Tag: socialists

Hatred and Polarization Has Ruined Politics

Ian Brzeski | United States

Politics, in essence, is the art in which people are involved with changing or guiding government policy. The majority of the population detests politics mainly due to the recent extreme polarization of the political spectrum. The left hates the right and vice-versa. People have forgotten how to argue and have resorted to slander to try to make themselves feel good about whatever it is that they are claiming.

The polarization of the political spectrum has led people to believe that there is a hierarchical standing associated with politics. People everywhere on the political spectrum think that whatever they believe in is correct. Now there is nothing inherently wrong with that, but where it starts to get dangerous is when people begin to dehumanize the other side which will inevitably lead to hatred for others.

Unwilling and Unyielding

This all comes from people’s unwillingness to learn and view other viewpoints. Take Ben Shapiro for example. I have no doubt in my mind that Ben is a brilliant man. He is intelligent, knowledgeable, and knows how to win his arguments. I agree with him on specific issues, but I also disagree with him on a multitude of others. The problem that I have with Ben is not where I disagree with him, but it is where I can see that all he really cares about is winning his argument. Ben goes into every single discussion thinking that he is already right. He does not want to learn or take anything away from a debate. Arguments should not be about winning. They should be about learning or gaining a sense of understanding from other perspectives.

Going into an argument thinking that your mind cannot be changed is honestly the worst thing a person can do. Nothing good is going to come out of that argument, only hatred and further polarization. Due to this, constant generalizations about people of their respective political standing which will only lead to slander and dehumanization. It is so feeble-minded how conservatives hate liberals and liberals hate conservatives solely based on their politics. When this hatred in politics arises, people are quick to resort to slandering their opposition, and it is horrible to look at. It is dehumanizing and frankly extremely childish. It is not even just conservatives and liberals; it includes every single area of the political spectrum, including libertarians. People need to start attacking ideas in arguments and not the people themselves.

A Riff Caused by Hatred

People hate each other in politics for no rational reason. Everywhere I look on social media, I see many conservatives who think every liberal is a crying “snowflake” who kills babies, wears vagina hats and is a member of Antifa, and many liberals who believe every conservative is a racist, misogynist pig who enjoys mass shootings and sexual assault. Yes, maybe there are some extreme rarities on both of these sides that people fall under, but in no way whatsoever is this the case. It would be incredibly idiotic to think so.

Some of the worst childish banter comes from libertarians themselves. You have the libertarian infighting where many libertarians think some libertarians are not libertarian enough. You also have the opposite of this where many libertarians believe that there are libertarians who are too radical. Some libertarians want no government at all, and others still believe in some form government, a minimal government, however. It is honestly weird that there is so much tension between these two sets of libertarians despite having near similar beliefs especially since the political system we have in place today is nowhere near the realm of any form of libertarianism.

Libertarians not only hate each other, but they also hate other groups even more. To many libertarians, if you are not a libertarian, you are probably a statist pig who hates our freedoms. Just like how not every conservative is a racist and how not every liberal is a snowflake, not every non-libertarian hates your freedoms. These straightforward generalizations that people make towards other political groups are abnormal, to say the least, and has led to a deep hatred towards others. The legitimate hatred for others based on political views is exceptionally pathetic, almost as pathetic as hating somebody because they are a supporter of another sports team.

This hatred has led to so many people not knowing why they like or dislike a political candidate or why they are Republican or Democrat or Libertarian. They only vote for specific candidates or align with specific political parties because they are quick to make generalizations about the other side. They don’t try to read about opposing viewpoints or learn why people hold opposing views because they already believe that they are inherently right or maintain the moral high ground. This all stems from people’s unwillingness to learn and hear new ideas. People need to go into arguments willing to learn or get something out of it, not to just go into arguments trying to win. In my eyes, a genius of a person unwilling to learn is way less respectable than a less intelligent person who strives to learn.

Politics is literally just people trying to figure out what they think would be best for everybody. Conservatives, liberals, libertarians, independents, socialists, communists, objectivists, anarchists, and many others are not inherently evil people. These people are generally well-meaning people who want the betterment of society. There is really not that much more to it. So stop hating people based on their political ideology and start reading and learning about why people believe in what they believe. You are going to remain stupid and ignorant if you do not have a proper understanding of other ideologies.

If you are a socialist who likes to hate on libertarians but has never read Hayek or Rothbard or Bastiat for example, then you have no right to hate on libertarians at all. This also goes for libertarians who have not read any books or articles from any great socialist thinkers or authors. This goes for every single person who is invested in politics. Read as much as you can so you can obtain the most knowledge. Read so you can formulate your ideologies to the best of your ability because if you don’t, you really shouldn’t be engaging in political discourse at all.


