’m not only speaking about economy but social issues too.

Any prospering in the world is a result of technological advancements which some systems other than capitalism can accomplish just as well if not better.

Yeah you want a new fascist autocracy with yourself at the head. Good thing you have no actual power.

History proves you wrong.

Nope, I would never want to be the leader, myself. I’m not delusional about my abilities.

NationalSocialism is the closest thing in recent times to what I advocate for, and ceteris paribus it is the more powerful system.

So powerful that it got utterly wiped out.

Cheers.

A state based on racism and lust to conquer the planet is irrational, thus destined to fail in the long term. Reality doesn’t tolerate irrationality, it corrects it. Nazis are done, their ideology is no longer tenable in the least. The battle has moved on, you’re just living in the past.

And let’s not forget the other thing Nazism was based on, other than racism and lust to conquer the whole planet: anti-capitalism. The Nazis were strongly anti-capitalistic.

Lol. Any ideology that is anti-capitalistic is doomed to fail on just those grounds alone. Again, history bears this out.

As I stated, ceteris paribus.

Of course they got wiped out, all the other factors were against them. It was 3 little countries against the whole world and Germany still inflicted more than double the military casualties despite the fact they lost.

Since I’ve already explained this to you I’m sure you’re just being disingenuous now. Well either that, or you’re a Jew so like a Jew whenever you are proven wrong you just repeat your debunked nonsense the next day.

But take two countries with equal populations with equal territory and equal resources at their disposal (basically equalize all other factors) and make one based on capitalism, freedom, and whatever the fuck other degenerate nonsense you advocate, and make the other based on National Socialism, and the latter wins and easily.

I’ve already refuted this nonsense. It wasn’t three little countries against the world, that is just your religious devotional mantra.

In reality it was three massive countries against a dozen others most of which were decimated by recent war. USSR choose to side with Hitler, at first, through mutual non-aggression. The USSR could have stopped Nazism early on but didn’t want to get involved, because the soviets also hated capitalism.

By all accounts the Axis should have won, easy. They had overwhelming forces. But they didn’t win. Why not? Because their ideology is so repulsive that everyone else, even the soviets, realized what a disease it was and gang-raped it.

That’s the proper image of a Nazi: surrounded by a crowd and getting gang-raped. It’s the logical result of holding such a fucktarded ideology.

I agree, you should add communism and egalitarianism into the original post, to help enhance your analogy.

Nope. You lost.

Capitalism and freedom and democracy are superior to your nonsense. The world moved on. You might try doing that too, unless little beta male, sausage fest basement parties are your thing. In that case, carry on. You’re only hurting yourself, and I’m fine with that.

You have a nasty habit of using insults for “arguments”.

If I may be so bold to ask, well I’m going to ask anyway, do you identify as a liberal or leftist?? Just trying to make sense of you and your “philosophy”.

“3 massive countries”

“decimated by war”

yeah cause winners tend to be more decimated by war than losers, right

In terms of quality, definitely. They lacked quantity.

I guess gang-raping your enemies is fine, then? Even my WHITE SHARIA wouldn’t promote gang-rapes, but supposedly I’m the bad guy here.

None of it is stable in the long-term, and it is funny that you think there is actually such a thing as “freedom” and “democracy” in the countries claiming to espouse it. Just shows how blue-pilled you still are. I’m not even worried about it, I know it will fall. I just hope it doesn’t pull a Samson and nuke the entire planet along with it. Other than that, meh.

Yeah I have a bad habit of making insults when people are especially stupid. I’m working on it.

I’m don’t call myself either a leftist or rightist, I just want to be rational and get to the truth. In some ways I probably identify with the left, in other ways with the right. But the dichotomy between right and left is really a problem, because people want to defend their ideology more than they want to find better ideas.

Often yes.

And by massive I didn’t mean geography, I meant military might.

Nope, if that were the case then they couldn’t have rolled over so much so fast.

