Star Wars is about Fascism, but is it so in a way that is actually useful in opposing Fascism?

[MithrandirOlorin]

I said "By murder I meant" which is an admission of error.

If by "Obstruction of Justice" you mean not Snitching. No I don't think that should be a Crime, if someone doesn't want to cooperate that is their choice.

[Dînadan]

So if your entire family was murdered byTGLS you're fine with him going free because the rest of us on here who are either the only witnesses or are the only ones with access to the evidence that would convict him all tell the cops to fuck off and refuse to cooperate?

[Nessus]

He's wasn't rambling. Those sorts of distinctions (or lack thereof) have very broad implications.

If you apply the same degree of expansion to the concept of "theft", you'll find it account for all kinds of laws (both criminal and tort), including the ones you probably find excessive or protectionist. By expanding the definitions of "murder" and "theft", you effectively recreate the legal complexity of a full government by implication.

Those thousands upon thousands of conceptual distinctions between legal concepts, and the resulting thousands of laws, aren't all there because someone's trying to pull one over on you (some of them are, because it's human nature for some people to abuse and corrupt any system, but most of them aren't). They are the inevitable consequence of the map vs territory problem of trying to account for the real-world chaotic complexity of human behavior with an artificial formal framework. If you're going to have any laws, you're going to need a lot of them, and they're going to have to snowball in complexity to avoid unjust outcomes.

The only ways around this are 1) total, true anarchy, which is a paradox since it'd need to be enforced, or 2) not giving a damn if the laws are just, as long as the results are orderly/stable, AKA tyranny.

That's without getting into the issue of how far you can trim back a government before you've made it so small it can no longer enforce even those few things you want/need it to. Or the greater issue of what the difference is between a government and any other sufficiently powerful organization. Getting rid of government doesn't get rid of government, it just fractures and redraws the map so that former NGOs become the new governments. NGOs which currently and historically are only (barely) restrained from neo-feudal authoritarianism by government regulation.

There is also IMO a certain degree of irony in claiming to be libertarian while also claiming to be lost in the woods on economics.

[MithrandirOlorin]

Most people don't understand Economics as well as they think they do. I've watched watched and read most of what Anarcho-Capitalists base their ideology on, and plenty with an opposing view. They are all capable of sounding logical.

[Nessus]

I agree, and that's sort of my point: libertarianism as a political model is deeply rooted in its economic models. If those models are wrong, then in practice it contradicts it's moral ideals and becomes a monster instead. In order to believe in it (rightly or wrongly), one has to believe (rightly or wrongly) that its economic ideas are practically viable, and that requires believing (rightly or wrong) that one understands those ideas enough to asses them.

Saying you're a libertarian while saying you don't understand the econ behind libertarianism suggests you're conflating a political system with a moral ideal. Libertarianism isn't a moral ideal. It's a family of proposed practical systems for enacting a moral ideal. This is true of all political systems, and this kind of conflation is the root of probably half the stupid arguments over politics one sees out there.

There are many different potential systems for enacting any given set of ideals. Sometimes the things that actually work are counterintuative, and often the things that seem like direct approaches are disastrously oversimplified. It's foolish to throw in behind a system you don't believe you understand, because you have no reason to believe it'll actually work any better than any other.

[MithrandirOlorin]

Actually not all Libertarians support the same Economic model. Being Anachro-Capitalist is mostly unique to American Libertarians, the original Libertarians were Communists.

[Karha of Honor]

Actually not all Libertarians support the same Economic model. Being Anachro-Capitalist is mostly unique to American Libertarians, the original Libertarians were Communists.

The label only stays if you can keep it.

[MithrandirOlorin]

LIbertarian-Comunists still exist to this day.

You are suggest my basic belief that people should be allowed to do what they want as long as they don't hurt anyone, is someone dependent on a specific Economic ideology. I think that is absurd.

It is the Anachro-Capilists who's economic values cause self contradiction. As they are blind to how much unrestrained Corporate power hurts people. And also the fact that the concept of Private Property itself can't be enforced without Government interference.