Author Topic: Is it just me or is distaste for Libertarianism contradictory to discordianism?  (Read 47674 times)

BabylonHoruv

  • Infectious Projectile Faecalator
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 38685
    • View Profile
Navkat, I think one aspect that needs to be looked at is the reality of the current political situation.

It's one thing to hold onto an ideology, but if that ideology starts with a complete change of game rules, a grand total of fuck all will get done.

So, you have to look at the current state and manner of government, and start there.  

For example, coal and energy companies are dumping tons of shit into the air, water, and ground.  Global warming arguments aside, there are visible and horrible consequences to that.  So, you might say it would be a good idea for them to cut it out.  But how?  

The conservative position seems to say that cleaner plants would make more money in the long run, and killing the consumer is counter-productive, so eventually the invisible hand will make the companies fall in line.  This isn't happening.

The progressive position seems to say that we should regulate the living fuck out of the companies, forcing them to reduce their emissions or face fines or closure.  This would force many smaller energy companies out of business, causing prices to skyrocket... Not to mention that the lobbyists would never allow it.

So, the solution that sucks the least for everyone seems to be cap-and-trade.  The conservatives are pissed because the companies regulated and it will cost them money if they go over the limit, and the progressives are pissed because it means the more powerful companies will just buy more credits and keep fucking up the environment.  But at least there is a limit, and at least there are economic incentives to cut down emissions.

Government is fucked up in general; but human greed is just as fucked up.  In today's society, it seems like the two are in some sort of death match... But we can't let either one win.

The problem is: it's not going to cost the corporations a goddamned thing. WE are the ones who will start seeing $30 "emissions license acquisition" fees on our energy bills and it will be business as usual for the corporate world. And that's best case scenario (I believe). All this does is FURTHER the separation of US society into a two-class system.

And what of the scenario where foreign countries pick up the slack? What'll we do then? Once C&T is in place and government starts relying on the income, it'll be damned-near impossible to abolish so the only choice left over is to add some sort of cap on foreign trade as well, no? Government rationing on everything? Treating all trade practices as physical commodities?

There seems to be a growing trend (not saying that that's where YOU stand) of extreme-left Progressives who seem to be okay with handing over more and more of the responsibility for taking care of their daily needs over to Government, and who are willing to pay more and more of their paychecks for the luxury of not having to worry about these things themselves.

What frightens me (and you can group me with the Alex Jones nuts if you want, but I'm being for serious here) is a future world where we do just that: we cough up 75% of our pay to The Government and we are given our nutritionally-sound foodstamps, medicine, homes (not PROPERTY, but living spaces that will be re-assigned when we die since property-ownership is unfair), energy rations, etc. None of us will be destitute or have need for the basic necessities in life, but none of us will be truly FREE. The other 25% of your income can be used to buy whatever you wish- as long as those things are clothes, art, vacations and other decorations for your BIP.

Where will the spirit of human ingenuity and entrepreneurship be then? Not abolished but certainly suppressed.

Maybe that sounds a little outrageous and extreme, but if we continue to buy into the "everyone must do the Right Thing, even if it's by force and why would anyone NOT want to anyway?" concept, then why the hell not just go there? I mean, that's the sum of that equation, isn't it?

Do I have it wrong?

And Cain: don't want to ignore you because you raise really great points. You're right: I don't have the answers. Where's the dividing line between fairness and oppression? I don't claim to have all the answers. I just want more people who are willing to ask those questions without being so fucking quick cram "because this is the right way" into the blanks. I also tend to take an attitude where "liberty" is the default until a realistic solution can be reached.

Wow,  you're not just an idealist about Libertarianism, your an idealist about Authoritarianism too.

I think this world you have in your head where the government actually provides for everyone's needs is pretty unlikely.  More likely they provide for their own desires, while offering as minimal a welfare structure as they can manage.  providing for their own desires will be justified with progressive rhetoric, not providing for our needs will be justified with libertarian rhetoric.  All of it will be backed up by the TV feeding people patriotic sentiments that have them believing the USA is the greatest most free country in the world.

Of course that's kinda where I see us being right now.
You're a special case, Babylon.  You are offensive even when you don't post.

Merely by being alive, you make everyone just a little more miserable

-Dok Howl

navkat

  • WANKer
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 12966
    • View Profile
I'm with you Navkat. I have yet to find a platform that doesn't sicken me in some way. If I had to put myself on the spectrum somewhere, I guess I'm in the middle leaning left, but whenever I'm in a group of passionate liberals I start to feel the bile coming up. Same with conservatives, but I live in new york, so it doesn't happen as frequently.

I really like the idea of libertarianism. I like the small government, individualist branding. It's too bad about those children, elderly, homeless, and handicapped people screw it up for the rest of us.

