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

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Extreme Libertarianism is just retarded for all the reasons TGRR described.

Let's try this:

Extreme Communism is just retarded for all the reasons TGRR described.

They are essentially identical statements.  Neither system works, in whole or in part, because both require humans to act as something other than primates.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

All systems expect humans to behave differently than humans actually behave. None of them do a very good job. That's why I think the only sane choice is rational anarchism... personally removing yourself from the game rules of whatever idiotic non-functional system is in the works. That is, as long as the laws are not interfering with my life and lifestyle, I'll deal with them. Once they do interfere then I decide if the cost of breaking the law is worth the reward. It's TYFS writ large over top of any political affiliation. Sure, 90% of the monkeys are idiots and need the government to help them wipe, for fear that they'll fuck up and accidentally eat the toilet paper rather than using it to clean themselves. For those people, I hope the least harmful, most helpful government is installed. In fact, I will spend my vote to support whatever government seems the least authoritarian on the lives of the citizens. For now, that seems to be the Democrats (oddly enough). However, when that mommy/daddy government makes rules that get in my way, then its Katie Bar The Door because I'm not going to limit myself due to some fool in Washington and his lame ideas.

Its much like Cramulus' lovely Nopants parable. Bureaucracy is stopping for a red light in the middle of the night when no one is coming. However, if you're not careful, you'll run over a Discordian pushing a gong. The trick is that when it comes to breaking a law of the land, you must be cautious, you must examine the situation and then determine if you should proceed or not.  Arguing for a libertarian government or a progressive one or a conservative one, seems useless to me. The parties in power don't seem to understand their political philosophies, they don't seem adverse to corruption, gladhanding or cronyism and while some forms of government do appear to want to help people... the sheer morass of bureaucratic bullshit they are trapped in bring headache with every act.

I say back whatever political system seems most useful at the moment, because this moment is really all there is. It doesn't matter what the 'founding fathers' wanted... they didn't have the best grasp of reality and they certainly didn't plan for the US to be of the size and diversity that it is today. It doesn't matter what theoretical 'better' system might exist if only the politicians would do X... imaginary political parties are not on the ballot and the current political party may do something so stupid that there isn't a future ballot for the imaginary political party to be on.

Back the party that seems least bad, choose which laws you will and won't follow and live your life... its really the best we can hope for. 

[LMNO]

But then it looks like you need to break down what "least authoritarian" means... fiscally or socially?

The Dems want to control the financial aspect pretty firmly.
The Reps want to control your moral values pretty firmly.


y'know what I mean?

[navkat]

But then it looks like you need to break down what "least authoritarian" means... fiscally or socially?

The Dems want to control the financial aspect pretty firmly.
The Reps want to control your moral values pretty firmly.


y'know what I mean?

Aaaaand the problem with our two-party system of "checks and balances" is that the alternation between Republican and Democratic House domination is that we keep ratcheting up government control over BOTH in steps rather than preserving Liberty over either.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

But then it looks like you need to break down what "least authoritarian" means... fiscally or socially?

TYFS!

The Dems want to control the financial aspect pretty firmly.
The Reps want to control your moral values pretty firmly.


y'know what I mean?

So which do you find more compelling? Would you prefer to have a government that makes fiscal laws which you might have to break, or a government that makes moral laws which you may have to break? What do you think the government should have a say in, morals or money?

For me, personally, I think social and moral freedoms are far more important to society, than choosing your health coverage or paying higher taxes if you make $200,000 or more a year. So I voted Dem this past year. If, however, there was a sane conservative party, they wouldn't be pushing to control morals and I might vote that way.

[navkat]

But then it looks like you need to break down what "least authoritarian" means... fiscally or socially?

TYFS!

The Dems want to control the financial aspect pretty firmly.
The Reps want to control your moral values pretty firmly.


y'know what I mean?

So which do you find more compelling? Would you prefer to have a government that makes fiscal laws which you might have to break, or a government that makes moral laws which you may have to break? What do you think the government should have a say in, morals or money?

For me, personally, I think social and moral freedoms are far more important to society, than choosing your health coverage or paying higher taxes if you make $200,000 or more a year. So I voted Dem this past year. If, however, there was a sane conservative party, they wouldn't be pushing to control morals and I might vote that way.

I struggle with this. I too believe moral/social freedom is priority, but I don't see voting Dem as a solution to that. The liberal/Dem morality agenda is a secular one, but it is a form of moral control all the same.

[LMNO]

Wait... are you talking about hate crime laws, now?

[AFK]

But then it looks like you need to break down what "least authoritarian" means... fiscally or socially?

TYFS!

The Dems want to control the financial aspect pretty firmly.
The Reps want to control your moral values pretty firmly.


y'know what I mean?

So which do you find more compelling? Would you prefer to have a government that makes fiscal laws which you might have to break, or a government that makes moral laws which you may have to break? What do you think the government should have a say in, morals or money?

For me, personally, I think social and moral freedoms are far more important to society, than choosing your health coverage or paying higher taxes if you make $200,000 or more a year. So I voted Dem this past year. If, however, there was a sane conservative party, they wouldn't be pushing to control morals and I might vote that way.

I struggle with this. I too believe moral/social freedom is priority, but I don't see voting Dem as a solution to that. The liberal/Dem morality agenda is a secular one, but it is a form of moral control all the same.

How so?  Please elaborate. 

[navkat]

Wait... are you talking about hate crime laws, now?

No, not directly, but I suppose that fits into what I'm saying. I'm talking about the moral-based prioritization. The Democrats might be defending my freedom from religious ideals, but they're still the driving force behind forced social morality:
ex: 1. We must provide medical, housing etc to the poor, even if we have to take the money from rich people because that's what's righteous.
2. It doesn't matter if the Global Warming issue isn't conclusive; we need to restrict people's pollution/footprint because it's the Right Thing To Do/just in case--whether GWing is true or not.

I want to say here that many of these things make pretty good sense to me, but the fact that one agrees with them is of no consequence when determining whether or not they are values-based initiatives.

[LMNO]

What the fuck?

[navkat]

What the fuck?

I beg pardon?

How is what I said coming across to you? I hope I explained that well...

[navkat]

I mean, was it confusing, or just outrageous somehow?

[LMNO]

Well, for one thing, if you extrapolate from that, it sounds like you think the 13th amendment was a bad idea.

[navkat]

Absolutely not.

Quite the contrary: I think moral agenda is a constant, intrinsic part of good government but it's there all the same. It's inescapable, so the only option is to think for one's self.

Yes, I realize this blows a lot of libertarian beliefs out of the water. I never said I wouldn't contradict myself.

[AFK]

Wait... are you talking about hate crime laws, now?

No, not directly, but I suppose that fits into what I'm saying. I'm talking about the moral-based prioritization. The Democrats might be defending my freedom from religious ideals, but they're still the driving force behind forced social morality:
ex: 1. We must provide medical, housing etc to the poor, even if we have to take the money from rich people because that's what's righteous.
2. It doesn't matter if the Global Warming issue isn't conclusive; we need to restrict people's pollution/footprint because it's the Right Thing To Do/just in case--whether GWing is true or not.
I want to say here that many of these things make pretty good sense to me, but the fact that one agrees with them is of no consequence when determining whether or not they are values-based initiatives.

It seems to be that both of these are for more based in the sciences (social and earth) than they are based in any kind of religion.  Sure, it may be that, in the end, one's religion says it is good to take care of people and the environment.  But, it is also that social science tells us a society with well-fed, healthy, and housed citizens is a healthier society.