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

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

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.

Do you consider species survival a "value"?

[LMNO]

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.

But with such a sweeping definition of "moral agenda", any system you choose will have one.

Do you consider species survival a "value"?

Also, this.

[navkat]

Hell; libertarianism itself is a moral agenda! It says: "I don't give a shit about what you think is fair, I'm telling you what is inalienably righteous is more important and we should make government decisions based on that universal morality rather than this, that or the other one."

[LMNO]

Hold up.  You consider saying, "Option A is better than option B" to be a morally righteous position?

[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.

But with such a sweeping definition of "moral agenda", any system you choose will have one.

Do you consider species survival a "value"?

Also, this.

Hah! you beat me to it!

Exactly. So I just do the best job I can thinking in terms against moral-based oppression of any sort while trying to find a perfect balance that factors in "Yeah, but these people shouldn't get anally raped in the free-stampede of Liberty either."

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I get what you're saying navkat. Social morality vs Personal morality is the key differentiation here. For me, personal morality is more important to be completely private, whereas Social morality has to be decided at a social level. The federal government may not be the best place for most of the decisions about social morality, because they represent 51% + of the people in the social environment. A bit over half is not a good way to govern. I think, IF the states were responsible, they would be working most of these issues so that the Feds wouldn't have to. If every state adopted their own rules about emissions etc then we might not need the feds to poke at things.

I don't know if Global Warming is True, true in some sense, correlated data with confirmation bias or a secret plot to take over the world. I do know that its enough of an issue that many citizens expect "someone to do something". Sadly, the someone (in most cases) isn't them, and the something (in many cases) better not inconvenience them. So the feds step in and make random rules which get applied unevenly and smart companies find loopholes and life continues on.

However, IF I have to decide between a government that tries to impose social morality (what is right for us as a society?) and personal morality (what is right for you as a person), I'll probably accept outside influence in the social morality rather than the personal one. Even though, for me personally, none of the 'personal morality' issues really apply, while based on my income, I get hit harder by the social values.

I still choose to support freedom for the individual. For me that is what's paramount.

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

I disagree. Civil rights are individual rights, the thirteenth amendment simply confirms that All People should be treated equally. That's a basic tenant of the Constitution, which was expanded as humans figured out that vagina and skin color don't make you somehow not 'equal'.

That's a big difference from demanding that companies produces Cars like X or control emissions to standard Y.

Personally, I don't consider companies and corporations to be individuals and therefore 'Freedom' for corporations is not a constitutional right.

Do you consider species survival a "value"?

Our species will likely survive Global Warming... our social structure may not... but the humans likely will (or at least some of them).  

[navkat]

Hold up.  You consider saying, "Option A is better than option B" to be a morally righteous position?

Er...no.

Well it depends on what you plug into option a or b.

What I'm saying is: for the MOST part, I consider Liberty the absolute zero point: running around like apes, doing whatever we want, taking, eating, fucking whatever we want.

"It's wrong to rape people" is morality.
"You can't just kill people or steal" is morality.

I don't want absolute zero. Nobody does. I'm saying that as a "libertarian," I'm not so daft or stubborn that I would exclude morality from the situation altogether, just that I realize it's there and try not to be suaded by just THAT. Nor do I truly fault anyone from injecting theirs into the situation, you follow?

[navkat]

I get what you're saying navkat. Social morality vs Personal morality is the key differentiation here. For me, personal morality is more important to be completely private, whereas Social morality has to be decided at a social level. The federal government may not be the best place for most of the decisions about social morality, because they represent 51% + of the people in the social environment. A bit over half is not a good way to govern. I think, IF the states were responsible, they would be working most of these issues so that the Feds wouldn't have to. If every state adopted their own rules about emissions etc then we might not need the feds to poke at things.

I don't know if Global Warming is True, true in some sense, correlated data with confirmation bias or a secret plot to take over the world. I do know that its enough of an issue that many citizens expect "someone to do something". Sadly, the someone (in most cases) isn't them, and the something (in many cases) better not inconvenience them. So the feds step in and make random rules which get applied unevenly and smart companies find loopholes and life continues on.

However, IF I have to decide between a government that tries to impose social morality (what is right for us as a society?) and personal morality (what is right for you as a person), I'll probably accept outside influence in the social morality rather than the personal one. Even though, for me personally, none of the 'personal morality' issues really apply, while based on my income, I get hit harder by the social values.

I still choose to support freedom for the individual. For me that is what's paramount.

