Libertarians

[Ziggy Stardust]

he said that no one would do such a thing because of a change in mentality.

The mistake many libertarians make is that a libertarian society will cause a change in mentality. While it's the other way around. A change in mentality is needed first to make a libertarian society possible. And I mean a big change and not limited to military matters. If the society has a survival of the fittest mentality, which strangely enough can also be found amongst many who campaign for libertarianism, a libertarian society will be less civilized as the kind of society we have now, and we'll be taking a step back towards the animal kingdom.

 

[Ailedhoo]

Isn't "extremism should not be tolerated" an absolute?

Yes it is.

 

[Crezth]

Isn't "extremism should not be tolerated" an absolute?

Only a Sith!

 

[strijder20]

lolol

I should have mentioned that I eventually convinced him that it was possible, and then he said 'What happens, happens; let's hope it doesn't. Let's hope that the global libertarian state does not get taken over by a rogue army.' To be honest, I don't want to live in a system which might not fail, but might fail too.

Wht do you mean by "Shouldn't be tolerated"?

That all extremists should be hanged, burned at the stake and then thrown for the piranhas .
It's just my opinion: I tend to highly dislike anything which leans towards the extreme, because history seems to point out that it's not a good thing or at least has some dire (unintended possibly) consequences when a state is run using extreme ideals.
People who have extreme ideas also tend to be less open-minded towards the opposite side.

Isn't "extremism should not be tolerated" an absolute?

Yes, it is. But the police is supposed to reduce violence, while using violence themselves. By using an absolute you might reduce the total number of absolutes, even if it sounds hypocritical.

 

[Borachio]

Is that... is that you, Mum?


I was wondering where you'd got to.

 

[Chimera Kitty]

Why do people people not seem to like them all to much?

In a nutshell, it's because most people derive their beliefs from assumptions, emotions, and what they've been told. Thus, when libertarians take an impartial and in-depth look at the facts and draw some very startling conclusions about how things really work and how totally screwed up our country is, these conclusions seem "crazy" to the average sheep person.

 

[ELITEOFWARMAN8]

In a nutshell, it's because most people derive their beliefs from assumptions, emotions, and what they've been told. Thus, when libertarians take an impartial and in-depth look at the facts and draw some very startling conclusions about how things really work and how totally screwed up our country is, these conclusions seem "crazy" to the average sheep person.

Again, like the big two parties are any better.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

In a nutshell, it's because most people derive their beliefs from assumptions, emotions, and what they've been told. Thus, when libertarians take an impartial and in-depth look at the facts and draw some very startling conclusions about how things really work and how totally screwed up our country is, these conclusions seem "crazy" to the average sheep person.

The attractiveness of libertarian ideas is due to their novel nature in a One-Dimensional society, not because of any inherent correctness of its philosophy, of which there is surely very little.

 

[holy king]

I should have mentioned that I eventually convinced him that it was possible, and then he said 'What happens, happens; let's hope it doesn't. Let's hope that the global libertarian state does not get taken over by a rogue army.' To be honest, I don't want to live in a system which might not fail, but might fail too.

well, you're living in a system that is failing pretty big time at the moment.

 

[Crezth]

In a nutshell, it's because most people derive their beliefs from assumptions,

this seems like a dangerous thing to assume

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

In a nutshell, it's because most people derive their beliefs from assumptions, emotions, and what they've been told. Thus, when libertarians take an impartial and in-depth look at the facts and draw some very startling conclusions about how things really work and how totally screwed up our country is, these conclusions seem "crazy" to the average person.

Ironic this, since every time some libertarian gets into a debate, when going in-depth they default to: Read this article on Mises, or read Atlas Shrugged. Or to put it another way: those people derive their beliefs from what they've been told, and hardly any in-depth looks, facts are used in drawing up their startling conclusions.

Maybe you should consider that these conclusions not only seem crazy. Sometimes a duck-shaped animal making duck noises is a duck.

 

[strijder20]

well, you're living in a system that is failing pretty big time at the moment.

By 'fail' I mean getting taken over by an autocratic ruler which might even be foreign.
That's not going to happen anywhere soon in my country.

