Вот не понимаю, зачем тебе это? Ты прекрасно знаешь, каковы взгляды на гей-проблему у Солнцеворота, Искателя и Острополера. Не хуже меня знаешь. Ну и что? Все должны мыслить одинаково по всем вопросам? Я всегда говорю, что лучше игнор, чем затыкание ртов. Не нравится что-то, не хочешь встревать - игнорируй.
Я не знаю и не хочу знать, какие взгляды на гей-проблему у указанных товарищей. Я всегда понимал слова "левый-либеральный" как "отстаивающий ценности свободы И равенства". Я могу понять, когда Вы растягиваете терпимость на левых без признака либерализма, за тех, кто за равенство без свободы, но какого черта сообщество используется как рупор взглядов одновременно авторитарных и правых?
Многие американские правые "либертарианцы" (к сторонникам коего политического течения Вы, похоже, также относитесь) одновременно выступают и против свободы, и против равенства:
"Hoppe prefers monarchy to democracy, considering it the superior system. He argues that the monarch is the private owner of the government -- all the land and other resources are owned by him. Basing himself on Austrian economics (what else?) and its notion of time preference, he concludes that the monarch will, therefore, work to maximise both current income and the total capital value of his estate. Assuming self-interest, his planning horizon will be farsighted and exploitation be far more limited. Democracy, in contrast, is a publicly-owned government and the elected rulers have use of resources for a short period only and not their capital value. In other words, they do not own the country and so will seek to maximise their short-term interests (and the interests of those they think will elect them into office).
...However, Hoppe is not a traditional monarchist. His ideal system is one of competing monarchies, a society which is led by a "voluntarily acknowledged 'natural' elite -- a nobilitas naturalis" comprised of "families with long-established records of superior achievement, farsightedness, and exemplary personal conduct." This is because "a few individuals quickly acquire the status of an elite" and their inherent qualities will "more likely than not [be] passed on within a few -- noble -- families." The sole "problem" with traditional monarchies was "with monopoly, not with elites or nobility," in other words the King monopolised the role of judge and their subjects could not turn to other members of the noble class for services. ["The Political Economy of Monarchy and Democracy and the Idea of a Natural Order," pp. 94-121, Journal of Libertarian Studies, vol. 11, no. 2, p. 118 and p. 119]
http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secF1.html
И сторонников у этого американского аналога Валерии Ильиничны среди западных "либертарианцев" и "анархо"-капиталистов - огромное (по меркам этой тусовки) количество. Так что далеко не только сторонники государственного капитализма выступают против политической свободы, далеко не только...
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
timeasmymeasure
no subject
no subject
Я всегда говорю, что лучше игнор, чем затыкание ртов. Не нравится что-то, не хочешь встревать - игнорируй.
no subject
no subject
no subject
.
В конце концов, коммунисты пользуются полным равноправием в обществе. А на своих демонстрациях требуют себе несправедливых привилегий.
no subject
На самом деле Ильф с Петровым сказали обо всем этом очень хорошо: евреи есть, а вопроса нет. Геи есть, а проблемы нет.
Сталина на них нет!
Re: Сталина на них нет!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy:_The_God_That_Failed
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans-Hermann_Hoppe
"Hoppe prefers monarchy to democracy, considering it the superior system. He argues that the monarch is the private owner of the government -- all the land and other resources are owned by him. Basing himself on Austrian economics (what else?) and its notion of time preference, he concludes that the monarch will, therefore, work to maximise both current income and the total capital value of his estate. Assuming self-interest, his planning horizon will be farsighted and exploitation be far more limited. Democracy, in contrast, is a publicly-owned government and the elected rulers have use of resources for a short period only and not their capital value. In other words, they do not own the country and so will seek to maximise their short-term interests (and the interests of those they think will elect them into office).
...However, Hoppe is not a traditional monarchist. His ideal system is one of competing monarchies, a society which is led by a "voluntarily acknowledged 'natural' elite -- a nobilitas naturalis" comprised of "families with long-established records of superior achievement, farsightedness, and exemplary personal conduct." This is because "a few individuals quickly acquire the status of an elite" and their inherent qualities will "more likely than not [be] passed on within a few -- noble -- families." The sole "problem" with traditional monarchies was "with monopoly, not with elites or nobility," in other words the King monopolised the role of judge and their subjects could not turn to other members of the noble class for services. ["The Political Economy of Monarchy and Democracy and the Idea of a Natural Order," pp. 94-121, Journal of Libertarian Studies, vol. 11, no. 2, p. 118 and p. 119]
http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secF1.html
И сторонников у этого американского аналога Валерии Ильиничны среди западных "либертарианцев" и "анархо"-капиталистов - огромное (по меркам этой тусовки) количество. Так что далеко не только сторонники государственного капитализма выступают против политической свободы, далеко не только...