“None of the World War II beligerant countries were prepared for War. The two countries most prepared were Germany and Japan. Hitler had turned Germany into a state with a single purpose–to support a modern military machine that could expand the Reich. And unlike the period leaduing up to World War I there was no military arms race. NAZI Germany began its rearmament program at a time when the Allies were attempting to limit military expenitures to deal with welfare problems resulting from the Depression. This allowed Germany and Japan to gain a significant miltrary advantage over the Democracies. Neither country, however, had the capacity to wage a protracted global war, although as a result of their military suyccesses, bioth countrues substantially imprive their strategic position. Only two countries had the economic capability of waging a protracted global war–the Soviet Union and the United states.”

Yeah, that’s right. Hitler built up a military power while Europe elsewhere was trying to scale back and rebuild, Hitler didn’t give a shit about rebuilding his country so poured all that into military. And look at that, Russia and the US, one of which sided early with Hitler and the other didn’t even get involved at first. Your argument is dead wrong.

I’m not saying it’s fine. I don’t think gang rape is fine. I’m saying it’s the logical consequence of doing what Nazis do.

Is there an argument somewhere in there, because I don’t see it.

History of Nazism (anti-capitalism): 12 years.
History of America (pro-capitalism): 235 years.

Ouch.

Dude it’s a simple fact the allies had far superior numbers. Like I said, Germans inflicted more than double the military casualties to the allies until Germany literally ran out of soldiers, and the allies just kept coming.

If they had equal numbers, Germans would have won, and apparently quite easily too, since even while losing they managed to inflict more than double the military casualties.

Oh wait, it’s actually MORE THAN THREE TIMES, lolol. historylearningsite.co.uk/wo … d-war-two/

If both allies and Axis had 5,930,000 (the allies armies were scaled down), how do you think the war would have went? Honestly, now :evilfun:

EDIT: Oh and furthermore, if both allies and Axis started with equal numbers but were then allowed to develop for a period of time let’s say a century before they fought,

  1. allies with freedom, democracy, capitalism, and the modern Western feminism that comes with it causing low birthrates and feminization of the population we can see today, the inevitable logical consequence of your ideals
    and
  2. the axis with a militaristic patriarchy which employs eugenics and restricts freedom, nurturing traits like health, intelligence, courage, strength, etc. in its male population and proper feminine, motherly traits in the female population, and subsequently has high birthrates and masculine men

Whose chances of winning would increase, and whose would decrease?

Like I said, that’s an invalid comparison cause not all factors were equalized. Besides, Rome was much smaller and it lasted longer and it still fell.

I mean the very fact that the axis had less than 3 times the military casualties despite 1) being the aggressors and 2) being fewer in number and eventually losing, should tell you all you need to know about the power of their systems.

Usually the attacking armies are at a disadvantage and all other factors equal (ceteris paribus) suffer bigger losses, and usually if you have smaller numbers, if all other factors were equal, you would lose quickly and without inflicting too much damage.

The fact that’s not what happened just shows how superior in terms of QUALITY the axis were.

Germany developed a lethal, world-class military under Hitler because he didn’t give a shit about re-developing his country or economy, all he wanted to do was make tanks and bombs and draft every male (including children) into the military. So what? It proves that if you forsake your own nation and its people to turn them into a military machine, of course you are going to inflict some real damage.

I never said Nazi Germany wasn’t a powerful military force. You are attacking straw men and ignoring the points that I have already made, thus forcing me to repeat them. And as I already said, the Allied nations were ignoring military development in favor of developing their actual societies and economies… you know, what countries are supposed to do. So Germany’s lesser casualty numbers have nothing to do with anything about Nazism itself, it is simply contingent factors of the circumstances. If the other nations had developed militarily on par with Germany then the Nazi offensive wouldn’t have lasted even one year.

And as you yourself admitted, Germany had less people. So yeah, if in a major world-wide war you have way less people than the other side does then you’re not going to lose as many… people. Because before you can lose any more you are out of people, and you lose the war. No shit.

Hitler threw the Germany people into a constant meat grinder, which is apparently what they deserved since they did elect him after all. I might be more hesitant to say that if they hadn’t now elected Murkhole and seem ready to do that again. When will these fucking people ever learn? Never? Ok then. Enjoy the Islamic-German Empire that you have coming to you. You can trade one religion (Nazism) for another (Islamism). Hope that works out for ya.