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

[Cain]

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.

Except no-one will.  Especially when its a philosophy which is diametrically opposed to how human's actually behave ie non-rationally.  Libertarianism falls apart once you remove the assumption of rationality and, as I keep on saying, humans are not rational.  In fact, the entire conception of laisse-faire economics falls apart when you realize this, but sssshhh, don't tell the economists.  They'd have to start all over again with their voodoo science, if they accepted this.

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.

They also might have noticed the absolutist, intolerant strains within Libertarian thought.  Ayn Rand cultists would put off anyone with a working brain, and while they're at the deep end of the spectrum, there are plenty of others who are on a similar band of suckitude.

As an aside to Cram, this is true, but Thornley considered himself a libertarian communist (ie one step off from an anarchist, left-libertarian) and RAW disagreed strongly with Rothbardian and Randian Libertarianism, the two major schools of thought.

[navkat]

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.

Agreed. But LMNO answered this pretty well.

[Jenne]

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?

I think when you said "political" you meant the specifics of who's in office, etc., correct?  When I say "political," I mean something more along the lines of what LMNO responded to you.

[Jenne]

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.

Agreed. But LMNO answered this pretty well.

Yes, I have a lagtime, sorry, working while posting...it has its disadvantages.

[Jenne]

about which part?

Yeah, "inherently" being the key word.

That, too...good point.

[navkat]

I feel a little less lonely all of the sudden, BTW.

[Jenne]

I feel a little less lonely all of the sudden, BTW.

Heh, I sorta knew you would.  This place has like-minded and very non-like-minded people in it.  But most are THINKERS.  And that's what you need to feel less lonely, imho.

[Cain]

Science, incidentally, not only ignores the question of indwelling 'essences' by looking instead at measurable relationships, but science also does not agree that knowledge is obtained through Rothbard's Medieval 'investigation by a reason,' i.e., by inventing definitions and then deducing what your definitions implicitly assumed.
Robert Anton Wilson, Natural Law

... I have developed, over the years, some sense of the difference between real horseshit that you can step in and Ideal Platonic Horseshit that exists, evidently, only in the contemplation of those who worship such abstractions; and I continue to notice that Natural Law bears an uncanny resemblance to ideal Platonic Horseshit.
Robert Anton Wilson, "Natural Law"

Thats Rothbard and Nozick pwned.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

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]

100% TROOF

It seems to me that a lot of the arguments are silly.

Roads - Interstates are primarily for two things. First eash of movement across the country in cases of national emergency or a need to move serious millitary muscle across country quickly. Second, Interstate commerce. Both are areas that general libertarian philosophy place in the feds hands. State roads fill two major needs, moving State resources around in case of emergency and to support statewide commerce. Again, an area that general libertarian philosophy says is OK for the State.

The military, is an interesting quandry. On one side, thanks to the Millitary Industrial Complex, its a near fucking requirement to have a standing army all the time. On the other, if there wasn't a standing army all the time, we wouldn't have army bases in Saudi Arabia, we wouldn't have guys 'containing' Saddam, we wouldn't have a presence that pisses off large chunks of the planet.

IMO, running civilians through defense/survival/militia training would be awesome. If that were the case, I think incidents like NOLA would have turned out very differently. It's fine to hope for assistance from the Feds or State governments, but when disaster strikes you... the only person you know will be there for sure, is you. If you cannot save your own ass, everything else is a crap shoot.

Mail, I think could be handled by private services... I dunno about where you live but our mail service is nearly unusable here. We don't leave outgoing mail in the mailbox anymore, because the mail man doesn't pick it up unless he happens to have something to drop off. He's left the box open during storms and ruined all the mail at least 5 times in the past year, and we regularly get mail for people that live nowhere near us.

I think your broader point is the right one, no single political philosophy works. Our best hope is some sort of conglomeration that gets people 'most' of what they want.

Except no-one will.  Especially when its a philosophy which is diametrically opposed to how human's actually behave ie non-rationally.  Libertarianism falls apart once you remove the assumption of rationality and, as I keep on saying, humans are not rational.  In fact, the entire conception of laisse-faire economics falls apart when you realize this, but sssshhh, don't tell the economists.  They'd have to start all over again with their voodoo science, if they accepted this.

I have yet to see a philosophy that is actually based on how humans really behave

[Cain]

Now, the Libertarian Party, is a *capitalist* party. It's in favor of what *I* would regard a *particular form* of authoritarian control. Namely, the kind that comes through private ownership and control, which is an *extremely* rigid system of domination -- people have to... people can survive, by renting themselves to it, and basically in no other way... I do disagree with them *very* sharply, and I think that they are not..understanding the *fundamental* doctrine, that you should be free from domination and control, including the control of the manager and the owner.
Noam Chomsky

There isn't much point arguing about the word "libertarian." It would make about as much sense to argue with an unreconstructed Stalinist about the word "democracy" -- recall that they called what they'd constructed "peoples' democracies." The weird offshoot of ultra-right individualist anarchism that is called "libertarian" here happens to amount to advocacy of perhaps the worst kind of imaginable tyranny, namely unaccountable private tyranny. If they want to call that "libertarian," fine; after all, Stalin called his system "democratic." But why bother arguing about it?
Noam Chomsky

Anarcho-capitalists are against the State simply because they are capitalists first and foremost. Their critique of the State ultimately rests on a liberal interpretation of liberty as the inviolable rights to and of private property. They are not concerned with the social consequences of capitalism for the weak, powerless and ignorant. Their claim that all would benefit from a free exchange in the market is by no means certain; any unfettered market system would most likely sponsor a reversion to an unequal society with defense associations perpetuating exploitation and privilege. If anything, anarcho-capitalism is merely a free-for-all in which only the rich and cunning would benefit. It is tailor-made for 'rugged individualists' who do not care about the damage to others or to the environment which they leave in their wake. The forces of the market cannot provide genuine conditions for freedom any more than the powers of the State. The victims of both are equally enslaved, alienated and oppressed.
Peter Marshall, Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism

[Cain]

I have yet to see a philosophy that is actually based on how humans really behave

True, but some are more inaccurate than others. 

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

This whole discussion is why I really loved the "Non-Euclidian Politics" class that RAW taught before he died. It was the most sane look at politics I had seen up to that point. Indeed, RAW's 'libertarian' views that he promoted in that class were based far more on anarchistic philosophy than classical libertarianism. Particularly Proudhon, Lysander Spooner, Benjamin Tucker etc which espouse a view of anarcho-socialism, mutualism or something more along those lines.

Indeed, I think his main thrust was to examine how politics might work if 'force' was simply not an option for the powers that be. RAW put a lot of focus on the idea that open and clear communication between citizens and politicans, and between higherups and lowerdowns within goverment is necessary for any government to succeed. However, for any real communication to work, it must be between equals. Otherwise, the powerless will simply tell the powerful what they want to hear.

In short, he seemed to feel that the idea that a government has some right to force an individual to do something that they don't want to do is absurd. If its not ok for one man to tell another what to do by force, its not ok for 1000 men to tell another what to do by force.

[Cain]

It would be very short lived, since every single political system relies on some form of coercion, whether it reifies it by claiming the market did it, or by state back-goons.  Structural violence is part of every system, especially the ones that claim its not.

[LMNO]

Rat, that doesn't seem to answer the problem of individual selfishness and greed.

[Jenne]

The "you can't tell someone what to do" thing seems ridiculously unrealistic, though.  If the individual in question wants to rape babies and steal from the old...do you just let them?  I think not.  If no one tells anyone what to do for the perfect world, then the people inhabiting it need to be fucking perfect themselves.

We all know that just isn't going to happen.