ATTN, Von Zwietracht & other libertariantards

[The Good Reverend Roger]

The biggest question I have for libertarians is, given the whole ME ME ME thing inherent in libertarianism, is what kind of world do you think you're asking for?

[von]

The biggest question I have for libertarians is, given the whole ME ME ME thing inherent in libertarianism, is what kind of world do you think you're asking for?

>implying I'm a libertarian

Please, isn't it obvious that I'm a fascist uber alle andere ideologies.

Seriously put, though, even my dumb ass can find the flaws with libertarianism -- for example, I'll blaisely admit that it's an ideology that would only work in pre-industrial society, would never work with our current population level, and it totally would suck if libertarianism actually "won the day".

To directly answer your question, though, it would be a world like in the Alien films: Weyland-Utani ruling over the ant-like workers propelling "the investors" to even higher profits...except there would be no space travel, no epic encounters with parasitic aliens, and the earth would dry up of all resources within decades.


As I really see politics:

We live in a world of extremes. You have hard left, hard right, hard center (wait, wut?), etc. NONE of these positions would lead to an ideal society as far as I can see. The libertarians would have us under the materialistic yoke of the corporate overlards, and the socialists would have us under the financial yoke of the government. Neither of these particularly appeals to me, so every 4-8 years, I switch sides entirely in order to ensure that neither of these demons "wins the day" --

In short, although today I play libertarian, when the republican I inevitably vote for finally wins, I'll be reading marx and calling for his blood and citing fallacious arguments about value theory of labour, entitlement and privelege and all sorts of things that today-me finds abhorrant.

tl;dr I'm really a hard-line contrarian....

[I_Kicked_Kennedy]

The key thing to take away is:

In short, although today I play libertarian, when the republican I inevitably vote for finally wins, I'll be reading marx and calling for his blood and citing fallacious arguments about value theory of labour, entitlement and privelege and all sorts of things that today-me finds abhorrant.

tl;dr I'm really a hard-line contrarian....

Which makes you just as brainless as those who mindlessly bow down to whatever letter they think looks best next to politicians' names.

The other thing I must point out that there is a BIG difference between what Libertarianism actually is, and what people who call themselves Libertarians are.

What Libertarianism actually is:
It is where personal liberty is held as the ideal, but differing from anarchy in that personal liberty must also be preserved with a small state existing only to protect the populous from foreign aggression, collective dissent against personal liberty, and people breaking agreed upon contracts. Corporations would not be allowed because a) They are, supposedly, a form of a libertarian offshoot called "Libertarian Socialism" that is a bastardization of the name (to ask a Libertarian), and b) because the ownership of property is shared and collectivized

People who call themselves Libertarians are:
Petty children who want the state to be a cool big brother that will give them roads, an impressive infrastructure, and educated workforce, and protection from foreign and domestic threats, and help them sue another guy for free.

Bonus fun fact: Mussolini referred to Fascism as "Corporatism."

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Thing is, you can't control The Machine, and being contrarian is just another way of letting The Machine dictate your behavior.  Even if you oppose it at every turn, you're still using it as the basis for your behavior.  I've found that letting my principles guide me regardless of what society says or who is "in charge" tends to let me sleep at night.

I'm more or less a rigid moralist in some regards, though not the same way a Baptist or a Catholic would understand the term.

[I_Kicked_Kennedy]

I'm more or less a rigid moralist in some regards, though not the same way a Baptist or a Catholic would understand the term.

From the years I've been reading your stuff, I don't know if "moralist" is the word I would use. I agree that, denotatively, you could be considered such, but the connotative meaning of the word could make some folks balk at the idea.

If I had to settle on philosophical term to describe you, it would be a quality somewhere between Consequentialism and Absurdism (in the French tradition, not Kierkegaard). Maybe something closer to Two-Level Utilitarianism.

Am I in the ballpark?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I'm more or less a rigid moralist in some regards, though not the same way a Baptist or a Catholic would understand the term.

From the years I've been reading your stuff, I don't know if "moralist" is the word I would use. I agree that, denotatively, you could be considered such, but the connotative meaning of the word could make some folks balk at the idea.

Fuck 'em.  The word is accurate for what I am, no matter how they misuse it.

If I had to settle on philosophical term to describe you, it would be a quality somewhere between Consequentialism and Absurdism (in the French tradition, not Kierkegaard). Maybe something closer to Two-Level Utilitarianism.

Am I in the ballpark?

I prefer "asshat".

[von]

Politics make my head hurt when shown in this light...unfortunately, im at work now, and posting from a phone is too rigid for expressing what needs to be said quickly enough.

Ill be back in the east coasts morning...

[von]

Thing is, you can't control The Machine, and being contrarian is just another way of letting The Machine dictate your behavior.  Even if you oppose it at every turn, you're still using it as the basis for your behavior.  I've found that letting my principles guide me regardless of what society says or who is "in charge" tends to let me sleep at night.

I'm more or less a rigid moralist in some regards, though not the same way a Baptist or a Catholic would understand the term.

This has taken some time to think about...

Regardless, if the machine is unwavering, then what is the point of concerning yourself with my ideological underpinnings? Although I may switch who's idea-book I take information from depending on the state of the machine, my complete lack of genuine conviction in whatever I'm arguing about reamains constant.

