/lit/ - Literature

>>21199176
Probably. Carl Schmitt influences most of non-liberal governments. Reminder that west imposes liberalism on unwilling nations for their resources, and gives the wealth to globalists. Doesn't take academic response to know that. And Kraut can't resist illiberal order without betraying liberalism, proving its critic right.

>>20411657
>It might make more sense to state if you believe in rights you have some sort of divine conception of human beings
Not true at all. I do believe in human rights, yet I know exactly where they come from—the state. No where else.

>How would these be liberal?
The concept of 'right' in itself is liberal rationalist invention. I generally associate liberalism with 'freedom' or at least wanting people to be free. Schmitt is also a Liberal, and critiquing liberalism is kind of the entire point of Liberalism. One of the things he argues that if a state is unable to practice extra-judicary control and say 'violate' a momentary freedom/right then it can result in even greater losses of freedom.

>>18978880
>Strong states destroy the environment.
This is entirely dependent on who is in control of the state, if a dictator happened to also be an environmentalist we don't have to do much guesswork to predict which policy he would enact.
>Why are you confused?
You have a very black/white view of morality and are akin to a secular Christian.
>I represent the side of goodness, and virtue, my enemy that of evil and tyranny!

>How about half of it? To wilderness and a commitment to letting it grow untampered with.
Eh sure why not. I never really had much of a problem with this. My stance of enviormental issues is pragmatic and non-ideological, i.e don't murder the planet for future generations.
However a lot of enviormentalists are fear mongerers and make human beings out to be some unnatural force and evil force.

Schmittposting>shitposting

>>11473095
If you're so smart, I'm sure you can come up with a better criticism than that.