See also: https://falkvinge.net/2014/07/05/how-newspeak-makes-libertarian-thought-impossible-in-the-us/
Libertarians have more in common with religious conservatives than they would care to admit.
Everyone in the real world knew that already.
That’s why the vast majority of “libertarians” most closely identify with the republican party. Even back when I was hoping for Ron Paul as president I lamented the collective libertarian choice of linking with the right instead of the left.
Imagine if instead libertarians had infiltrated the democratic party (which incidentally plays by it’s own rules more often and thus would have offered up Ron Paul had he won the internal primary) instead of the republican party?
And don’t give me that shit about smaller government. Everyone with half a brain cell knows that the right wing is owned by people that want a global monopolist corporate autocracy which is every bit functionally a one world government. So then why?
Because intelligent republicans of the earlier era saw the current situation coming. They saw how a massive right wing failure was in-bound and sought to be republican without having to admit to being republican. (I on the other hand simply pushed for the one real opportunity for change that I saw.)
If libertarians were collectively what they claimed to be and not closeted neocons at best, they would infiltrate the left, and force them via internal politics and simple logic to abandon gun control as an issue, at which point enough one issue voters could switch sides and make social policy the priority that it should be without the fear of being black bagged as a distraction. (Which is really what guns are about preventing, and I think that’s a fair fear given the rise of the security state and the NSA/whistleblower/drone/etc crap.)
But that’ll never happen because the fact is that 99% of libertarians want to be George Bush when they grow up, at best. They just know that the current crop of republicans are in the long term politically doomed, and they don’t want to be caught in the open being a party to the pantheon of ethical degeneracies that is what it means to be right wing in the united states.
Can you blame them?
See Also:
http://www.alternet.org/visions/true-history-libertarianism-america-phony-ideology-promote-corporate-agenda
Because intelligent republicans of the earlier era saw the current situation coming. They saw how a massive right wing failure was in-bound and sought to be republican without having to admit to being republican.
Lies
Care to be more specific?
I mean the whole thing is an opinion piece but to say libertarians are closeted neocons is absolutely ridiculous. Saying they want to be George Bush is also insane. Basically this whole thing is just a democrat trolling because they hate the fact that libertarians eat their lunch on every single issue that liberals are supposed to care about (equality, limited government, anti war, anti drug war, anti dragnet surveillance, etc.). Libertarians are the only ones willing to stand up for liberal causes today and that threatens progressives so they sling their poo hoping something will stick to those who haven’t been paying attention. Liberals hate both parties and are only finding support in the green, libertarian, and constitutionalist parties and now dems are whining because all they have are statist Israeli firsters like Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton and their emotionally unstable supporters.
So you don’t have any specific refutations or any real argument. Just standard issue right wing hyperbole and invective for anyone who isn’t socially psychopathic.
Well, thanks for commenting and reading at least. 🙂
Any fool can point out what’s wrong, but the core libertarian solution set is identical to either a mall rat anarchist, which is unworkable (http://underlore.com/an-argument-in-favor-of-the-state/) or the GOP platform.
I was a libertarian for the duration of Ron Paul’s run.
But then I discovered the tragedy of the commons and realized that the libertarian movement was just a tool propped up by the 1% to attack rules that threatened to protect their victims. Ron Paul was not allowed to win the republican primary because he was a genuine threat to the 1% with his talk of ending the fed.
The only politically relevant Libertarians left are friends of the 1%. I don’t see Rand Paul making any great inroads against the monolithic banking oligopoly.
http://davidbrin.blogspot.com/2011/09/libertarians-and-conservatives-must.html
99% of libertarians are bitter right wing corporate fascists. I mean that objectively and literally. Like Mussolini’s original corporatism type fascism.
Libertarians don’t understand civics:
http://www.governmentisgood.com/articles.php?aid=13&p=1
The rules make the game.
“so you don’t have any specific refutations or any real argument. Just standard issue right wing hyperbole and invective for anyone who isn’t socially psychopathic.”
Democrats are closeted neocons. Try and disprove this statement. All democrats want to be George Bush. Disprove this statement. The boogie man is real. Disprove this statement.
“Ron Paul was not allowed to win the republican primary because he was a genuine threat to the 1% with his talk of ending the fed.”
Agreed.
“The only politically relevant Libertarians left are friends of the 1%. I don’t see Rand Paul making any great inroads against the monolithic banking oligopoly.”
I think individuals ARE politically relevant and I see a lot of young intelligent people embracing some libertarian ideals as they have realized that the only way to destroy the power of the oligarchy is to decentralize power. I agree with them on this.
“99% of libertarians are bitter right wing corporate fascists. I mean that objectively and literally. Like Mussolini’s original corporatism type fascism.”