And that's just it. There's always going to be those who can't or WON'T take responsibility for providing for their own needs now or later in life. What do we do? Let 'em die in the street?

So I agree that there is a need for social responsibility and Government intervention...but where's the line? Where does it stop? You could (admittedly) go the other way on me and say "Where does the hands-off darwinism stop? When people are literally dying on the curb? And who gets the shovel when the worms show up to eat their brains?"

LMNO

  • Lubricated and Rabid Lungfish of Impending Sexdoom™
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 87704
  • Internet Fuckweasel of Haunted Pork Dimensions.
    • View Profile
    • Earfatigue Productions: When it has to sound like you give a shit.
Seeing as how we're still in a democratic republic (at least in name), then it seems fairly obvious that those who vote will determine where personal responsibility ends and gvt oversight begins.


Not to get too idealistic, of course.  "If voting changed anything it would be illegal," etc.



Jenne

  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 79228
    • View Profile
Seeing as how we're still in a democratic republic (at least in name), then it seems fairly obvious that those who vote will determine where personal responsibility ends and gvt oversight begins.


Not to get too idealistic, of course.  "If voting changed anything it would be illegal," etc.




The Norm Colemans of the world would agree with you there, eh?

See, whenever we have these dragged-out elections...I always point to where more or less voters in any direction make a significant fucking difference.

But that's my own idealism/PollyAnnastic views showing, I guess.

navkat

  • WANKer
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 12966
    • View Profile

Wow,  you're not just an idealist about Libertarianism, your an idealist about Authoritarianism too.

I think this world you have in your head where the government actually provides for everyone's needs is pretty unlikely.  More likely they provide for their own desires, while offering as minimal a welfare structure as they can manage.  providing for their own desires will be justified with progressive rhetoric, not providing for our needs will be justified with libertarian rhetoric.  All of it will be backed up by the TV feeding people patriotic sentiments that have them believing the USA is the greatest most free country in the world.

Of course that's kinda where I see us being right now.

That's where I see it too, but I'm making the argument for the most shining, idealistic progressive stance. That's Best Case Scenario to me, but really; I don't see it going down that way.

Problem is: I'm starting to worry that the realities of those disadvantages are not enough to dissuade the idealistic left from pursuing those ends.

Utopia is improbable, so shouldn't we opt for individual choice when all else fails? I mean, that's personal truth for me, but it might not be for you. Maybe I'm just oriented differently.

Bebek Sincap Ratatosk

  • Probably
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 8974
    • View Profile
1) Rat, i think the fact that you have to postulate an extremely radical shift in society to even begin to answer Cain's question more or less invalidates Libertarianism from the get-go.  It seems you could also say, "none of that would be a problem if we were all nice to each other."  [edit: Cain just said the same thing.]


Yes, I agree... except this is true FOR ANY political philosophy. Liberalism will only work if the populace are educated in how the system is supposed to work, and buy into it. Otherwise it will fail. Same for Conservatism.  The reason, IMO, that the US is such a political morass of confusion is because no one is getting educated about political philosophy and instead they're getting a crash course in Talking Points, Popular opinion, FOX News (or MSNBC) and lots of wedge issues that from a philosophical standpoint they shouldn't even be discussing.

ANY political philosophy is probably workable in a given society... if most of the people in that society can agree to us that philosophy as their base. Otherwise, thinking that Progressive or Conservative aren't in the same hole as Libertarianism is just hiding your head in the sand.

However, back to the initial question about Discordians being anti-libertarian... I think it has more to do with the general age of vocal Discordians and the education they received... That is, many non-Discordians in the 18-30 range sound almost identical to many Discordians in the 18-30 range on the topic of Libertarianism.

Personally, I find that none of the political philosophies around get anywhere close to a workable solution, so Rational Anarchism is the current position I consider useful.
- I don't see race. I just see cars going around in a circle.

"Back in my day, crazy meant something. Now everyone is crazy" - Charlie Manson

Jenne

  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 79228
    • View Profile

Wow,  you're not just an idealist about Libertarianism, your an idealist about Authoritarianism too.

I think this world you have in your head where the government actually provides for everyone's needs is pretty unlikely.  More likely they provide for their own desires, while offering as minimal a welfare structure as they can manage.  providing for their own desires will be justified with progressive rhetoric, not providing for our needs will be justified with libertarian rhetoric.  All of it will be backed up by the TV feeding people patriotic sentiments that have them believing the USA is the greatest most free country in the world.

Of course that's kinda where I see us being right now.

That's where I see it too, but I'm making the argument for the most shining, idealistic progressive stance. That's Best Case Scenario to me, but really; I don't see it going down that way.

