I do think your theory could apply to some libertarians I've run across. I've seen some libertarians who want to go beyond just being free in the legal sense. I've seen some folks wish for a society nothing was even condemned, or looked down upon. Where nearly all actions were equally embraced as acceptable alternatives. But I disagee. Even though society may tolerate certain unsavory actions, it doesn't mean we need to accept or condone them.
I view allowing people to do something with little or no regulation to be morally equivalent to accepting or condoning it. What is the State, if not the tool by which the majority imposes its will upon the minority?
I'll end my rant there and move on. I'm curious about you. What pushed you from one extreme to the other? I've never met someone who openly embraced fascism and I've certainly never met a former libertarian turned fascist. What exactly made you make such a radical switch?
It started with the public schools.
In my youth, I was an anarcho-capitalist, and I signed up with the Libertarian Party of New Mexico as the closest representation of my ideology. However, at a Party meeting, the issue of public schools came up, and I opined that if taxes were necessary and we were paying them for the military and law enforcement, the public school system was also a worthwhile government program and should be supported. I was angrily shouted down and all but booted from the party.
Like you, when I'm told that I
can't do something, I tend to rebel against it. So I revoked my Libertarian Party membership and re-examined my beliefs on the role of the State in society. I started off something of a liberal, believing that government should stay out of our lives, but that certain services should still be provided to the best of our ability. I realized that the State was a necessary and even desirable part of society. I held on to certain anarchist/libertarian beliefs, like that government was by nature violent and coercive. I slowly came to realize that if the State should use violence and coercion to provide necessary services for society, that it was justified in using violence and coercion to perform other functions that are desirable for society.
I am of the opinion that most or all who embrace the idea of fascism wish to either
be the dictator, or else be the dictator's right-hand-man and policy-advisor.
The earliest adopters, certainly. As the movement gains momentum, people embrace the idea merely to be a part of it.
It makes sense to me. If the purpose of embracing Fascism is to see one's moral vision imposed upon society, then the closer one should be to the Leader to see more of that vision implemented. The only reason I am not an avid supporter of the State as it exists now is that it is dominated by two ineffective, liberal parties whose agendas are too divergent from my own to deserve my support.
Its a bit off and ironic I guess. I dislike social darwinism, not necessarily because I see it as bad, but because I don't think it realistically applies to our current situation due to the many inefficiencies that society currently imposes on us individually.
I am much the same. I value Social Darwinism in theory, but in practice too many bright, young minds don't receive the necessary resources to be capable of competing against less talented but more privileged men and women. The advantages and disadvantages of environment too heavily outweigh the advantages and disadvantages of natural talent for Social Darwinism to be an effective mechanism for social improvement.