Is it just me or is distaste for Libertarianism contradictory to discordianism?

[navkat]

30 pages and almost four years, and nobody's answered the original question yet!

"Yes. It is just you."

EOT

No, I think it isn't...unless you're spelling libertarianism with a capital "L."

I don't think it's the concept of prioritizing liberty within a social structure that sticks in people's craw, it's the brand.

No, I don't think it's just that, either. I think we've been able to set aside the branded concept quite a bit but there's a valid concern about prioritizing individual liberty to the point where nobody gives a shit about anyone but themselves and everyone relies on the existence of some lofty, charitable "safety net" to clean up the messes.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

30 pages and almost four years, and nobody's answered the original question yet!

"Yes. It is just you."

EOT

No, I think it isn't...unless you're spelling libertarianism with a capital "L."

I don't think it's the concept of prioritizing liberty within a social structure that sticks in people's craw, it's the brand.

No, I don't think it's just that, either. I think we've been able to set aside the branded concept quite a bit but there's a valid concern about prioritizing individual liberty to the point where nobody gives a shit about anyone but themselves and everyone relies on the existence of some lofty, charitable "safety net" to clean up the messes.

Actually, it's not the brand, and it's not laziness.  It's a combination of three things:

1.  Libertarians of almost every variety are shrill.  People don't listen, because the delivery is extremely unpleasant.

2.  The fucking REALITY of Libertarianism AS PRACTICED has been, well, TEABAGGER.

3.  The question was about Discordia, not the general public, you may recall.  We're not required to be joiners.

[tyrannosaurus vex]

30 pages and almost four years, and nobody's answered the original question yet!

"Yes. It is just you."

EOT

No, I think it isn't...unless you're spelling libertarianism with a capital "L."

I don't think it's the concept of prioritizing liberty within a social structure that sticks in people's craw, it's the brand.

No, I don't think it's just that, either. I think we've been able to set aside the branded concept quite a bit but there's a valid concern about prioritizing individual liberty to the point where nobody gives a shit about anyone but themselves and everyone relies on the existence of some lofty, charitable "safety net" to clean up the messes.

Me being a douchebag for the sake of being a douchebag: I notice "Liberarianism" is capitalized in the title, but "discordianism" isn't.

Seriously though, I think if you're going to throw away the moniker of "libertarianism," then you're not really angling for libertarianism, you're angling for an increased emphasis on respect for personal liberty. That's commendable, but it isn't something that can be solved by implementing a new system. All systems encroach to whatever degree people will allow them to encroach (that's the nature of these systems); the inconvenient part is that how much you allow the system to encroach has less to do with how much you want it to encroach, and more to do with how motivated you are to actually stand up against it. And the more satisfied you are with your liberties, the less likely you are to stand up against a system you don't perceive as threatening you too much.

The problem with America was that, for a long time, it was too successful, at least for the groups of people privileged enough to have any power over the system. The American system does buckle fairly easily when it's confronted with people determined to change it, though, which we have seen throughout the 20th Century. But the bottom line is that if the system moves aside so you can do what you want for the most part, then you will go about your business and ignore where it is oppressing someone else, until that oppressed person or people speak up loudly enough for you to notice. That's just the way society works. And it isn't just America that works that way, it's every society.

My only point here is that "Freedom" is not something that can be instituted from the top down. It isn't a policy that can be passed, or the act of removing policy. It wasn't just pretty words when they said no government can grant or deny rights. It's the truth. Your rights are what you take; you can't stop the government from standing in the way: that's diametrically opposed to the nature of government. You have the right to do whatever you can get away with. If enough people decide to get away with something despite the consequences, then the government will back off. But it has to start with people choosing to be free to do something regardless of whether they're "supposed" to do it or not. They can't be made free as a result of public policy.

[navkat]

30 pages and almost four years, and nobody's answered the original question yet!

"Yes. It is just you."

EOT

No, I think it isn't...unless you're spelling libertarianism with a capital "L."

I don't think it's the concept of prioritizing liberty within a social structure that sticks in people's craw, it's the brand.

No, I don't think it's just that, either. I think we've been able to set aside the branded concept quite a bit but there's a valid concern about prioritizing individual liberty to the point where nobody gives a shit about anyone but themselves and everyone relies on the existence of some lofty, charitable "safety net" to clean up the messes.

Me being a douchebag for the sake of being a douchebag: I notice "Liberarianism" is capitalized in the title, but "discordianism" isn't.

Seriously though, I think if you're going to throw away the moniker of "libertarianism," then you're not really angling for libertarianism, you're angling for an increased emphasis on respect for personal liberty. That's commendable, but it isn't something that can be solved by implementing a new system. All systems encroach to whatever degree people will allow them to encroach (that's the nature of these systems); the inconvenient part is that how much you allow the system to encroach has less to do with how much you want it to encroach, and more to do with how motivated you are to actually stand up against it. And the more satisfied you are with your liberties, the less likely you are to stand up against a system you don't perceive as threatening you too much.

The problem with America was that, for a long time, it was too successful, at least for the groups of people privileged enough to have any power over the system. The American system does buckle fairly easily when it's confronted with people determined to change it, though, which we have seen throughout the 20th Century. But the bottom line is that if the system moves aside so you can do what you want for the most part, then you will go about your business and ignore where it is oppressing someone else, until that oppressed person or people speak up loudly enough for you to notice. That's just the way society works. And it isn't just America that works that way, it's every society.

My only point here is that "Freedom" is not something that can be instituted from the top down. It isn't a policy that can be passed, or the act of removing policy. It wasn't just pretty words when they said no government can grant or deny rights. It's the truth. Your rights are what you take; you can't stop the government from standing in the way: that's diametrically opposed to the nature of government. You have the right to do whatever you can get away with. If enough people decide to get away with something despite the consequences, then the government will back off. But it has to start with people choosing to be free to do something regardless of whether they're "supposed" to do it or not. They can't be made free as a result of public policy.