Problem is: I'm starting to worry that the realities of those disadvantages are not enough to dissuade the idealistic left from pursuing those ends.

Utopia is improbable, so shouldn't we opt for individual choice when all else fails? I mean, that's personal truth for me, but it might not be for you. Maybe I'm just oriented differently.

Depends on who's making the individual choice.  Sometimes the weak and disenfranchised are not afforded the same choices, and so someone else's choice is subjugating theirs and their needs as well.

Cramulus

  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 131979
    • View Profile
    • Cramul.us
btw, regarding the question in the OP

 - I believe the three most prolific discordians (Thornley, Hill, & Wilson) were libertarians, so the libertarian attitude is sown into the Principia and Illuminatus fabric. But I don't think that it's core enough that anti-libertarianism is anti-discordian. Discordianism is not an inherently political movement.

Bebek Sincap Ratatosk

  • Probably
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 8974
    • View Profile
btw, regarding the question in the OP

 - I believe the three most prolific discordians (Thornley, Hill, & Wilson) were libertarians, so the libertarian attitude is sown into the Principia and Illuminatus fabric. But I don't think that it's core enough that anti-libertarianism is anti-discordian. Discordianism is not an inherently political movement.

Correct motorcycle.

In fact, Kerry was a raging Maoist, then a raging Randroid then a raging anarchist, then just a raging nutter... I think he was more into exploring whatever new political philosophy popped up in front of him, rather than a strong belief in any one of them.

RAW on the other hand, was almost a progressive libertarian. He seemed to think the government should exist to provide useful assistance if necessary and shut the fuck up in general. "TSOG: The Thing That Ate The Constitution" has some great essays in it, IMO.
- I don't see race. I just see cars going around in a circle.

"Back in my day, crazy meant something. Now everyone is crazy" - Charlie Manson

Jenne

  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 79228
    • View Profile
btw, regarding the question in the OP

 - I believe the three most prolific discordians (Thornley, Hill, & Wilson) were libertarians, so the libertarian attitude is sown into the Principia and Illuminatus fabric. But I don't think that it's core enough that anti-libertarianism is anti-discordian. Discordianism is not an inherently political movement.

Hm, I rather disagree.

LMNO

  • Lubricated and Rabid Lungfish of Impending Sexdoom™
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 87704
  • Internet Fuckweasel of Haunted Pork Dimensions.
    • View Profile
    • Earfatigue Productions: When it has to sound like you give a shit.
However, I think the RAW style of Libertarian and the current style are fairly different.


If we want to define "Libertarian" as being a position of "leave me the fuck alone, but help the disadvantaged," I think I could get behind that.

Of course, that doesn't answer the questions of roads, schools, mail, military, etc.


It's almost like there's a Godel's theorm of political philosophy.  Any system you choose is unable to solve all the problems inherent in social structure.

[edit: Rat is already answering some of this]

Jenne

  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 79228
    • View Profile
However, I think the RAW style of Libertarian and the current style are fairly different.


If we want to define "Libertarian" as being a position of "leave me the fuck alone, but help the disadvantaged," I think I could get behind that.

Of course, that doesn't answer the questions of roads, schools, mail, military, etc.


It's almost like there's a Godel's theorm of political philosophy.  Any system you choose is unable to solve all the problems inherent in social structure.

THIS I can agree with.

Cramulus

  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 131979
    • View Profile
    • Cramul.us
btw, regarding the question in the OP

 - I believe the three most prolific discordians (Thornley, Hill, & Wilson) were libertarians, so the libertarian attitude is sown into the Principia and Illuminatus fabric. But I don't think that it's core enough that anti-libertarianism is anti-discordian. Discordianism is not an inherently political movement.

Hm, I rather disagree.

about which part?

navkat

  • WANKer
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 12966
    • View Profile
However, I think the RAW style of Libertarian and the current style are fairly different.


If we want to define "Libertarian" as being a position of "leave me the fuck alone, but help the disadvantaged," I think I could get behind that.

Of course, that doesn't answer the questions of roads, schools, mail, military, etc.


It's almost like there's a Godel's theorm of political philosophy.  Any system you choose is unable to solve all the problems inherent in social structure.

[edit: Rat is already answering some of this]

This is well put indeed.

navkat

  • WANKer
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 12966
    • View Profile
btw, regarding the question in the OP

 - I believe the three most prolific discordians (Thornley, Hill, & Wilson) were libertarians, so the libertarian attitude is sown into the Principia and Illuminatus fabric. But I don't think that it's core enough that anti-libertarianism is anti-discordian. Discordianism is not an inherently political movement.

Hm, I rather disagree.

about which part?

Yeah, "inherently" being the key word.