The Rights of Men

[Manfred Belheim]

The thing is that if you self-identify as libertarian, you take on some of those whacky beliefs that libertarians rally around. Otherwise you wouldn't self-identify as such. I have yet to meet a libertarian who stops and says "hold on, let's look at the case studies here instead of ploughing ahead with ideology-only arguments". They're all nuts as far as I'm concerned. But that's a bit off topic really.

Well coming fresh from the political compass thread I would probably identify as one because my score puts me in the bottom half of the plot, and also because I wouldn't want to identify as an authoritarian.

 

[warpus]

I wouldn't call you "nuts" to your face unless you directly expressed views that I feel are nuts, and even then I probably wouldn't do that unless you were let's say a squirrel.

 

[Ryika]

In the end people on the very extreme ends on either part of the political spectrum are usually "nuts".

I have to really wonder why we're talking about libertarians though - not so much because we're in the Man's Rights thread, but more because the whole thing started with the idea that some people would like to go further than just giving equal rights to both genders, which is an authoritarian position - and authoritarians are by the very definition of the word the complete opposite of libertarians.

It's the authoritarian (far-)left that makes these arguments.

 

[warpus]

I don't know, it came up, and I commented on it. I have no idea what kind of a person might self-identify as "authoritarian" either, but both camps sound crazy to me, perhaps representing the fringes of extremist elements of our society but not much more.

 

[Wolfbeckett]

Nobody (well, very few people) "self-identify" as authoritarian. It's a loaded word, obviously. You have to look at their actions and ask "is this increasing liberty, or decreasing it?" People who openly advocate suspension of due process, limiting freedom of speech, abolishing freedom of the press, etc. are authoritarians regardless of how they identify themselves.

Also, your view of Libertarians is wrong, or at least is limited to a small subset of the group. If you read online Libertarian forums and such I'm sure you'll run across a lot of that, it IS the Internet after all. As a matter of every day policy, Libertarians that actually run for office believe in a sort of idyllic utopian future which we will never reach, but try to get there one step at a time anyway. If asked about gay marriage, for example, most Libertarians I know will start with "I don't think the government should be in marriage at all", but then when queried further will follow up with "but if that's unrealistic at this time, then the very least the government can do is apply the same rights to all citizens equally" and will vote for pro-gay marriage laws that come down the pike. We believe in a way things should be, but (unless it's a teenager online who's just discovered Libertarianism for the first time) also understand that humans aren't perfect so we'll never get to perfection. Best thing we can do is try to increase liberty as much as we can where we can.

Kind of like, oh, all other political ideologies. None of them are perfect solutions. People still strive for it anyway.

 

[warpus]

You have to look at their actions and ask "is this increasing liberty, or decreasing it?"

That is such a simplistic way to look at complex situations I am not so sure it is even worth asking.

I mean, just because something is "increasing liberty" doesn't mean that it is inherently good or bad. By itself it means nothing. I can think of plenty of scenarios in which increasing liberty would be a horrible idea. Same for the opposite.

I suppose my position is that people who look at "authority vs liberty" or whatever and base their ideology and all their thoughts and actions around those concepts are going to miss perfectly good solutions to problems, blinded by their ideological stance. It seems rather extreme to me in both cases. Solutions to problems are usually best found by looking at real-world applications of similar solutions elsewhere, not by sticking to an extreme ideology and ignoring reality.

 

[Wolfbeckett]

I mean, just because something is "increasing liberty" doesn't mean that it is inherently good or bad. By itself it means nothing. I can think of plenty of scenarios in which increasing liberty would be a horrible idea. Same for the opposite.

I didn't make any value judgements, I simply said that by definition actions that increase liberty are Libertarian and actions that decrease it are Authoritarian. Someone who tries to exercise government force to stop others from doing things they don't like is authoritarian by definition, regardless of the actual morality of what they're doing.

 

[warpus]

I was criticizing people basing their actions on the whole "libertarian vs authoritarian" mindset in general, not your actions or position in particular.

They seem like extremists to me, with their heads in ideological clouds, unable to make good decisions that actually work because they can't see the ground that the rest of us walk on. IMO.

 

[Ryika]

I was criticizing people basing their actions on the whole "libertarian vs authoritarian" mindset in general

I don't understand what this is supposed to mean. You are criticizing people for... what exactly? Having a consistent set of values?

 

[Akka]

Gotta say my experience with self-proclaimed Libertarians is exactly the same as Warpus here.
The term "Randroids" didn't spring out of nowhere.

