Was Hitler left or right wing?

professorhobo (42) in politics • 7 years ago (edited)

Do you think Hitler was left or right wing? I will kick the debate off I would say he was a liberal/conservative. Keep it kind & insult free.

politics debate socialism hitler judaism

7 years ago by professorhobo (42)

$0.21

15 votes

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!

Sort Order:

Trending

[-]

justinschwalm (48) · 7 years ago

Left wing, everyone who wants government is left wing. Buncha socialists you.

$0.00

1 vote

[-]

kermodebear (40) · 7 years ago (edited)

Hitler was far right. Equality vs hierarchy is the best approximation to the political spectrum. The only aberrations (like Leninism and anarchocapitalism) are those ideologies that engender contradictions within themselves and so cannot manifest in an ideologically consistent manner.

$0.00

1 vote

[-]

justinschwalm (48) · 7 years ago

Can you provide some of anarchocapitalisms contradictions?

$0.00

[-]

kermodebear (40) · 7 years ago

Sure. Anarchism is an anti-state (with state broadly defined) anti-oppression construct, and some anarchists also define it as anti-hierarchy. Capitalism on the other hand is predicated at least on private property, and in modern form, enforceable credit and contracts. None of those things exist in the absence of a state or state-like entity with the power to enforce. So if you attempt to put something like anarchocapitalism into practice, you will either end up with anarchism with personal possessions and homes plus some kind of communal management of collective resources, or you will get capitalist style feudalism where rich people and entities enforce their preferred rules with private armed forces over those they have power over. In other words, anarchism, or hypercapitalism.

$0.00

1 vote

[-]

justinschwalm (48) · 7 years ago

Anarchocapitalists define anarchy as meaning without rulers. The private property rights of anarchocapitalism are derived from the principle that you own yourself and therefore can use your time and labor to create for yourself or trade it resulting in you owning the benefits of your labor. Without rulers also plays into the ancap catch phrase the non-aggression principle, by which we mean we believe it is wrong to initiate force on another, which renders governments illegitimate. Instead, ancaps wish to use voluntary market systems to provide everything that we need which is basically how the world already works except there is a leech known as government that sucks off of it and regulates it for its own benefit.

Also, why can contract and credit enforcement not be done without a state? If we make an agreement that you will send me fresh apples and they arrive late and aren't good to eat wouldn't you likely provide me with a refund to ensure repeat business and to provide assurance to other customers that they are guaranteed a good product for their money or they get it back? Just sounds like good business. Say I am renting you my house, I would have you sign a contract that if you don't pay you don't stay. If you don't leave I will have you removed. If you don't pay do I need a government to remove you? Right now private companies do that, police may escort them, but I don't see why someone else without a badge and funny costume couldn't do the same thing. In Detroit there is a great private security company called Threat Management Center that escorts people to court for free and patrols areas in Detroit because local businesses pay them to when the police failed them. So this is completely possible.

As far as credit, you can loan your cryptocurrencies to traders right now on a number of exchanges. Banks can't loan without government? It would definitely not be as easy without being able to loan money into existence but they could do it. They did it in the past and we do it now with crypto so I am not seeing how that argument holds. There's also non banking loaners all over the place but I feel like I am just beating a dead horse here.

Nothing you have said shows that you have any real understanding of what ancaps think or provide any contradictions in anarchocapitalist logic. You defined anarchism in an anarchosocialist style while ignoring the ancap definition and said that is why it has contradictions. The rest was just your opinion of implementation and sounds nothing like what an ancap would describe.

$0.00

1 vote

[-]

kermodebear (40) · 7 years ago

Regarding credit and contracts, you are right, which is why I said enforceable contracts and credit (though in the case of crypto, you can speak of contracts entirely within that realm that are self-enforcing without violence, so you are right about that, though it doesn't extend to actual physically material).

Regarding property and the NAP, my thoughts are written here, but the gist is that you've basically taken a non-violence principle and altered it to accept violence against people that cross imaginary lines. And of course, whoever is committing or threatening that violence to enforce those lines, whether you choose to call it a police force, a military, or a "private security company" is by definition acting as an agent of a state, an organization with a monopoly on violence at that place and time.

$0.00

1 vote

[-]

justinschwalm (48) · 7 years ago (edited)

I call it defending my life. You do not believe in the right to a personal home and personal land? Should you not be aloud some privacy on your personal land and in your personal home? Shouldn't you be aloud to own some things that you would like to have and use them however you want as long as you don't hurt anyone? Shouldn't you be aloud to do what you want on your land and with your land? If you have spent your time and energy working for these things directly or for money to buy these things and someone tried to take them away by force shouldn't you be aloud to protect them? If not, why should you not be able to own that which you have labored for and protect it?

$0.00

1 vote

[-]

kermodebear (40) · 7 years ago

I mean, maybe, but it's not anarchism. If you shoot a guy for stepping over an imaginary line that you insist demarks your estate, you're just becoming a petty state and killing who you can kill based on your preferred criteria, not defending your own life.

$0.00

1 vote

[-]

justinschwalm (48) · 7 years ago

I don't think that would happen as often as people assume it would. I don't know anyone that would actually shoot someone for stepping on their grass. Also someone doing that just because they could wouldn't be very popular. I find it funny that just about everyone non ancap thinks that everyone would go Vlad the Impaler on anyone whose ball went into their yard without government.

$0.00

1 vote

[-]

justinschwalm (48) · 7 years ago

Also I should ask what types of property rights do you support?

$0.00

Show 9 more replies