Sure, ill dig in, ill yell, ill try to beat peoples opinions down with full furor--but that's just the game of arguing for the sake of arguing. Its fun, it gives one a reason to commit research, but in the end, its only a game -- assuming the machine is so unchanging as you present.

You describe yourself as being a moralist; that you stick to your predetermined set of ideals and it makes you feel good to do so. I'm much more of a cynic in this regard. I see flaws in almost every ideolgy; this has led me to believe that nothing is "correct" in a meaningful way, thus it helps me to sleep at night knowing that I dont honestly hold fast to anything lest it be rendered incorrect by morning.

[Cain]

Mussolini referred to Fascism as "Corporatism."

Yes, he did, but he didn't mean it in the sense of "corporations holding political power".  He meant it in the older sense of the word, which essentially means interest groups who rule through negotiation with and agreements with political authority, as opposed to power resting in the hands of the population at large.  Thus under corporatism, while business owners would form part of the ruling class, so would other interest groups, like the military and the church.

It's not so much an ideology as a reactionary method of maintaining the status quo and the privileges of existing power brokers.  The role of the state then becomes playing these interests off against each other for the benefit of the core leadership of the ruling party.  Hitler was very effective at this, because he promoted social darwinism at every level of the state, and frequently replicated state functions with party ones, meaning you had at least two power brokers for each domain of the state.  So, for example, the RHSA and the Gestapo/Abwehr, or the Waffen SS and the Reichswehr. 

[Faust]

I think I should be entitled to eat libertarians without the interference of the state.

[von]

I think I should be entitled to eat libertarians without the interference of the state.

I'll see if I can find you a dealer of prime long-pig...straight off the freemarket of course!

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Thing is, you can't control The Machine, and being contrarian is just another way of letting The Machine dictate your behavior.  Even if you oppose it at every turn, you're still using it as the basis for your behavior.  I've found that letting my principles guide me regardless of what society says or who is "in charge" tends to let me sleep at night.

I'm more or less a rigid moralist in some regards, though not the same way a Baptist or a Catholic would understand the term.

This has taken some time to think about...

Regardless, if the machine is unwavering, then what is the point of concerning yourself with my ideological underpinnings?

Curiousity.

You describe yourself as being a moralist; that you stick to your predetermined set of ideals and it makes you feel good to do so.

What ideals?  I said principles.  Two different things.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I used to roll with the idea of Libertarianism as the least awful form of government, these days I've decided they're all equally crappy in one way or another. A non-crappy government would be one thata focused on maximum personal freedom and on providing a support structure for citizens that needed assistance. Sadly, I doubt something like thata would ever be implemented usefully in the US.

However, I have found a glimmer of hope. Some Psychologists/Psychiatrist claim that through their studies they find that most people are Good but passive, rather than Evil, Selfish etc. Additionally, through the study of 'social networks' (not Facebook, the actual human social network) an individuals behavior influences the behavior of their friends, their friends friends and their friends friends friends (3 degrees of influence). If we behave in a Good-Active way, it influences 3 degrees of the social network to behave in a more Good-Active way. So while there may never be a government that is actively good, if these theories and observations are correct, humans could influence each other so that society becomes more actively good.

Hell, its better than voting for the psychopaths at the top and hoping they fix something, or ranting about obviously failed political belief systems.

ETA: There an interesting documentary on the topic: http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/i-am-fishead-are-corporate-leaders-psychopaths/

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Thing is, you can't control The Machine, and being contrarian is just another way of letting The Machine dictate your behavior.  Even if you oppose it at every turn, you're still using it as the basis for your behavior.  I've found that letting my principles guide me regardless of what society says or who is "in charge" tends to let me sleep at night.

I'm more or less a rigid moralist in some regards, though not the same way a Baptist or a Catholic would understand the term.

This has taken some time to think about...

Regardless, if the machine is unwavering, then what is the point of concerning yourself with my ideological underpinnings? Although I may switch who's idea-book I take information from depending on the state of the machine, my complete lack of genuine conviction in whatever I'm arguing about reamains constant.

Sure, ill dig in, ill yell, ill try to beat peoples opinions down with full furor--but that's just the game of arguing for the sake of arguing. Its fun, it gives one a reason to commit research, but in the end, its only a game -- assuming the machine is so unchanging as you present.

You describe yourself as being a moralist; that you stick to your predetermined set of ideals and it makes you feel good to do so. I'm much more of a cynic in this regard. I see flaws in almost every ideolgy; this has led me to believe that nothing is "correct" in a meaningful way, thus it helps me to sleep at night knowing that I dont honestly hold fast to anything lest it be rendered incorrect by morning.

It seems like your problem is that you are seeking a single unflawed ideology instead of nasing your convictions on your own principles. As a result, you can find nothing that you feel adequately represents you, and therefore are adrift without convictions. The mistake you seem to be making is thinking that convictions and principles come from external sources, and that to have them you must join someone else's ideology.

Arguing for the sake of arguing without any actual sense of truth seems, to me, to be a waste of energy and an insult to those you are arguing with.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

A non-crappy government would be one thata focused on maximum personal freedom and on providing a support structure for citizens that needed assistance.

The big disconnect is the mistaken notion that these are mutually exclusive.