I agree the rules make the game and that everything is a product of good or bad incentive systems. Problem is the federal government has too much control over people who have no control over it. That balance needs to shift drastically. I don’t want someone in bumblecrap MS having any say in what happens with my life without the option of voting them out. This is one of the many reasons why American federalism is failing and responsible for such widespread death and destruction home and especially abroad. Money follows power. Want to get money out of politics? Impossible. Want to decrease the amount of power money can buy? Decentralize power. This is libertarianism in a nutshell. It is an answer to corporate fascism not a cause. Explain to me how we live in a system that is run by corporate fascists when libertarians have no power?
_”Disprove this statement.”_
Burden of proof is yours. You must now prove your argument or refute my evidence or show my logic to be flawed. Simply saying I’m wrong isn’t sufficient.
_”embracing some libertarian ideals”_
Young people are selfish. Have you ever tried teaching a toddler to share?
_”the only way to destroy the power of the oligarchy is to decentralize power”_
That’s not a cause, it’s an effect. And infinitely vague. That’s like saying the “only” way to destroy the dark is making it light.
Well, duh.
Anarchy is the ultimate regression. Anarchy was the first state of human culture. Libertarians want a return to primary organizational nothingness. Republicans want a return to some arbitrary cherry picked version of the past, when people like them just happened to be in power.
It’s convenient, greedy, short sighted and transparent.
http://underlore.com/an-argument-in-favor-of-the-state/
_”that everything is a product of good or bad incentive systems”_
You’re a fool. And a tool. You don’t understand human motivation AT ALL and that is why you are a slave to people you don’t even know exist.
http://underlore.com/who-owns-your-limbic-system/
_”I don’t want someone in bumblecrap MS having any say in what happens with my life without the option of voting them out. “_
I know. You’re selfish. You’re libertarian. These are synonymous. You are a selfish child, unwilling to compromise, and devoid of compassion for your species.
You dismiss the suffering of others because they were warned or they deserve it or whatever other bullshit you use to make it ok for your lazy greedy ass to write off the rest of the fucking biosphere.
_”Want to get money out of politics? Impossible.”_
Your global civic ignorance is staggering.
_”Explain to me how we live in a system that is run by corporate fascists when libertarians have no power?”_
Because libertarians are Objectivists and they don’t give a damn about other libertarians, or anyone else. They are like Pirates. They cooperate only on the surface, only when forced.
Once one of them has power they congratulate themselves for their social Darwinism and write the rest of humanity off for not being as predator as they.
That’s why they have such a hate boner for the concept of coercion, because we hate most what we see in ourselves.
That’s why I hate those who cause death and pain. Because I have some idea how staggeringly good I’d be at causing both if I thought for a single day like one of you.
You all think you’re so badass, only held back by the incompetence of others.
You wouldn’t last 20 minutes in the world you’re ignorantly trying to make a reality. You want a taste of a free market?
Visit any war torn third world nation with a power vacuum.
If reality operated like you delusionals thought it did this planet would be ruled by an autocrat.
To me you’re nothing more than another bitter old republican, muttering about how much better off you’d be if it weren’t fer them dam commies conspiring against you.
I hope you stay home when it comes time to vote.
P.S. Don’t expect your next comment to be published unless it contains at least some semblance of an actual argument or sanity.
This isn’t YouTube. I actually care about my comment threads.
I tried my damnedest to pry an argument out of this article, but it really is just a string of angry assertions about a caricature of libertarians. The headshot of Ayn Rand is perhaps telling, as your actual beef seems to be with a quasi-Randian subset of modern American Republicans, but you’re hellbent — deliberately or otherwise — on conflating this with libertarianism. (Incidentally, Ayn Rand despised libertarians and vehemently rejected the label.)
Since you posted a Hitch meme…. This article is tantamount to saying you’re going to take those filthy atheists down a notch, but then only lampooning 20th Century dictatorships headed by atheists. It might make a nice emotive piece for people who already agree with you, but you haven’t actually addressed atheism in any substantive sense.
I’ll browse your site (including your “Argument for the State”) when I have more time, but this first impression, combined with your comments on Steam, leaves me skeptical of your understanding.
Well firstly, thanks for replying and reading. Secondly, you completely misunderstood why I have the Hitchens image there. 🙂 Functionally and for all practical and policy purposes I’m an atheist. Technically I am just barely a deist/pantheist perhaps, but that is more an esoteric semantics issue than anything else. Hitchens was being his usual sarcastic self expressing amusement that a culture already neck deep in narcissism and self service worship would go a step further, that step being libertarians.
I’m hesitant to reply if you intend to do further reading, especially my defense of the state. So I’ll compromise and just reply in brief with a bit of an abstract overview of my position on libertarians and some extra links, possibly copied from above or maybe not.
Essentially my view is that libertarians are a blend of anarchists and fascists. The former in the sense that they paint authority as intrinsically bad, and the latter in Mussolini’s original corporatist sense, that business and the market is a preferable alternative to “government” control. Now I put that in quotes because the word government has a different meaning when you start talking about totally eliminating it because whatever fills the vacuum becomes a government equivalent after the fact, and here we run into the first logical problem of libertarianism.