 

[Farm Boy]

I don't understand what this is supposed to mean. You are criticizing people for... what exactly? Having a consistent set of values?

Enactments of positive liberties and authoritarian oppressions occupy the same ground. Just as pure focus on negative liberties can give rise to the latter. What you decide to call that ground depends on where you choose to address it from mentally. Which is why some hate on -=Randroids=-. The cognitive dissonance between the outlooks is infuriating. Nothing is clean, good intentions and pavements, all that.

 

[Ryika]

Enactments of positive liberties and authoritarian oppressions occupy the same ground. Just as pure focus on negative liberties can give rise to the latter. What you decide to call that ground depends on where you choose to address it from mentally. Which is why some hate on -=Randroids=-. The cognitive dissonance between the outlooks is infuriating. Nothing is clean, good intentions and pavements, all that.

What exactly is a "negative liberty"? If by that you mean liberties that have negative influences on others ("I should have the right to swing my baseball bat into your face!"), then I don't think that's a libertarian position as obviously "personal liberty" can be a zero-sum game and the right of one person would in this case infringe on the rights of another person. I don't know any libertarian who would argue for such a thing. (But again, I have no idea what exactly you mean by "negative liberty", so maybe this paragraph was utterly pointless. ^^)

I agree that libertarianism, when taken to its extreme, becomes toxic and silly just like any political position/mindset/ideology, but I don't see how a libertarian mindset would automatically lead somebody there. That would be like saying "You have moderate position X, it will automatically lead to extreme position Y".

 

[Flying Pig]

Negative liberty is freedom from constraint or coercion - for example, the right to speak freely without being punished. Positive liberty is deliberately providing the circumstances that afford greater freedom of action - for example, educating people so that they might have something to say.

 

[Ryika]

Negative liberty is freedom from constraint or coercion - for example, the right to speak freely without being punished. Positive liberty is deliberately providing the circumstances that afford greater freedom of action - for example, educating people so that they might have something to say.

Ah, I see... yeah, guess that was just too easy to figure out myself.

Yeah, Farm Boys post makes a lot of sense now, but I still think that's the extreme position that one will only arrive at if one only views the world from that specific lens, without considering the consequences.

 

[Flying Pig]

It depends. Providing positive liberty by giving out universal healthcare is a huge intervention in the market that harms the negative liberty of customers to choose their own healthcare. Promoting positive liberty by spending tax money on education harms the negative liberty of citizens to spend their money as they wish. Promoting positive liberty by reducing the number of person-hours spent in hospital by mandating seatbelts and motorcycle helmets infringes upon the negative liberty of people to choose whether or not to take these precautions. These are simple statements of fact: the ideology only comes in when you ask whether the trade is worth it.

 

[useless]

Do you libertarians believe seatbelt laws are evil/morally wrong?

 

[Samson]

Do you libertarians believe seatbelt laws are evil/morally wrong?

I am not a libertarian, but am pretty offended by seatbelt laws, particularly as the only people who I know that have had them enforced are non-white. I think there is a general set of laws that are generally unenforced but are used to prosecute people who the police think deserve it despite not being able to do them for something real. These laws are wrong (or at least their enforcement is).

 

[warpus]

I don't understand what this is supposed to mean. You are criticizing people for... what exactly? Having a consistent set of values?

I am criticizing them because when faced with a problem society needs to solve, they look to their ideology rather than to facts.

"It increases liberty for person A, so that's the solution we're going with" is what I've often heard from libertarians. They don't consider what other impacts their solution might have, or if it's even a good solution. They just plough ahead with their ideology as if it's meant to solve every type of problem possible. No dudes, no ideology is magic, and you guys are crazy. That's what I have to say to libertarians.

 

[Akka]

Basically, Libertarians are fanatics. Their starting point is that their ideology is True, and everything else comes from that unassailable and absolute certainty. If reality disagrees, then reality is wrong.

 

[Farm Boy]

I am not a libertarian, but am pretty offended by seatbelt laws, particularly as the only people who I know that have had them enforced are non-white. I think there is a general set of laws that are generally unenforced but are used to prosecute people who the police think deserve it despite not being able to do them for something real. These laws are wrong (or at least their enforcement is).

I also don't consider myself a libertarian. I am too enamored with positive liberties in the face of human failings. That said, I also find seat belt laws enforced against adult persons to be offensive. I also find laws enforced against people who want to die with dignity to be offensive for much the same reason. Our communal discomfort with how people choose to address the safety, duration, and end of their own lives simply does not justify our trampling of their agency.