[GeroMeroHero]

I was thinking, if I were to hypothetically make a country, it would be pretty damn free as I still adhere to fairly libertarian positions. But I fear such a country would not be able to resist marxist subversion in the long term. Just as the more relatively laissez faire (economically at least) US was unable to prevent it.

So I thought of using the Constitution as a way of taking care of issues I was afraid my society would be unable to deal with.

Such a safeguard I suspect would take the place of amendments prohibiting cultural marxist ideas.
Not prohibiting their discussion but making them into social policy.
Examples could include: any policies designed with the intention of destroying the nuclear family are not allowed to be public policy.
Another example could be any policy which reduces the ethnic population to below 90% would be banned. Since that is a hallmark of CM, reduction of the dominant group by reducing their political control in their country. And 90% is a safe supermajority.

But this seems inelegant, so another solution I thought of would be to have a very decentralized system (making it harder to capture) and also limiting how the media can report news. Probably by reintroducing the Fairness Doctrine which had the unintended consequence of prohibiting stations from taking chances on radical ideas (for those unaware, the FD was US policy that stated on any contested issue one had to show both sides of the issue in a fair manner. As a result, media outlets stuck to the standard zeitgeist of past America).

Would ANY of this be wise? Think of this as bug testing.

And maybe as an exercise, what would users on this forum do if anything?

Going to bed so if I don't reply right away, that is why

[godfather dust]

Call it treason.

[SamuelBRoberts]

If we're already at the point where you're imagining yourself the leader of a country who can make whatever laws he wants and have them enforced in exactly the way he envisioned them, the easiest way is probably to imagine that every citizen of your country has a flying pony.
They'll be too busy flying around on their ponies to worry about marxist ideology, so it won't be a problem.

[Rutting Elephant]

Are you referring to the works of Marx and their exegesis or to the chimerical "cultural Marxism"?

[Phoenix]

You can't ban an ideology. It only drives it underground where it becomes more feverent and subversive. It even gives it moral support - if it was wrong, why are they banning it instead of beating it in debates?

Constitutions are ultimately interpreted by judges, since they are law, and unless you make clauses crystal clear and specific (and sometimes even then), they have a habit of running amuck.

Better to take the fuel out from under the furnace. Only giving the vote to net tax payers would be a start.

[BortimusPrime]

The problem is that no one really believes in a free society. They just believe they should be free while everyone else is either henpecked or coerced into what they consider to be correct behavior.

[Sp5]

(01-29-2015 02:21 AM)GeroMeroHero Wrote:  

I was thinking, if I were to hypothetically make a country, it would be pretty damn free as I still adhere to fairly libertarian positions. But I fear such a country would not be able to resist marxist subversion in the long term.

You're not a libertarian at all, you're an authoritarian. You want to give the government control over the expression of ideas.

So you want to ban ideas? What "Marxist" ideas would you ban? The theory of surplus labor? The idea of classes? Talking about alienation of labor? Explaining disputes between labor and capital? Criticism of social effects of advertising?

First, in America, you'd have to repeal the First Amendment giving freedom of speech. In Europe, ban the European Convention on Human Rights and various constitutional articles giving freedom of speech.

Then you'd have to set up a government bureaucracy to decide what was "appropriate" or not. Then you'd have to have a secret police and informants looking for and informing on people expressing "Marxist" ideas. Then you'd have to have a penal structure to make sure people who expressed Marxist ideas were punished. You'd have to build more prisons and concentration camps. You'd probably have to expand the police and army, and have a "federal" police, because some states that have a quaint view of freedom would not enforce your laws. You'd have to make the police force big, because some people with guns would object to your new regime, not all of them Marxists, and fight back.

[It_is_my_time]

You wouldn't have to directly ban Marxism. To stop it before it got started you would need to set up your country much like the founding fathers of the USA. A very limited federal govt., with balanced power and then give much of the power to the states themselves. So no one person or small group of people could easily hijack it.

But most importantly do something our founding fathers overlooked. Specifically state, law 1, is that women can never vote. As long as women don't vote, you will not get a push to the far left.

[KorbenDallas]

Europe doesn't have free speech and already most Western European countries have a ban on an ideology. An ideology I disagree with, but they do ban it.


The only country in the world that has true freedom of speech for its citizens is America.

Merica. Fuck yea.

[CactusCat589]

Libertarians aren't anarchists. The government's role would be to enforce contracts and prevent infringement upon rights and properties by others. It's effectively banning freedom of expression I guess, since Marxism would be banned. But it's a perversion of the language. It's not really outlawing Marxism/socialism - it's outlawing theft.

[Phoenix]

^^No it would be outlawing talking about theft. You can talk about committing crimes as much as you like, as long as you don't actually commit them.

[Kitsune]

The easiest way to eradicate an ideology is through linguistics, not legislation.