Libertarianism as it is known, self-labeled, and practiced in the United States (historical or technical definitions being irrelevant for practical purposes, if they differ at all) was born in the 80s thanks to Reagan’s platform of government is bad, greed is good. (http://adamcurtisfilms.blogspot.com/)
Trickle down is essentially exactly what Ayn Rand was talking about all her life. That if only we didn’t have a government getting in the way of the entrepreneurial class, all the good that they do for themselves because of greed and ambition would filter down to everyone else. (http://activatecomix.com/162-1-1.comic)
This touched off a long partisan war on regulation itself by the right on the establishment. They want a corporate oligarchy. Libertarians naively assert they are opposed to this oligarchy as much as they are statism. But here we have the second core logical problem with libertarianism. If you remove government, it will simply be replaced by corporations. Some libertarians realize this and substitute a dispute resolution organization of some kind, failing to grasp they have instantly made a government. (A hybrid of partial legislative and judicial branches.) But even if a DRO didn’t count as a government and you ended up with the golden balance of individuals all completely free and acting according to will with an agreed upon contract system and functional and absolutely minimal DRO, you’d still have a shadow government in the form of public relations experts like Edward Bernays, and that shadow government would be the corporate oligarchy that the right wing as stated above clearly wants. (And technically has gotten for the time being: http://www.businessinsider.com/major-study-finds-that-the-us-is-an-oligarchy-2014-4)
So essentially libertarians want to place American culture on a position on a inexorable slope that leads exactly where republicans want to go anyway. So even if they aren’t aware of it, libertarians work for republicans. In the mean time, their interests are perfectly aligned for all practical purposes. See Rand Paul for an example. Sure he might have some of his father’s views about corruption but at the end of the day he walks and quacks very much like a duck. And that is how I see libertarians as a whole.
The entire libertarian premise is flawed or hypocritical. Flawed, in that they either don’t realize that you can’t have a culture without some kind of de-facto government, or hypocritical in that they think their de-facto government doesn’t count as one.
Basically, if simply destroying government led to awesomeness, we’d be part of an empire seated in Africa by now. After all, humanity began there, presumably in a state of zero government, or at the very least has since seen more power vacuums formed than any other continent, which if the premise was solid should have lead to several ideal libertarian states that of course would have merged into each other by virtue of being non-states and peacefully and by example taken over everything.
If a libertarian emergent collective did things better than any other type of culture it would be the dominant type of culture.
I hope that was clarifying at the very least. (I know it will not be persuasive: http://underlore.com/avoid-my-mistakes/ )
See, that is exactly why I responded to the Hitch meme as I did. I didn’t misunderstand you at all. You have a very skewed perception of what libertarianism is, and you are resultantly attacking positions and ideas that have little or nothing to do with it, exactly like a religious apologist blasting 20th Century dictatorships as if that’s a slam-dunk argument against atheism.
That you believe libertarianism (or American libertarianism) emerged in the 1980s, in the vein of Ronnie “Piss-Taker” Reagan no less, is just baffling. Even the Libertarian Party (for better or worse, and with which I claim no affiliation) has been around since ’71, and Ayn Rand not coincidentally started her misguided anti-libertarian diatribes around this same time. The body of libertarian thought, which may or may not pertain to the LP at any given time, is much older. Certainly, some libertarians are merely disgruntled Republicans. I’m sure some CPUSA and DSA supporters are disgruntled Democrats.
The rest of your post is unsupported assertions, confusions and logical problems that I’ll try to address after I’ve read your “state” argument (which I might not get around to until next week). But I will say that there actually were African empires prior to the rise of colonization and technology in the so-called western world. A power vacuum != anarchism. A power vacuum != libertarianism. What you’ve seen in Africa in recent centuries, and especially recent decades, is at least partly a consequence of meddling and nation-building by American, Asian and European governments, to say nothing of the historical role played by the Roman Catholic Church and various Islamic organizations in some areas. To expect that these populations should have just evolved into a libertarian society, through some sociopolitical natural selection or what have you, is to ignore the sociopolitical reality across much of Africa.
The list of status quos that have utterly sucked is long indeed, but I don’t find it all that useful to look back on slavery and witch-burning as great ideas at the time, simply because more palatable alternatives had yet to emerge within a given society.
Ahhh I see, you were making an analogy of some sort. I missed it I guess. Np at all.
In any case before you even read this, (let alone reply) you should read my state post: http://underlore.com/an-argument-in-favor-of-the-state/ (Linked for convenience.)
I quite anticipated you’d play the no true Scotsman type card with libertarian definitions of yore, so again I don’t care about the status of “libertarian thought” as it pertains to some distant philosophy-text definition. We’re talking about the actual libertarian group active and relevant in American politics.
I’ve gotten a little more practical over the years. While I am still interesting in the purely abstract definitions and banter of philosophy, my far great concern for the time being is the real world and the idea which are currently making real impact in it.