Fucking right on.

[navkat]

The more I read it, the more yes.

[Elder Iptuous]

Seriously though, I think if you're going to throw away the moniker of "libertarianism," then you're not really angling for libertarianism, you're angling for an increased emphasis on respect for personal liberty. That's commendable, but it isn't something that can be solved by implementing a new system. All systems encroach to whatever degree people will allow them to encroach (that's the nature of these systems); the inconvenient part is that how much you allow the system to encroach has less to do with how much you want it to encroach, and more to do with how motivated you are to actually stand up against it. And the more satisfied you are with your liberties, the less likely you are to stand up against a system you don't perceive as threatening you too much.

The problem with America was that, for a long time, it was too successful, at least for the groups of people privileged enough to have any power over the system. The American system does buckle fairly easily when it's confronted with people determined to change it, though, which we have seen throughout the 20th Century. But the bottom line is that if the system moves aside so you can do what you want for the most part, then you will go about your business and ignore where it is oppressing someone else, until that oppressed person or people speak up loudly enough for you to notice. That's just the way society works. And it isn't just America that works that way, it's every society.

My only point here is that "Freedom" is not something that can be instituted from the top down. It isn't a policy that can be passed, or the act of removing policy. It wasn't just pretty words when they said no government can grant or deny rights. It's the truth. Your rights are what you take; you can't stop the government from standing in the way: that's diametrically opposed to the nature of government. You have the right to do whatever you can get away with. If enough people decide to get away with something despite the consequences, then the government will back off. But it has to start with people choosing to be free to do something regardless of whether they're "supposed" to do it or not. They can't be made free as a result of public policy.

that was really well put, man.

[navkat]

RIGHT? I fucking love that so much.

[Ben Shapiro]

Libertarians are just Republicans who want to smoke pot.

Libertarianism is anarchy for the rich, or anarchist that finally grew up.

Objectivism is satanism for the rich.

The closest thing that doesn't let people die, and starve, and leaves people the fuck alone is some sort of Progressive Libertarianism. I cling to Trans-Humanism more since it let's people born with defects have a fighting chance at life.

I make fun of the Right alot more than the left since it's easier, and they tend to get butthurt more. I draw the line of tolerance when the left tries to convince me gray faces, and political correctness is mandatory for a safer America. Lately I've been trolling feminists who actually think a Matriarchy is better than a Patriarchy, and also think women who actually enjoy hardcore,kinky sex, or make-up are spoon fed retarded.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Libertarians are just Republicans who want to smoke pot.

Libertarianism is anarchy for the rich, or anarchist that finally grew up.

Objectivism is satanism for the rich.

The closest thing that doesn't let people die, and starve, and leaves people the fuck alone is some sort of Progressive Libertarianism. I cling to Trans-Humanism more since it let's people born with defects have a fighting chance at life.

I make fun of the Right alot more than the left since it's easier, and they tend to get butthurt more. I draw the line of tolerance when the left tries to convince me gray faces, and political correctness is mandatory for safer America. Lately I've been trolling feminists who actually think a Matriarchy is better than a Patriarchy, and also think women who actually enjoy hardcore,kinky sex, or make-up are spoon fed retarded.

Any TRUE BELIEVERS do the trick for me.  I am not at all choosy, one fanatic = another.  They're FUNNY, because they're fanatics.

[Ben Shapiro]

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]

Classical Liberalism is pretty much the Libertarianism you are looking for LMNO. I refuse to call myself a liberal in AMERICA since that ideology is dead.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

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]

Classical Liberalism is pretty much the Libertarianism you are looking for LMNO. I refuse to call myself a liberal in AMERICA since that ideology is dead.

I call myself an asshat.  Everyone immediately assumes I'm on the other side.

[Ben Shapiro]

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.

This is the liberal/libertarianism ideology I've been trying to connect people with. I'm trying to read more and more on to the origins more.

[Ben Shapiro]

So, abolish all medical insurance, then?

And when someone's grandmother gets bone cancer and can't afford treatment, they die, yes?

Well, she's gonna die anyway at some point. Likely she won't have a very good time with the chemo and will waste away slowly while paying for the Doctor's kids to go to college and watching her family struggle to deal with their lives and her constant needs.

Personally, I'm all for optional government sponsored health care... as long as it doesn't come with mandates about what legal activites one can and cannot be involved in (smoking, fornication, gluttony etc). Educate people as to the dangers, sure... make any demands, hell no.

I've been wanting to see some sort of optional healthcare plan you can pay into, and also let people buy insurance across the state lines. I prefer a state/local healthcare plan versus a national to eliminate worthless red tape. I expect every $1 I give to give me back .80 cents, but not .25 cents compared to a national level in theory.

[Ben Shapiro]

Also back to the OP question. You're butt-hurt learn to take criticism or keep crying.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

The small 'l' libertarianism that most people talk about seems to be Classic Liberalism (as /b/earman said). Maximum freedum, minimal govermnment interference, civil liberties etc etc. Modern social liberalism drops minimal government and replaces it with a socially responsible government, while neo-classical liberalism gets labeled as Libertarianism and generally involves someone eating Ayn Rand with a little ketcup.

In my Discordia (as opposed to the Discordia for all you other spags) I once thought libertarianism was a good idea, then classic liberalism... but thats evolved as well.

Government is, in any form the imposition of order by monkeys and therefore doomed to be a mess. Real freedom only exists in personal life and personal choices. No government gives you freedoms, they simply con you into focusing on the freedoms that they don't take away from you. Oh sure, some governments may have an advantage or two over some others, but its all relative and its all absurd.