Get awesome merchandise. Help 71 Republic end the media oligarchy. Donate today to our Patreon, which you can find here. Thank you very much for your support!

Featured Image Source

Advertisements

Libertarians and Neo-Progressives Aren’t That Different (Part 2)

By Francis Folz | United States

Last week, I examined how libertarians and neo-progressives share common roots that run as deep as the anti-war movement in the 1960’s. Considering how libertarians and progressives have found common ground in the past, is it any wonder that libertarians and progressives find themselves together on so many present issues? After all, former Libertarian Party presidential nominee Gary Johnson once stated he found common ground with unabashed social democrat Bernie Sanders close to 70% of the time.

I believe one reason why it is quite prevalent to find common ground between libertarians and “democratic socialists” is because both sides share similar sentiments. At their cores, there is a sincere passion to uplift as many fellow citizens as possible and to achieve peace. It is often the means by which both sides believe it is best to achieve their underlying, intended goals that diverges the ideologies.

Although progressives advocate for a single-payer, authoritarian health care system, libertarians and progressives tend to agree that health care is too expensive and there are some common sense, capitalist ways to make health care more affordable. Both sides tend to agree on removing some of our costly, crony regulations, like the prohibition on purchasing drugs from other countries or the inability to buy insurance plans across state lines.

Progressives and libertarians also find themselves sharing opposition to America’s neocon foreign policy. Both sides acknowledge America’s foreign policy is often made up of expensive mistakes that only benefit the military industrial complex. Although progressives favor participation in multi-national organizations like NATO and the U.N. to achieve peace, both groups prefer a more humble approach to American interventions. 

Both groups also champion civil liberties and civil rights, although how they are addressed sometimes differs. In regards to civil rights, neo-progressives tend to have collectivist mindsets and indulge in identity politics. This contrasts tremendously with libertarians who believe in liberalism and in empowering everyone via individualism. Bernie’s supporters, however, join forces with libertarians in defense of civil liberties. This includes our universal right to privacy and the defense of human rights activists like Edward Snowden and Julian Assange.

The size and scope of government is often where libertarians and Sanders-democrats digress from each other the most. Although both groups promote personal freedom and responsibility, especially in regards to reproductive care and drug usage, neo-progressives contradict those sentiments by bolstering gun control. In some cases, they even limit free speech. Whereas libertarians view government as a necessary evil that must be limited and restrained, neo-progressives believe the government’s role must be very robust in order to accomplish all desired outcomes.

I genuinely believe the hearts of today’s “democratic socialists” are in the right place. However, the majority of their “solutions” require a large, controlling state which makes countless decisions for the citizenry via regulations. I don’t question the intentions of those who fight for $15 an hour. After all, with the high costs of living, in part the fault of poor monetary policy, who can live off of $7.25 (less after taxes) an hour? However, neo-progressives fail to see how large corporations laud the prospects of running locally owned companies out of business through the consequential high prices and labor costs. 

Socialism means well. After all, the intended goal of democratic socialists is to elevate the poor and the middle class. However, in practice, socialism never succeeds because humans are inherently greedy, especially when entrusted with resources, influence, and power. Our founding fathers recognized that corrupt attribute of humanity. Therefore, they constituted a liberal government, limited by the citizenry, the states, and the judicial system. It is time we find common ground with one another and work together towards restoring liberty and prosperity.


To support 71 Republic, please donate to our Patreon, which you can find here.

Featured Image Source.

Libertarians and Neo-Progressives Aren’t That Different

Francis Folz | United States

For the first time in the last three election cycles, Ron Paul was not the old, white man who had the arcane ability to attract the diverse youth vote. In 2016, the role of Ron Paul was played by Bernie Sanders, and boy did Bernie play Ron Paul’s role well. However, once Mr. Sanders was defeated by Ms. Clinton, former Governor Gary Johnson doubled down on his support from millennial voters, stating that he and Mr. Sanders share similar positions close to 70 percent of the time.

I found it quite intriguing that two competing ideologies that, on the surface, couldn’t seem farther apart from each other actually share a plethora of dogmas in common. History is repeating itself, yet very few identify how civil libertarians and these modern-day progressive socialists have been on the same side of history as one another in the past.

In the 1960 presidential election, Americans elected John F. Kennedy by a narrow margin to be the next commander-in-chief. Kennedy, who had many libertarian inklings such as fiscal conservatism, the desire to abolish the Federal Reserve and the CIA, and his opposition to military conflicts. Unfortunately, JFK served only three years as president before he was assassinated and war hawk Lyndon B. Johnson took his place.