You say that libertarian does not equal anarchist or power vacuum… I agree in a strict sense, but both anarchism and libertarians offer and push nothing but removal as a solution, and a power vacuum is by definition a fulfillment of that aim. It is a moment of pure statelessness. And as such can be used to actually test the real world effects of the logical end point of most any slash and burn philosophy.
Surely you realize that any defense of any governmental organism makes you functionally not a libertarian right? You’ll be branded a “statist” At least in so far as the American functional definition of the political grouping goes. Now I’m quick to add I am perfectly away of the dogmatic nature of statism/nationalism/patriotism, and I want to make it very clear that that is not the basis of my position.
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/american_jihad_2014_20140106
If you are asserting that libertarianism is something different from the American version, then your situation is akin to second wave feminists being repulsed by the insanity and excess of extreme fringe third wave feminism. That is, you might be technically right about definitions, and yes maybe the new breed using the name have it wrong, but the label is shared none the less and you need to face the fact that your usage is the politically weaker of the two. Indeed socially invisible. While at the same time by wearing the label you artificially bloat the numbers of the opposing side.
If you dislike being seen as described, you really only have one choice: Adopt a different political label. Because to everyone else. Even to interested educated political types like me “libertarian” (mistaken to not) essentially means right wing wallstreet tea party shill. A group whose only function is to aim southern white governmental hate at government regulations which impede the 1%’s pathological wealth and power hoarding.
(It’s a shame I can’t insert images into replies.) http://pbs.twimg.com/media/B1hgeJ7IMAAfTbP.jpg
As for Africa… If you’re right that libertarianism isn’t simply a hatchet, purpose built to cut away all government and regulation, then you’re right my presentation of them as a historical example isn’t accurate. But the thing is I truly can’t see any difference between anarchy and libertarians functionally beyond fashion and the ability to wear a suit play by the rules and bide your time.
At any rate, as I’ve said above, even if you’re technically right about your definitions, it doesn’t matter politically because regardless of the text, the effect of libertarianism in the United States is a channel and a hatchet.
In retrospect Ron Paul served as a bank-hate lightening rod and channeled what otherwise would have been a massive bipartisan reform effort, into a doomed from the start political run. And now the libertarian party serves as a hatchet for hacking at social safety nets, progressive tax reform, and wallstreet regulation. It exists now seemingly only to make the argument that government is bad, in order of parts which annoy the right wing.
Both libertarians and republicans seem to say “Smaller government! Starve the beast! Repeal everything! Starting with the stuff that keeps the 1% from getting even more rich.”
From my view that (your?) group has made a deal with the devil. Joining forces with a group it trusts to make good on its promise of sharing power. A sharing that will never happen. (Sauromon springs to mind.)
Tell me, if libertarianism isn’t just anarchy in a suit, then what government agencies/structures would you keep? Would you keep the general model? Assuming you get your reforms of them, which would survive a total libertarian ascension? Do you admit the need for any government? If not, then you really should read my http://underlore.com/an-argument-in-favor-of-the-state/. (Linked for convenience, again.)
What exactly is this “actual libertarian group active and relevant in American politics?” I wasn’t making a No True Scotsman claim at all, but rather questioning your understanding of libertarianism. You have since clarified by basically stating that you don’t care about libertarianism outside of your own dubious definition, which could make things difficult moving forward. If you were hoping to converse with a Rand Paul or Gary Johnson or [insert Republican here] fan, I’m afraid I don’t fit the description.
There’s this bizarre and sometimes frustrating “dual-threat” attack on libertarianism that seems to be growing in frequency. On one side, we’ve got conspiracy theorists who think libertarians are a virtual terror cell, functionally equivalent to Tea Party fundies and Republican neo-cons intent on collapsing civilization at the behest of the diabolical Koch brothers. On the other side, we have scores of establishment conservatives and liberals (arguably an actual terror cell) who never miss a chance to point out how poorly LP candidates do in elections, and insist that the movement is so insignificant as to be beneath the notice of proper politicians and activists. A plethora of campaign regulations and crony structures ensure that this insignificance is reinforced at every turn for anyone lacking a (D) or (R) by his or her name.
I guess it’s quite an accomplishment to be a threat to civilization and completely powerless at the same time.
> “From my view that (your?) group has made a deal with the devil. Joining forces with a group it trusts to make good on its promise of sharing power. A sharing that will never happen.” “…what government agencies/structures would you keep?”
Probably none of them.
> “Would you keep the general model?”
Probably not. Constitutional representative democracy looked fair (as in mediocre) on paper once upon a time, but it’s really turned to shit these last 200 years, and that’s not even counting the whole slavery thing, a general attitude of inferiority toward women and non-whites, the constant erosion of personal and economic liberty, a surveillance police state and skyrocketing prison population, and a near-perpetual state of war.
> “Assuming you get your reforms of them, which would survive a total libertarian ascension?”
