Authoritarian vs Libertarian vs Capitalist

Philosophy Forums Society, Government, and Economics
21

Lol in order to develop a military you already must have developed other significant aspects of economy. You can’t have military clothes, food supplies, materials for vehicles/ammo/weapons etc. without a proper economy. What is it exactly that NatSoc economy lacked that is relevant in any way?

So according to you countries should adopt a strategy that I’ve proven to be, ceteris paribus, less effective? Good to know.

If 6 million Axis soldiers can cause 18 million ally casualties, then if Axis and Allies fought and they both had 6 million, Axis would win easily since 18 million allies are needed to kill 6 million Axis soldiers and 6 million Axis soldiers can kill 18 million ally soldiers, which makes killing 6 million allies a piece of cake for the Axis boys.

Under the assumption that both sides have equal quality, the side with more quantity will win, and the more quantity it has the easier it will win and with fewer losses.

Only under the assumption that one side (Axis) has superior quality can you explain the fact that it inflicted so much damage to the other side despite the other side being so much more numerous and despite the fact that Axis were aggressors which puts them at a disadvantage.

What’s complicated here? Are you really too stupid to grasp this?

Not like it’s news that fascist/NatSoc men tend to be masculine and value physical and mental fitness while the more liberal a man the more likely he is to be a weak effeminate faggot who wouldn’t last a second on the battlefield, either because he is physically unfit, or a pussy who might decide to do a non-violent protest in front of enemy machine guns instead, trying to guilt-trip them into losing or something.

So in short the only reason allies won is that they had a huge starting advantage in numbers.
Given more time to develop, if axis caught up in numbers to the point the numbers were equal they’d win easily.
What’s more, if after catching up in terms of population the Axis continued growing instead of going to war it’d outclass the allies both in quantity AND quality.

This is my entire point… all other factors equal, a system like fascism/NatSoc or any patriarchal, militaristic system based on acknowledging NATURE is the most powerful possible form of social ordering and ceteris paribus, the best bet at winning a conflict.

22

After classical liberalism has run its course, the population which adopted those values will have been mostly replaced in their own former countries.
But… everybody was having a ‘gay’ time, I suppose.

23

Libertarians, before the movement got dieversified and liberalised, was basically this…

People who wanted to be left alone by the hyenas but who didn’t have the necessary out-of-the-(liberal)-box kind of thinking to understand that without aggression you don’t get to keep your socio-economic space.

welp, maybe also things weren’t bad enough at the time to break their low testosterone cycle.

24

Good point, Libertarians want to be left alone, but don’t realize privacy has a very high cost (of aggression), that only gets more expensive over time. Humanity has expanded to pervasively that the last remnants of privacy are drying up. Someday privacy will become a luxury that nobody on earth can afford.

25

Wow that is such a great argumentation man.

If the allies had waited for the nazis to grow big and strong, the nazis may have won. Because of nature.

26

It’s really basic stuff, I don’t know how anybody could even claim to dispute it.

If 6 million soldiers X can kill 18 million soldiers Y then it’s clear who has the higher quality and who’d win if 6 million X and 6 million Y or 18 million X and 18 million Y would fight.

I mean it really isn’t news nor does it take a genius to understand that far-right men are more masculine and why…

Doesn’t take a genius to figure out who will win in a conflict:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWwm14MGl3E[/youtube]

or these guys:

Nor does it take a genius to figure out which group will have higher birthrates, and why.

So why are you van-clan bitchboys trying to dispute these basic facts?

27

The casualty difference also comes down to geometry, in addition to the other reasons I mentioned. Germany represents an inner space surrounded by an exterior, and the surface area of the inner space means that the Allies needed to surround Nazi encroachments and attack from all sides, which is exactly what happened. It’s tantamount to an army attacking another army that is up on a hill: the army up on the hill has a geometric geographical advantage of height, so that the surrounding armies must literally expose far more of their soldiers to combat in order to surround and defeat the army on the hill.

A smaller army inside a circle (Germany) compared to a much larger army outside that circle and trying to press into that circle. In such a logistical situation you’re going to see more casualties on the side that is surrounding, because of the requirement that they surround. One small region in the circle can defend against more space outward at the edge and beyond the circle. It’s simple logic. The Nazis were literally surrounded on all sides and can thus inflict more causalities upon the encroaching forces surrounding them.

28

Does it really matter? It is the same oligarchy progressivists that run and operate all political isms.

29

“Nothing really matters, to me…” - Queen

30

I really liked how you turned a thought provoking comment into a musical quote. sarcasm

31

If you’re claiming that literally every political system or party is the same, then you’re not making any sort of “thought provoking comment”.

32

It is the same because only the ruling classes benefit and gain anything while a majority of the population doesn’t. The only difference are the tactics and strategies utilized but the end result always remains the same. The final destination or outcome is always the same politically.

All political factions have more in common than what they don’t, it takes eyes of real politik to see all of this and a majority of simpletons do not unfortunately possess.

33

I agree, most people assume far too much difference between the major parties than is actually the case. Left and right have more or less collapsed into neoliberalism and neoconservatism, which are more or less the same. But there are still outside parties and outside candidates that are not part of this, and in any case I see more people are waking up to it. And there are small variabilities even within the sold-out major parties, at least in America. It is upon those small variabilities that Trump was able to edge himself in and rise superior.

Trump’s win proves the neolib/neocon globalist hold is far less certain than they thought. Hence their 24/7 tantrum frenzy right now, and the new religion of Trump-hate trying to get him out by all costs.

These motherfuckers do not like reality and will fight to the death to maintain their fantasy against the reality right in front of their eyes. They are required to blind themselves, and that is what they are doing. Quite tragic and frustrating for us sane people, but also can be highly entertaining. We can at least sit back and enjoy.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVmMo9gd38A[/youtube]