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

I disagree. Civil rights are individual rights, the thirteenth amendment simply confirms that All People should be treated equally. That's a basic tenant of the Constitution, which was expanded as humans figured out that vagina and skin color don't make you somehow not 'equal'.

That's a big difference from demanding that companies produces Cars like X or control emissions to standard Y.

Personally, I don't consider companies and corporations to be individuals and therefore 'Freedom' for corporations is not a constitutional right.

Do you consider species survival a "value"?

Our species will likely survive Global Warming... our social structure may not... but the humans likely will (or at least some of them).  

Thank you!

I didn't really know if I was coming across. I couldn't think of how to articulate myself.

[LMNO]

the thirteenth amendment simply confirms that All People should be treated equally.

But that's a morals-based value!

[LMNO]

Hold up.  You consider saying, "Option A is better than option B" to be a morally righteous position?

Er...no.

Well it depends on what you plug into option a or b.

What I'm saying is: for the MOST part, I consider Liberty the absolute zero point: running around like apes, doing whatever we want, taking, eating, fucking whatever we want.

"It's wrong to rape people" is morality.
"You can't just kill people or steal" is morality.

I don't want absolute zero. Nobody does. I'm saying that as a "libertarian," I'm not so daft or stubborn that I would exclude morality from the situation altogether, just that I realize it's there and try not to be suaded by just THAT. Nor do I truly fault anyone from injecting theirs into the situation, you follow?

So, you don't mind moral values, you just want the right ones.  As according to...

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

the thirteenth amendment simply confirms that All People should be treated equally.

But that's a morals-based value!

Its a value based on the social contract in place. I don't think either Nav or I are arguing for complete anarchy. Thus there must be a social contract. The social contract says "All men are created equal" the 13th amendment simply confirms that All men = All people.

Now, that all of us are bound to a social contract that none of us, nor our parents, nor our grandparents etc agreed to... well thats beside the current points being discussed

[navkat]

Hold up.  You consider saying, "Option A is better than option B" to be a morally righteous position?

Er...no.

Well it depends on what you plug into option a or b.

What I'm saying is: for the MOST part, I consider Liberty the absolute zero point: running around like apes, doing whatever we want, taking, eating, fucking whatever we want.

"It's wrong to rape people" is morality.
"You can't just kill people or steal" is morality.

I don't want absolute zero. Nobody does. I'm saying that as a "libertarian," I'm not so daft or stubborn that I would exclude morality from the situation altogether, just that I realize it's there and try not to be suaded by just THAT. Nor do I truly fault anyone from injecting theirs into the situation, you follow?

So, you don't mind moral values, you just want the right ones.  As according to...

I want as few as possible without being the cause of a whole lot of people getting seriously ass-raped because of indecision/inaction.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Hold up.  You consider saying, "Option A is better than option B" to be a morally righteous position?

Er...no.

Well it depends on what you plug into option a or b.

What I'm saying is: for the MOST part, I consider Liberty the absolute zero point: running around like apes, doing whatever we want, taking, eating, fucking whatever we want.

"It's wrong to rape people" is morality.
"You can't just kill people or steal" is morality.

I don't want absolute zero. Nobody does. I'm saying that as a "libertarian," I'm not so daft or stubborn that I would exclude morality from the situation altogether, just that I realize it's there and try not to be suaded by just THAT. Nor do I truly fault anyone from injecting theirs into the situation, you follow?

So, you don't mind moral values, you just want the right ones.  As according to...

I think its an issue of as few moral rules as necessary... rather than the ones I like. Also, there is a key difference, as I said, between personal and social morals.

[LMNO]

So, our social contract also says, "promote the general welfare".

I'm pretty sure the majority of politicians from both sides of the aisle would attest this to be their goal when they write new laws.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Hold up.  You consider saying, "Option A is better than option B" to be a morally righteous position?

Er...no.

Well it depends on what you plug into option a or b.

What I'm saying is: for the MOST part, I consider Liberty the absolute zero point: running around like apes, doing whatever we want, taking, eating, fucking whatever we want.

"It's wrong to rape people" is morality.
"You can't just kill people or steal" is morality.

I don't want absolute zero. Nobody does. I'm saying that as a "libertarian," I'm not so daft or stubborn that I would exclude morality from the situation altogether, just that I realize it's there and try not to be suaded by just THAT. Nor do I truly fault anyone from injecting theirs into the situation, you follow?

So, you don't mind moral values, you just want the right ones.  As according to...

I want as few as possible without being the cause of a whole lot of people getting seriously ass-raped because of indecision/inaction.

How much income tax did you pay last year?  In absolute dollars?