I have no idea, man. If I thought I knew that, I might be a Paul Krugman acolyte instead of a libertarian. There are services provided by various levels of government that I tentatively regard on a scale from essential to useless. I’m not convinced that government, as a violent monopoly forcing people to pay homage and do things at gunpoint, needs to be providing these services at all. And as long as there are threats and guns and cages compelling participation, there’s really no way for anyone to determine the relative value of a service anyhow. Everything is dictated, and even passive resistance is met with escalating force, up to and including death.
> “Do you admit the need for any government?”
I guess that depends heavily on what you mean by “government.” As an institution of aggressive force? Of course not.
> “If not, then you really should read my….”
I said I would read it, and I will. It’s damn lengthy, however, and I would like to give due consideration to your claims. I’m just not up for it this week, what with the holiday and some stuff this weekend.
I realize this is time consuming, but when you reply, I reply 🙂 Simply delay your response if you need to, I won’t be offended 🙂
Onward!
From my perspective you contradict yourself twice in this reply.
Firstly you say you’re not making a No True Scotsman claim at all, then you go on to imply that Rand Paul or Gary Johnson aren’t true libertarians. Be advised, I was strongly in favor of Ron Paul’s run. See my gplus account (or Google my name and Ron Paul’s name.) So don’t think I’m clueless about the label.
Secondly you assert that libertarianism isn’t anarchy in a suit and then you make the same contradictory voting is pointless assertion they do, express zero belief in the possibility of reform and imply that all politicians are identical. (Contradictory in the sense that on the one hand you assert voting is pointless, and on the other assert corruption because it’s possible via advertising and lobbying money, to buys votes. Put simply, if votes are worthless, why do they bother buying them?) Further, you go on to say that government itself is not necessary and admit that given power you would preserve none of the current system.
The rest of your comments are addressed in the essay already in your job stack 🙂
On a side note I find it ironic that you hold such an ostensibly individualist/pluralist political identity, and yet conclude that all politicians are ant-like in their homogeneity 😛 Do you honestly think Bernie Sanders for example is identical to Donald Trump? Do you believe that in order to be different one has to (ironically) wear the same libertarian label?
Again, take your time on your reply. My blog isn’t going anywhere 🙂
Thanks again for the read and the reply 🙂 (Cya in a week or two, or possibly next year.)
> “…then you go on to imply that Rand Paul or Gary Johnson aren’t true libertarians.”
I said that I’m not a fan of Paul or Johnson. I think a case can be made that Paul’s libertarianism falls far short of his father’s, and he lacks social testicles. He’s called himself a conservative and waffled amusingly on identifying as libertarian, referring to the label at one point as an “albatross.” Calling him not libertarian is probably a fair assessment. Gary Johnson is a constitutionalist with a PC love of flag porn, but I never said (or implied) he isn’t a libertarian. Like most big-L LP candidates, he’s a mixed bag. C’mon, man. You’re making stuff up as we go.
> “So don’t think I’m clueless about the label.”
Ron Paul was largely a fad and, to be frank, I encountered a lot of supporters during his prez runs who were either clueless about libertarianism or lingered in some Alex Jones-inspired fantasy world. He had plenty of libertarian support, sure, but invoking his name isn’t exactly unassailable street cred.
> “…then you make the same contradictory voting is pointless assertion they do” “…express zero belief in the possibility of reform”
Americans currently live in the largest, most expansive police state in human history, and huge swaths of oblivious people wave flags and cheer for it. Reform is always possible, but positive change through electoral politics is a revolving door of bullshit and gold-paved roads to hell, and only change of another sort will enable changing anything else.
> “…all politicians are identical.”
The major parties are more alike than different, and I think a lot of public discourse is contrived and superficial. But again, this is a sentiment you invented, not anything I actually said or implied. To borrow from Bakunin, I don’t fancy the idea of being beaten with a stick, even if it’s the People’s Stick, but under duress I suppose I would concede that it’s preferable to the People’s Crowbar.
> “Put simply, if votes are worthless, why do they bother buying them?”
Put even more simply, votes are not worthless. The value of voting to increase liberty is highly suspect, but electoral politics is the Kool-Aid of nationalism.
> “The rest of your comments are addressed in the essay already in your job stack :)” “…and yet conclude that all politicians are ant-like in their homogeneity” “Do you honestly think Bernie Sanders for example is identical to Donald Trump?” “Do you believe that in order to be different one has to (ironically) wear the same libertarian label?” “Thanks again for the read and the reply” <
Sure, and happy belated Thanksgiving.
> I said that I’m not a fan of Paul or Johnson.
Yet your reply again implies they aren’t true to some degree or other. You’re doing the same things theists do.
If a target libertarian does something good it’s your ism that deserves the credit, but if they do something bad it’s individual failure.
> invoking his name isn’t exactly unassailable street cred
More no true scotsman. Keep going down this road and you’ll be the only representative example of a libertarian in your world view.
