Fascism for Freedom

^ It is fictitiously feasible, or I should say plausible.   Existentially feasible?; Harder to see.
 

Outside of semantics, which sometimes don't explain absolutely anything, fascism for freedom is impossible because to enforce it you would need a gigantic (or at least big) government apparatus. Even if the dictator him/herself would be an angel with pure intentions, to make this happen he would need hundreds, thousands of bureaucrats, enforcers, soldiers, policemen, etc. It's contradictory but you would need it. You would even need a thought-police. So it's gradually becoming less free. And when so many people have power, the chance that many, MANY of them abuse it and see for their own interest is not even high: it's certain. 

There's also a surprising amount of philosophical overlap in the ideologies' theoretical underpinnings between the anarchist left and the libertarian right, with it being technical issues why the former prefer a socialist sharing economy and the latter a free market when it comes to practical implementation. This is something that the libertarians have started actively downplaying from the mid-1970s onwards, though, as a key plank of building coalitions with the rest of the political right. The Mitrailleuse, a libertarian webzine I sometimes read, had a very informative two part article about how that split happened.

rogerthat wrote: Is this also why Hayek stoutly resisted attempts by conservatives to co-opt his views into economic conservatism, maintaining that he was a liberal?

I'm under the impression that the libertarian and conservative sectors of right-wing politics are two very different ideological traditions that didn't overlap as much as now until the mid-1970s... which would be half a result of Robert Nozick becoming the next big thing in right-wing political philosophy in 1974, half a result of Milton Friedman winning the Nobel Prize in economics in 1976.

Hermann Hoppe's views are so strange for a libertarian to hold that there's nothing beyond his own claim to being one to suggest he is in fact a libertarian.  More disturbing is that apparently Rothbard cautiously endorsed those views.  So is there after all some merit to liberal paranoia about libertarians...that many of them only value economic freedom and see political freedom as a nuisance.  In other words, a way to take the West back to the mercantile age. Is this also why Hayek stoutly resisted attempts by conservatives to co-opt his views into economic conservatism, maintaining that he was a liberal?

dr wu23 wrote: What about what Churchill once said...does this fit in here...? "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.

No I don't believe so, however we have a similar but deeply misled view from the delightful Barry Goldwater when he said during his run for Prez in 1964 --   "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice".

That's my main issue with quite a few utopian philosophies, not just those coming from the libertarian right wing but a lot of ideology from that particular end of the spectrum makes some very specific assumptions about human nature that I think very few people can live up to in order to function as advertised.

I'm surprised someone with that bizarre political ideals can get hired as a professor at a major US university, rather than getting laughed out of academia, but then again his proposed programme isn't that different from Plato's Republic or Thomas Hobbes' enlightened despotism adjusted to modern right-libertarian ideology as popularized by Robert Nozick. Which contemporary Singapore could be described as roughly conforming to. (William Gibson famously called it "Disneyland with the death penalty")

Did any of you read the Wikipedia article on that Hans-Hermann Hoppe fellow? His philosophy, as outlandish as it might seem, is probably the closest thing you'll get to what people here are requesting...

Atavachron wrote: Is such a thing even possible?   And if so, would that represent some nightmarish totalitarian-enforced democratic utopia?   Forgive me if some science fiction author has written just such a novel (one could argue there are many;Orwell comes to mind, though that was by most standards a dark and tormented life, not the Grecian fantasms of idyllic myth), or if some tyrannic despot I don't know about already tried to lethally enforce peace and freedom (hey wait, that rings a bell).   Many of history's forced regimes must have, on some twisted level, thought they were doing what was best; What was necessary for their culture as they saw it. But is the notion even tenable, and for that matter conceivable, that such a state could develop?   And how exactly would it look?