 

[Chimera Kitty]

Ironic this, since every time some libertarian gets into a debate, when going in-depth they default to: Read this article on Mises, or read Atlas Shrugged. Or to put it another way: those people derive their beliefs from what they've been told, and hardly any in-depth looks, facts are used in drawing up their startling conclusions.

Maybe you should consider that these conclusions not only seem crazy. Sometimes a duck-shaped animal making duck noises is a duck.

Well, perhaps I did downplay the number of genuinely crazy people who are attracted to the ideology. Watching Badnarik's Constitution class can be enlightening when he's correct, but it's embarrassing when he starts talking about the JFK assassination

 

[El_Machinae]

I'm essentially libertarian, but my position is that we're not yet rich enough to have have real access to the justice system (i.e., where accessing justice is casually affordable, and so the rich cannot oppress the weak on that front). Maybe someday, with super-cheap electronic records, lie detectors, and computerized courts ... but not yet.

Until then, we can use regulations, which appear roughshod, to prevent things from 'getting out of hand'. I think we need to. Keep in mind, though, that my vision is attainable, it just requires a threshold level of technology and societal wealth

 

[Nick Carpathia]

That's a reasonable attitude. The relationship between the individual and the collective of individuals is going to require reassessment as society evolves alongside its technology.

It's slightly utopian, but it's preferable to a system designed to strip rights away from the disadvantaged so that the privileged can snowball further ahead.

 

[Borachio]

Wasn't it Camus came up with the idea of a permanent rolling revolution?

As long as people think having great wealth is a good idea (and it seems the majority on CFC do), and since it doesn't matter how much you have as long as you have more than anyone else, then there are always going to be some with great wealth and the majority without.

Anyway - I'm very confused on this issue - the thing to do is keep on taxing the wealthy to benefit the poor. And as the wealthy don't like this and they will keep on trying to minimize their taxes, so the authorities have to be seen to keep on chasing them round closing the loopholes as fast as they are discovered.

It's a kind of very low-key permanent revolution.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I'm essentially libertarian, but my position is that we're not yet rich enough to have have real access to the justice system (i.e., where accessing justice is casually affordable, and so the rich cannot oppress the weak on that front). Maybe someday, with super-cheap electronic records, lie detectors, and computerized courts ... but not yet.

Until then, we can use regulations, which appear roughshod, to prevent things from 'getting out of hand'. I think we need to. Keep in mind, though, that my vision is attainable, it just requires a threshold level of technology and societal wealth

It may surprise you but I agree with this. The courts is one of the legitimate duties of government.

 

[El_Machinae]

It's an essential element of libertarian society. Consent and Contract are huge portions of the libertarian ideal.

My view is utopian, but it doesn't suggest cutting down the current efficacy of the government. I think that if we do that, we move away from my ideal with a natural decrease in human suffering. The ideal can only be achieved after justice and honesty are cheap.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Well, perhaps I did downplay the number of genuinely crazy people who are attracted to the ideology. Watching Badnarik's Constitution class can be enlightening when he's correct, but it's embarrassing when he starts talking about the JFK assassination

The thing is that I have a great deal of sympathy for the libertarian mindset. I just think that at the moment it’s unachievable due to our current human nature. But as a goal, it’s a very noble one.

The reality of the matter is that we are far too eager to game the system. Getting one up over our peers sometimes seems to be the key objective in our lives. A libertarian system will need 100% participation of everyone involved. It will need a great deal of empathy from everyone involved. If there comes a time when a libertarian system becomes viable that would also mean that humanity really has evolved into something quite different than what we are today. People would look back on this time with disdain towards our egocentric attitudes. Our inability to comprehend that only focusing on yourself at the expense of others does not improve society. We favour the short term gains vastly over long term ones.

And it would mean a collapse of capitalism and consumerism, which are the embodiment of everything that cripples such a society. Introduce libertarianism in such an environment and our economy will resemble the eat or be eaten mentality of the animal world. Besides, just looking at myself, I do like my consumerism far too much to part with it. I do like living in a capitalist society far too much. I am clearly not ready for libertarianism, and I suspect that I am far from the exception here.

 

[Borachio]

I agree with this, Ziggers.

In addition, I would say that, like freedom, libertarianism is not something that can be imposed from above.

It's a movement that demands absolute responsibility from all (adult) members of society.

It's a paradigm shift in consciousness; not a political movement.

(Or something along those lines, anyway.)