> most voters will consistently vote to give themselves more benefits at the expense of others, because it visibly costs them little but the time in line to do so.
And how dare they want a better life for themselves without being some corporation’s human resource, right?
I guess you don’t believe in human rights.
You’re just making my argument for me. You are mouthing the exact right wing profit-as-purpose garbage the 1% need to shove down all slave throat.
http://underlore.com/bait-and-switch/
I say Libertarians are anarchists in suits because ultimately they want zero government and in order to achieve that end they’ve become a tool of the right wing’s starve the beast, safety net slash and burn, project.
But you’re a rube because the right wing doesn’t want anarchy, they want majority shares in a global corporate oligarchy, and damned if they aren’t close to getting it in part because of groups like libertarians that can be aimed with ease.
Nothing you are saying refutes my core argument, and it can’t because the moment it did, you’d no longer be a libertarian. And that’s the real terror for many, having to not have a label or a group identity.
And to be fair I know how hard it is. I can only be labeled issue by issue or if you ignore a handful of deal breakers, based on whatever label might apply. Seriously, pick a political identity label for me, I’ll falsify it.
> Reform is always possible, but positive change through electoral politics is a revolving door of bullshit and gold-paved roads to hell, and only change of another sort will enable changing anything else.
That’s cynical lazy wishful thinking on your part. Technology is constantly changing and it’s technology that drives political change. The political process is just about at what speed the political landscape adapts to the technological one.
Such irony, since your group is all about austerity and whining about dead weight (the free rider “problem”) when a central tenet is to drag your feet politically (or join the right wing) because fatalism and cynicism.
Also a closeted (or not) sadistic desire to watch society burn because of a delusional belief that the chaos and ashes will lead to your phoenix-like ascension. Like a survivalist teenager genuinely believing with all his heart that the rise of the zombies would lead to him personally saving humanity because he knows how to start a fire and has 2000 rounds of 9mm under his bed.
On the plus side, I’m glad you’ve given up politically. Your group staying out of it would be the best thing for humanity since functionally you’re nothing but 1% puppets.
> The major parties are more alike than different / electoral politics is the Kool-Aid of nationalism
And cynical fatalism is the Kool-Aid of the 1%. Who benefits most from a 30% turnout?
> The tragedy of the commons isn’t a compelling start, but we’ll see.
That’s because you’re a member of the social darwinist party that sees the common people as sheep to be butchered if they can’t be yoked.
You axiomatically oppose any force that stands in the way of your hypothetical profit, even if the process of gaining it destroys the culture you live in, because as before you are convinced you’ll rise from the ashes of any fire started by your greed.
> Where exactly did I conclude that?
Dude. Every time you implied that voting and engagement is qualitatively pointless or that politicians are qualitatively identical.
> Bernie Sanders wants to use aggressive violence to force his sociopolitical and economic vision on 320+ million people. That makes him like Trump
I could just rest my case right there.
You’re asserting that because the government exists and they are both running for a position of authority in it they are qualitatively identical. But that’s on it’s face absurd. If you don’t believe in the process, why adopt a political label at all? At least anarchists are logically consistent. /smh
Either you believe Trump and Sanders are qualitatively identical or your don’t. If you do, you’re delusional, if you don’t, then you need to politically engage. But you don’t want that because cynical fatalism. (And more than a little misanthropy judging from your tone.)
You also on a side note have the deeply fox news habit of thinking a quip is an argument.
> What does that even mean?
So do you genuinely not know and you’re asking sarcastically to hide the fact, or do you simply lack a counter argument entirely while yet having an instinctive opposition because what I said is unflattering?
What it means is (for future readers, not you) is that libertarians ironically believe that anyone outside the party, anyone failing to wear the label, is the same as anyone else not wearing the label and that only the people who wear the label have even a chance of being qualitatively different from the mindless herd.
I wonder how many times you’ll reply here without reading the state post. It’s telling that getting in a reply as quickly as possible is more important to you than doing the homework. Two mouths and one ear 🙂
> “Yet your reply again implies they aren’t true to some degree or other. You’re doing the same things theists do.” “More no true scotsman.”
Invoking Ron Paul’s name doesn’t give you street cred, and a lot of Ron Paul supporters are Alex Jones PCTs, and so I’m somehow claiming that Ron Paul isn’t a real libertarian? You might hurt yourself bending like that.
> “And how dare they want a better life for themselves without being some corporation’s human resource, right? I guess you don’t believe in human rights.” “You’re just making my argument for me.”
You have yet to even demonstrate a willingness to accurately parse what I’m saying.
> “they’ve become a tool of the right wing’s starve the beast, safety net slash and burn, project.”
The alleged right-wing beast-starving project has achieved piss-poor results.
> “But you’re a rube”
This is going downhill.
> “Nothing you are saying refutes my core argument”
Almost nothing you’ve written here constitutes an actual argument.
> “That’s cynical lazy wishful thinking on your part.”
Not according to the reality I observe.
