>tfw we're just a few steps away from totalitarianism and a complete police state in the EU and US.
What can we do when the liberals are against anyone, make them the enemy and paving the road for more government control.
How do we fight when no one wants to fight. How does one rise up when they're instantly put on various blacklists for standing up for liberty?
I don't see how one can resist at all at this point.
well considering the US economy is collapsing that makes zero sense.
but there is a corporate cyberpunk future ahead if trump turns us around, we'll be reliving the 80s with him.
>what is totalitarianism
I'm sure your professor knows exactly what he's talking about
>>29028842
>well considering the US economy is collapsing that makes zero sense.
I don't see the correlation.
>but there is a corporate cyberpunk future ahead if trump turns us around, we'll be reliving the 80s with him.
Except Trump isn't actually a capitalist, or even a conservative or right-winger.
Trump is a nationalist-populist who basically takes the line of "whatever the people want to hear, I will say it" as well as "might makes right". You would actually see more government intervention with Trump, not less.
Trump's US would be much more akin to Putin's Russia than to Reagan's US.
>>29028867
no economic power = no police state in the US, soldiers won't kill citizens for crumbs.
the EU however is cucked out of guns and will bootlick china.
>>29028912
I disagree. An economic collapse would give the government more power. Small and private businesses go under first, the state owned things are last to go.
People with no money would gladly sign up if it means they will be fed, paid and have a roof over their head.
As well an economic collapse would give the government more justification to have more control over private sectors, as that's where the blame would shift.
In 2008 the failing banks were bought out by America / Bank of America, despite the trillions of debt it has.
An economic collapse would only be a benefit towards totalitarianism.
>>29028901
>Trump isn't a capitalist
wut
the US is currently in the state of the USSR post 1979, trumps entire campain has been mirroring Reagan.
>>29028756
>when the liberals are against anyone
Neolibs (which is basically anyone who would call themselves a liberal) are worthless, yes. Look for people who describe themselves as progressive, we're active and we're fighting.
>>29028901
>a billionaire master of trade private real estate agent who wants industry back in America isnt a capitalist
even if he wasn't our economy would suffer less restrictions, the tpp will literally kill us.
>>29028756
civilizations go through the same cycles and the us will go down the exact same path that the british empire did, the same path that rome did
this is the age of decadence and you're not meant to fight back you're meant to look out for yourself and your loved ones at the cost of others. This eventually destroys society and after a while, the age of pioneers begin anew and you can do your rising up thing. Youll be dead by then though.
>>29028756
OP, remind me the last time when moderate liberal democrats constructed a police state
I can think of a few examples where right-wing populists did though.
>>29028901
Capitalism is an economic policy not political
You can have communist-capitalist societies like state-capitalism or for example China.
>>29029583
>it's another "anon pretends socialism and communism are right-wing" episode
>>29030928
Not at all - Stalin and Mao were authoritarian left. But they were not moderate liberal democrats.
When have moderate liberal democrats constructed a police state?
I can think of a few examples where right-wing populists did.
>>29031391
>no true moderate liberal democrat
>>29031391
OP here, my implication was not that liberals desire a police state, I'm saying they are paving the way for one due to anyone being against them is instantly an enemy and 'bad', as well as agreeing with any laws which goes against said enemies.
They are trading liberties such as free speech and even privacy so people's feelings aren't hurt. Granted there are real issues some are tackling, most are not, and give up far too much in an attempt to 'win'.
Exactly, there can never be any law passed on "hate speech" since speech is inherently subjective. We must protect all speech or else relinquish our right to all speech. There is no in between.
>>29031464
Is there a historical precedent for your story?
Historically speaking, right-wing and sometimes left-wing authoritarians have created authoritarian regimes. Never people like Obama and Clinton (or Romney or Bush).
>>29031852
>There is no in between.
You're not actually thinking about the issue. You're not being critical or rational. You're not involved in a discourse.
You're just - against.
>>29029640
Well there it is.
The stupidest fucking thing I've read all day.
>>29029108
Reagans presidency is what led us to the massive amount of income inequality that we have now. Took power away from unions and took us into massive debt.
>>29032879
b..but muh trickle down
(trickle-down economics is much like Chad sexual economics. what's trickling down is other people's cum. it's trickling down in your eye.)
>>29032782
>>implying having a clear line isn't a stance
I'm for all speech, I don't care if it offends people. If something is stupid, it's easy to just beat it with the facts that make it stupid.
Just one more reason not to worry about procreating.
>>29033825
>I'm for all speech, I don't care if it offends people.
This is not what this is about.
Think: what is the BEST reason you can think about for disallowing speech, and what speech would it apply to? Now we already know that you don't think even the best reason would be sufficient to declare it illegal. But at least you have to see the gradient here. What is the best reason, and what is the worst speech?
BUILD WALL
KEEP INSIDE
There's no need for a police state these days. We have social media to enforce society's norms discourage "unacceptable" viewpoints.
Join the IRA.
>>29028756
I think the scarier thing is that the left and right are competing to see who can get there faster
>>29033947
that's stupid, that's like saying "what's the best reason to kill someone" and then saying by that logic we should make killing legal. just because there are better times than others doesn't mean that you should ever make it legal.
>>29034260
>that's stupid, that's like saying "what's the best reason to kill someone" and then saying by that logic we should make killing legal
If that was my argument, my argument would be stupid. However, that is not my argument.
You are, as I said, not actually thinking about the issue. You're not being critical or rational. You're not involved in a discourse.
You're just - against.
>>29032820
Capitalism isn't a political policy you fucking retard.
>>29034339
I don't concede the point that there can ever be speech harmful enough to tilt that gradient, which is the point I was trying to make on the other side. No killing is justified enough to tilt that gradient. Stop trying to take the high ground by saying I'm not thinking about the issue. You aren't enlightened ffs.
>>29034478
You're still not engaged in critical discourse with me. You're not willing to even let me make my argument. You don't even care about my point - you're just presupposing it's stupid (e.g., ' saying "what's the best reason to kill someone" and then saying by that logic we should make killing legal').
You don't even NEED free speech. You seemingly have zero interest in the market place of ideas.
>>29034579
what are you even trying to say? what is your argument? I allowed you to make it and it didn't make sense
>>29034725
> I allowed you to make it
No. You tried making it FOR ME. I asked you, as a precursor for my argument and to establish a few preliminaries, a question, to which you responded by presuming you knew my argument.
Now you've asked me. That's a step forward! Congratulations. My answer is, for now, to restate my question: what is the worst speech, and the best reason to disallow it?
>>29029003
This pretty much. If the US would crash and burn the last one who would suffer from it would be anything run by the gov. The only ones that will really be hit are mid and low class people.
That's why libertarianism/individualism is god-tier ideology. Any kind of collectivism leads to authoritarianism, mass murder and genocide. The statist fascist communist socialists must be stopped at all costs.
Can you explain what libertarianism is? I never quite seem to fit into any political party. So what is libertarianism/individualism all about?
>>29035355
Libertarianism/individualism is about maximum freedom, free minds, and free markets. It's the opposite of collectivism (i.e. fascism, racism, communism, socialism, nationalism etc.)
See chart for reference.
>>29035355
autism. that's what it's about.