Barry Goldwater is often recognized as a man ahead of his time. In 1964, Mr. Goldwater, or should I say Mr. Conservative, defeated the Rockefeller establishment wing of the Republican Party and was nominated to be the next president of the United States. It’s important to note Mr. Goldwater wasn’t a conservative by present day standards, as his positions would be considered libertarian today.

The former senator from Arizona favored personal responsibility, proposed the idea that one must only be able to shoot straight to be in our armed forces, believed foreign entanglements are unnecessary and detrimental to our nation, and that American prosperity starts with laissez-faire approaches to economics. Regrettably, the War Party successfully convinced Americans that a Goldwater presidency would result in nuclear warfare, and as consequence, the Ron Paul of the ’60’s received only 52 electoral votes.

As Lyndon Johnson kicked the Vietnam War into high gear, the youth of the 1960’s became increasingly wary of America’s hunger for military conflict. Countless students defied their military conscription or celebrated Uncle Lyndon’s call to arms by burning their draft cards. Lamentably, the young minds involved in the anti-war movement were led by American communists like Students for a Democratic Society.

What many fail to consider is that libertarians found themselves on the same sides as the hippies, advocating for the end of the disastrous and unconstitutional Vietnam War. In 1969, libertarians were expelled from the conservative Young Americans for Freedom convention after a libertarian member burned his draft card. Although libertarians were not involved with organizations like SDS, their sentiment towards peace was just as strong.

Libertarians and the New Left most likely found themselves sympathizing or supporting the Free Speech movement of the early 1960’s. According to UC Berkeley campus rules at the time, certain political activity was prohibited or restricted to the Democratic and Republican campus clubs.

Students who desired to solicit money for Civil Rights campaigns or to speak out against the Vietnam War were either disbanded or arrested for violating campus laws. Although the Left is predominately considered the champions of the Free Speech movement, 60’s libertarians assumably supported the precepts of free speech, civil rights, and non-aggression.

In addition, the counterculture movement and libertarians shared a relaxed approach to social issues. Both libertarians and the left-leaning youth of the 60’s favored personal responsibility and decriminalization of non-violent offenses. Lastly, hippies and libertarians shared anti-authoritarian attitudes, which is ironic considering communism requires a large, centralized political authority.

Despite the hippies of the anti-war movement and the libertarians of the 60’s belonging to immensely different ideologies and organizations, both espoused similar positions regarding the most critical issues of their time. The similar views both sides formerly held have once again manifested itself in today’s politics, underscored by akin perspectives and, at times, differing solutions from the Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders coalitions.


To support 71 Republic, please donate to our Patreon, which you can find here.

Featured Image Source

The Case for the Physical Removal of Communists

By Daniel Szewc | Poland

There are some cancers that are best left untouched. Communism is not one of them. A free man shall not let another control himself and his honor. In fact, even the thought of compulsory education should cause a proud Westerner to take out his rifle against a tyrant that would propose such coercion. But, what shall we do, when the tyranny is in the hands of many, not the few?

As Konrad Berkowicz said exclusively to 71 Republic, “I’m not an ultras of freedom of speech- if someone was to urge publicly for people to rape women, then I’d lock him up. So if someone was publicly inciting the re-installment of an income tax, I’d have to think about it…” This perfectly illustrates a technical standpoint for looking at communists, as violators of law, order and morality.

Perhaps a better example is a future thief plotting to steal land from everyone in a country. However, the authorities let him off after his saying “But I’m a communist!”. A society cannot survive on freedom of speech that includes such incitements to violence. The very thought makes about as much sense as proposing a peaceful country without an army, or not excusing force in self defense. This is the direct ideological equivalent. If somebody violates or threatens to violate freedom, they cannot expect to keep their own.

Of course, one may pose another argument, that freedom of speech should apply solely to Homo Sapiens. In Latin, “Homo Sapiens” means “wise man”, and as we all know, communists are anything but wise.

There is a proposal, especially prominent in the Polish libertarian movement, supporting the “Day of the Rope”. At this point, libertarians seize power and cleanse the country from communists. As anyone can assume, removing singular supporters of communism that do not spread their ideology wouldn’t make sense. The banishment from a libertarian society would only occur for those actively trying to infringe upon the rights of those who do not consent. Peaceful communists, therefore, it is best to leave alone, as they harm nobody.

Let us quote Polish libertarian, late Stefan Kisielewski. “One black sheep underlines the whiteness of the rest”. Communists will always exist, but integrating peaceful ones into society serves a key purpose. By underlining the failure of their policies, a society may ensure that no such movement becomes mainstream.


To support 71 Republic, please donate to our Patreon, which you can find here.