> “since your group”
What group would that be? Libertarians? I have no reason to think you even know what a libertarian is, and so it’s doubtful you would be able to ascertain the tenets, motivations or goals of libertarians (which, to be fair, are not always uniform).
> “…a delusional belief that the chaos and ashes will lead to your phoenix-like ascension.”
I would prefer society not to collapse into chaos and ashes, but I’m increasingly aware that what I actually think is irrelevant in this discussion.
> “…since functionally you’re nothing but 1% puppets.”
Sigh.
> “And cynical fatalism is the Kool-Aid of the 1%. Who benefits most from a 30% turnout?”
Higher voter turnout is unlikely to bring about whatever revolution you desire, because most voters aren’t informed or even particularly rational, or at best are seeking a lesser relative evil that they seldom manage to actually install. Establishment politicians (including His Holiness Sanders) will never substantially change anything for the better, either. They have no motivation to do so. In fact, their livelihoods depend upon ensuring that problems are never actually solved.
> “That’s because you’re a member of the social darwinist party” “Dude. Every time you implied…” “I could just rest my case right there.”
Based on your insults and misrepresentations, I would say you haven’t made much of a case to rest.
> “But that’s on it’s face absurd.”
It’s actually possible for Sanders and Trump to be “qualitatively identical” in the sense that they both intend to force their ideas upon society with aggressive violence, without holding qualitatively identical ideas. Varied goals, same means. This is what I actually said. Of course, you again ignored reality in lieu of manufacturing a position that you could more easily respond to.
> “(And more than a little misanthropy judging from your tone.)”
So I’m a rube, a 1% puppet, a member of the social darwinist party, and a misanthrope. This has been amazingly productive so far.
> “You also on a side note have the deeply fox news habit of thinking a quip is an argument.”
I don’t believe I’ve offered any quips that did not accompany at least a somewhat reasoned (albeit abbreviated) response. The “quip” in question was a misguided attempt to bring some humor into the discussion, which clearly failed since a torrent of insults was the result. But c’mon, even if you’ve convinced yourself that I’m a greedy social darwinist who drowns kittens and homeless people for weekend thrills, you gotta admit that Trump vs. Sanders would be a YouTube sensation and meme-a-thon, probably with a fair bit of hilarious shouting.
> “…is that libertarians ironically believe”
Which libertarians?
> “…anyone failing to wear the label, is the same as anyone else not wearing the label”
I don’t believe you are careless or stupid enough to think I said that — which makes me wonder, partially tongue-in-cheek, what you’re actually trying to accomplish with this site. See, if I were to sit down and compile my own profile of a “1% puppet,” the types of anti-libertarian invective and misrepresentations you’re offering here would be near the top of the list.
> “I wonder how many times you’ll reply here without reading the state post.”
I wonder why it matters.
> “It’s telling that getting in a reply as quickly as possible is more important to you than doing the homework.”
Your “argument” is ~35,000 words (I moved it into Calibre and sent it to my phone for offline perusal). A chunk of those words are not yours, but I’m slogging through a not-insignificant amount of content and linkage anyway. I’m pretty sure the person you were arguing with was half-assedly parroting Stefan Molyneux, and I have found myself cringing at some of the delivery even as I’m generally unmoved by your responses.
Anyway, going roughly a day between replies is hardly indicative of me hovering at the keyboard. Your own responses have been coming in rapid-fire compared to mine, most of which I’ve composed in short, probably typo-ridden stints between Guild Wars runs, working, and chasing kids around the house. But if you want to be that petty, then suit yourself.
> “Two mouths and one ear :)”
Whatever you say, man.
> Rand Paul himself has denied being libertarian…
lol4r
Ok, so you tell me. What percentage of the American political landscape that calls itself libertarian actually is libertarian in your view?
The point was to show you as being evasive about taking responsibility for the actual actions of the group label to apply to yourself. I still see you being evasive.
> I’m somehow claiming that Ron Paul isn’t a real libertarian?
You’re strongly implying that any libertarian in the American political landscape isn’t actually a libertarian. In which case you shouldn’t even be talking to outsiders. You should be cleaning house.
> Yeah, because you average voter is so conscientious of the actual score that he goes to the booth to defend human rights. Uh-huh. 😐
Wow. That is not even close to the point. What’s the practical upshot of that monumental condescension? How much right to exploit and torment them does this implied stupidity give you and your party?
Because that’s a hallmark of the label, excusing all many of exploitation and neglect on the grounds that your victims somehow brought it on themselves. If the entire point of your political identity isn’t abandoning the vast majority of humanity, then you are truly applying the wrong label to yourself because like it or not that’s the essence of libertarianism in the eyes of the world as judged by the positions and actions taken by the majority of those who adopt the label.
> You have yet to even demonstrate a willingness to accurately parse what I’m saying. / have no reason to think you even know what a libertarian is
But see this notion of accuracy is a filter you use to make sure only the good stuff about the identity sticks to you personally. Like I said, you’re using it like Christians do when you tell them god is an evil fuck for even inventing cancer.