[Saga]

The title here is quite misleading. If I'm understanding you correctly, you're not talking about banning anything but instead limiting the political influence of certain ideologies. I think it goes without saying that banning any ideology outright is completely inexplicable except in cases of absolute crisis. And anyway, attempts to institute any ideology in a constitutional manner are, as you say, inelegant at best and ruinous at worst.

(01-29-2015 03:22 AM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  

But most importantly do something our founding fathers overlooked. Specifically state, law 1, is that women can never vote. As long as women don't vote, you will not get a push to the far left.

I wouldn't be so sure...the Russian Empire, the German Empire, the Austrian Empire, the First French Republic and so on: all countries that produced very widespread and radical left-wing sentiments and parties without having granted women the vote. Of course there can be little doubt that those were very different movements from the feminine-oriented left of today, but nevertheless a lack of women's suffrage is no guarantee that the far left will not grow and gain strength.

To me (and this is getting away from your point), the issue isn't that so much as one of a generalized franchise being the basis of the entire process. Mixed government, not full-on democracy, has typically been seen as best even by republicans. Having all politics flow through electoral avenues is, when you consider it, a silly and rather childish idea. Politicians who need to win elections tell the public what they want to hear, not what they need to hear. Elections encourage partisan bickering and brainless rhetoric, because crowded rooms are conducive not to sober and intelligent discussion but to shouting matches. Elected legislatures think about the next 2 years, and even then only in terms of public reception, never about the wisdom of a policy over the course of decades or more. Electoral politics is ever that of self-interest, not the national interest.

The mantra that "more democracy is always good" needs to be deeply questioned, because like most absolute formulations it's wrong more often than it's right.

[ElBorrachoInfamoso]

(01-29-2015 02:21 AM)GeroMeroHero Wrote:  

I was thinking, if I were to hypothetically make a country, it would be pretty damn free as I still adhere to fairly libertarian positions.
...
Another example could be any policy which reduces the ethnic population to below 90% would be banned.

Do you realize that if some country had libertarian policies, it would be difficult to find any community larger than about 1 million people that was ethnically homogenous? Maybe eventually, after several generations of mixing, there would be a homogenous population.

[GeroMeroHero]

Unable to sleep, checking back and responding. Pleased with the interest but displeased with some oversights on my part

Those who have said I should have picked the title better are absolutely correct, but the title still cuts to the heart of the exercise: neutering the ideology.

(01-29-2015 02:28 AM)Rutting Elephant Wrote:  

Are you referring to the works of Marx and their exegesis or to the chimerical "cultural Marxism"?

Ideally both but really just the chimera. Economic Marxism is more overt and as a result I think easier to identify and deal with. Whereas Cultural Marxism is more subtle and insidious.
And as a result I think it is rational to have further assurances against it.


I should have anticipated the following response and gone into how I think it is consistent with Libertarianism to limit the political power of certain ideologies. So I shall now

(01-29-2015 03:07 AM)Sp5 Wrote:  

You're not a libertarian at all, you're an authoritarian. You want to give the government control over the expression of ideas.

So you want to ban ideas? What "Marxist" ideas would you ban? The theory of surplus labor? The idea of classes? Talking about alienation of labor? Explaining disputes between labor and capital? Criticism of social effects of advertising?

First, in America, you'd have to repeal the First Amendment giving freedom of speech. In Europe, ban the European Convention on Human Rights and various constitutional articles giving freedom of speech.

First of all, I specifically said I was banning such ideas being made into public policy, and would not infringe on the rights of people to say the ideas. My own fault for the misleading title.

Moreover, I would not be endowing myself with authoritarian powers but rather the Constitution.
You might say that is still authoritarian but hold on to that.

And I did say 'fairly libertarian' meaning I personally am not entirely on board with all of libertarianism.
To me, the purest form of libertarianism would be anarchy as there would be by definition no state intervention.
Most libertarians are not supporters of that so obviously some authoritarianism is deemed necessary or tolerable. At that point it is a comprise on what that authority does.

All this hypothetical would entail is preventing a decidedly unlibertarian set of ideas take root politically. Ideas that call for redistribution and often the violation of free association among other principles of liberty.
So all that is being done is limiting the state, hence why I do not think this violates libertarian principles. The only difference is that this gives a name to a more specific ideology (I realize the irony in calling Marxism specific), but it is the greatest offender of robbing liberty so I don't find that inappropriate.

It would be no different than a libertarian society limiting voting rights or having secure borders. Strictly speaking neither are fully libertarian but I would argue are more conducive to the long term survival of the society's principles.
By limiting voting you are, in every scenario of this that has played out, limiting those on the bottom. And those on the bottom have more to gain from redistribution so would vote for it.
Same with borders since immigrants also tend to have statist voting patterns. Moreover, any government that is giving out citizenship and/or voting rights to voters who are likely to support the expansion of the state can only be described as acting aggressively.
Just as any state that enforces Marxist ideas would be.

