Which type of economic far-rightism is worse?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I've noticed lately there are basically two types, which despite many of the same goals don't get along.

Type A is the Lew Rockwell/Ron Paul stuff. End the Fed, bring back the gold standard, blah blah blah. Opposed to all income taxes as "big government" and consider just about all government spending programs to be unconstitutional including things like public schools. If you ask them they'll usually argue their ideas are best for everyone not just the rich, will often try to make arguments that the poor are poor because of government interference or whatever, or simply argue that private charity should take its place. Usually not entirely without empathy, but often rather cold in how they want to implement their ideas and way uncompromising in some weird ways.

Type B is like what krazen posts about and advocates. It doesn't care about reverting to a 19th century economy, it's all about cutting welfare programs, even if that doesn't result in a big cut to taxes. It's about viewing the poor as leeches, as well as public workers, and basically holds government spending is bad because it benefits "leeches". It doesn't hold much regard for whether certain programs are constitutional and really doesn't care or even try to argue that its policies are better for society at large, it pretty much holds that yeah if the poor do get screwed over, whatever, its not a concern, in fact the advocate might even hold it as a positive. And of course a hatred of unions to the point they'll even advocate big government policies against them and is clearly not based on any type of consistency in that sort of thing. Just pure Social Darwinism.

I have to say Type B is far worse, as crazy and out of touch of reality as Type A and most of its advocates are, they don't strike me as blatant sociopaths. The people who advocate Type B stuff are some of the most repulsive individuals I've ever come across, and they're not even the type where you can laugh at their craziness like the craziest of Type A.

[PiMp DaDdy FitzGerald]

They seem to be pratically the same, but with the proponets of type 2 having more personal venom.

[SWE]

Type B, for pretty much the same reasons as BRTD said

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Type B is far, far worse.

[Meursault]

We really badly need a revitalization of classically corporatist, anti-business economics.

[ElectionsGuy]

Type B is more like tea party type conservatism, definitely that. Type A is more libertarian like myself, though I don't go nearly as far as not wanting public schools, getting rid of the income tax, or replacing welfare with charity, as the description implies. 

[Goldwater]

We really badly need a revitalization of classically corporatist, anti-business economics.

That would be worse than either of these two options.

[TDAS04]

Type B, for pretty much the same reasons as BRTD said

[courts]

We really badly need a revitalization of classically corporatist, anti-business economics.

you could never actually call it that for obvious reasons

[TNF]

Type B, but of course neither of these positions would actually be advocated by a real live "far-right" party, given that the far-right is at least rhetorically anti-capitalist, or at least anti specific kinds of capitalists (finance capital vs. "real" or "productive" capital). Both of the policies described are properly those of right-wing liberals (in the actual sense of the word, not the weird American malformation of it) or libertarians.

[Mordecai]

Type B obviously because they're far more likely to be in government. The Type A's are out of their mind but usually harmless because they're in no practical position to implement their agenda.

[Cassius]

The latter don't really exist as a political movement. There may be the odd few people who genuinely 'hate' the poor, and who make that 'hatred' the focal point of their political ideology, but they don't actually have a serious political movement behind them. I don't really mind the former as such, although they really don't seem to understand the concept of 'baby steps' when it comes to trying to implement their policies.

We really badly need a revitalization of classically corporatist, anti-business economics.

That's kind of a contradiction in terms, given how corporatism has traditionally been practiced and how it was originally envisioned; after all the latter was essentially creating a 'new' ideology that wasn't against any section of society, as socialism is and was and capitalism (which isn't really an ideology in my opinion) was purported to be.

[Meursault]

Yes, and that's the point: to treat society as an organic gestalt. "The market" in the sense it's most often used - not the local farmer's market or bartering, but the international hallucination of the Washington Concensus - is an artifice.  I'm not certain what you think you're accomplishing with that post.

[Mr. Illini]

Type B obviously. I disagree with both, but at least Type A usually has good intentions.