[GeroMeroHero]

(01-29-2015 05:04 AM)ElBorrachoInfamoso Wrote:  

(01-29-2015 02:21 AM)GeroMeroHero Wrote:  

I was thinking, if I were to hypothetically make a country, it would be pretty damn free as I still adhere to fairly libertarian positions.
...
Another example could be any policy which reduces the ethnic population to below 90% would be banned.

Do you realize that if some country had libertarian policies, it would be difficult to find any community larger than about 1 million people that was ethnically homogenous? Maybe eventually, after several generations of mixing, there would be a homogenous population.

If it went with open borders yes. I think people are getting too bogged down in the libertarian thing, that was simply to explain the issue I ran into and thought would be an interesting exercise: an inoculation against a certain group of ideas that run contrary to the principles of the users of this forum in some way

[lskdfjldsf]

Cultural Marxism can be soundly defeated in the marketplace of ideas. Democracy and free societies are actually the best possible immune systems against such ideologies, but the problem is that questioning it or providing evidence against it, at least in Europe and the US, is culturally and socially stigmatized to the point of intellectual and academic paralysis.

I think a Harvard professor should be able to research biological differences between ethnic groups without losing his job. I think questioning multiculturalism should be possible without damaging your career or being blocked/banned from public venues. I even think Code Pink and FEMEN should be able to hold rallies, wherever and whenever they want - as long as they're willing to hear out and refute opposing arguments in a civilized manner.

Debate with facts and well-researched arguments, rather than stifling debate with accusations of racism, sexism, Islamophobia, anti-Semitism, etc. If it's an ideology worthy of adoption by society at large, it should be able to withstand this scrutiny.

[The Reactionary Tree]

You want to get rid of Marxism? Bring back fascism.

[zombiejimmorrison]

You can only stop it from being implemented and that's having zero taxes. Tax and borrowing power is when the idea becomes real. Governments are in the business of growing at any price, a constitution won't stop that from happening. You even rightly mentioned America.

We need to find new ways of governing a society and that starts with not having a government or a very limited one to ease the transition. Only thing that works is free trade.

Capitalism is the opposite of communism/Marxism. We need more capitalism and less government. Banning ideas won't work, people have to learn that governments are evil and inefficient at running society. Its not hard to find evidence either, they have caused the death of over 200 million people since their inception.

[kosko]

Somilia is the Libertarian paradise for quite some time up until recently. Very easy to set up shop there. Liberterians never seem eager to move to thier oasis though....

[Michael P]

If you do manage to ban it, you would be no better than the Socialist/Communist/Marxists (They are different, yes, but similar).

The only way to defend against this is for people to be informed. In the US it did not work because by the time schooling (is different from education) was universal and not only limited to rich people, the government was already corrupt. If INTERNET existed in 1776....

And no government today wants to educate people about history, psychology and manipulation because if the people would be imune to foregin propaganda they would also be immune to state propaganda.

If you had a state and would start it properly, and had not already involved yourself into dark venues, then you would have nothing to lose and everything to gain to make Roosh secretary of education.

[philosophical_recovery]

I think all marxists should go ahead and create their communities as an experiment. However, no outside help, either monetary or resources allowed. That way, when they go down in horrible flames (or not) we have a solid lesson for the history books.

Because, apparently 20th century history, with Lenin, Stalin, National Socialism, Mao, and all that wasn't enough. They'll keep blaming it on personality. So, let's have them do a scientific experiment once and for all.

Never mind Venezuela either, for that matter.

[joseywales]

(01-29-2015 03:07 AM)Sp5 Wrote:  

First, in America, you'd have to repeal the First Amendment giving freedom of speech.

The Constitution doesn't give us or grant us any rights. Its purpose is to preserve or protect them from anyone who would try to take them away.

[GeroMeroHero]

(01-29-2015 05:28 AM)Blick Mang Wrote:  

Cultural Marxism can be soundly defeated in the marketplace of ideas. Democracy and free societies are actually the best possible immune systems against such ideologies, but the problem is that questioning it or providing evidence against it, at least in Europe and the US, is culturally and socially stigmatized to the point of intellectual and academic paralysis.

I think a Harvard professor should be able to research biological differences between ethnic groups without losing his job. I think questioning multiculturalism should be possible without damaging your career or being blocked/banned from public venues. I even think Code Pink and FEMEN should be able to hold rallies, wherever and whenever they want - as long as they're willing to hear out and refute opposing arguments in a civilized manner.

Debate with facts and well-researched arguments, rather than stifling debate with accusations of racism, sexism, Islamophobia, anti-Semitism, etc. If it's an ideology worthy of adoption by society at large, it should be able to withstand this scrutiny.

This does hinge on democracy not disintegrating into mob rule. Perhaps the best check against that is making suffrage a privilege rather than a right.
After all, not even the manosphere as a whole likes to discuss the possibility of biological differences in races and ethnicity.

[Hardy Daytona]

To quote Avery Brooks: "You can pulp a story, but you cannot destroy an idea."