Every thing I say about libertarianism that you find unflattering you dismiss as intrinsically “inaccurate.” To whatever degree I am wrong about your thoughts and behaviors, is equivalent to how wrong you are about the actual practical meaning of your chosen political label.
> The alleged right-wing beast-starving project has achieved piss-poor results.
Don’t confuse incompetence with agenda. The right wing doesn’t actually want smaller government, it wants captured government. That’s why this alliance between libertarians and the right wing is foolish. And again before you say there isn’t an alliance, you should look at the practical behavior of 99% of people who publicly self identify as libertarian.
> I would prefer society not to collapse into chaos and ashes, but I’m increasingly aware that what I actually think is irrelevant in this discussion.
Prefer and think are different things. You clearly think collapse is imminent, and either you welcome it because of delusions of readiness, or you are rightfully terrified. Either way you’re not thinking straight.
If a collapse comes the survivors will be chosen at random, and virtually all of us will see a huge chunk sheered off our longevity. There is no being ready. If you’re scared, then get in the fucking game and try to avert it realistically, not fatalistically surrendering preemptively in search of some twisted I told you so satisfaction from a self fulfilling prophecy.
Vote properly and encourage others to do so. To talk shit about alex jones types but those are the very types that don’t vote, and you are yourself clearly advocating yet another line of reasoning that leads to throwing up your hands and saying fuck it, grab marshmallows because the fire is coming.
Here’s the political reality you seem unwilling to face: How you vote and how you impact voting determines the vast majority of your political impact unless you become a politician yourself.
> Sigh.
Sigh is not an argument. If you don’t like being a 1% puppet or lumped in with social Darwinists then pick a different label because the one you are wearing now is a registered trademark at this point, fair or not.
> Higher voter turnout is unlikely to bring about whatever revolution you desire
I don’t want a revolution, I want a handful of repeals and a general movement towards compassion and rationality in politics. And I’m going to get it too. Higher turn out is coming and it will bring me exactly what I want.
> They have no motivation to do so. In fact, their livelihoods depend upon ensuring that problems are never actually solved.
That’s intellectual cowardice and a nirvana fallacy. At any given moment we are at some degree of a turning point. But at no point is a permanent solution at hand. It’s always going to be a fight vs something or other. You seem afraid to face this state of permanent war, but that is the nature of life itself.
Even if we as humanity get our shit completely together it’ll still be a war against gamma ray bursts and the cold and heat death and isolation and so on. It seems very much to me like you’ve given up on any real solution because you’ve realized there can never be a perfect solution.
But as a gamer, you tell me, is that really such a bad thing? Isn’t a game more fun if there’s always going to be another quest? On a related note, would your game be more fun if you felt actual accurately intense physical pain when your character received an injury? (No.)
Point being, we do have a fight on our hands, but there are things we can do that will have staggering impact.
> I literally wrote the opposite of what you’re claiming I implied.
No, you really didn’t. The take away form all your comments in the context is disowning what the rest of humanity thinks (with good reason) when you say “libertarian.” Assuming you’re right, and I will for argument sake, I’m sure it’s frustrating to have a label that suits you co-opted but either you’re a tea party equivalent, or that’s that’s what’s happened. :/
> Varied goals, same means.
That doesn’t refute my earlier reply. You are still saying sanders and trump are qualitatively identical because they are applying for the same job. That’s a hilariously delusional extension of your political fatalism with literally zero basis in evidence or reality generally.
It’s intellectually lazy in the extreme. Rather than parse the very real differences of impact they would have as presidents you are just throwing up your hands and saying the presidency itself is evil and using that as an excuse to both give up and think no more deeply into the subject.
> So I’m a rube, a 1% puppet, a member of the social darwinist party, and a misanthrope. This has been amazingly productive so far.
Rube/1%: Because you’re letting yourself be used to bloat the roster of a totally captured political group to help people who wouldn’t piss on your gums if you teeth were on fire.
Darwinist party: Because the entire point of libertarianism is never being forced to do anything, especially help people you don’t feel deserve it. (As if it’s even possible for a single living human to not deserve their basic fucking needs met.)
Misanthrope: Because you clearly expect and desire a cataclysmic collapse of some sort that will magically leave you to rise from the ashes and lead us to a new golden era of greed and homogeneity.
> Trump vs. Sanders would be a YouTube sensation and meme-a-thon, probably with a fair bit of hilarious shouting.
Actually it would be a lot like the democratic debate was. It would be Sanders owning the stage with compassion authenticity brilliance and wit, while Trump did his very best to work “socialist jew” or the like into as many sentences as he could.
Your joke isn’t funny to me because 1 I haven’t given up, 2 I care about other people for real, not just as something I type online to blend in, and 3 it depends on the delusion that they are politically equivalent in any meaningful sense.
> Which libertarians?
/facepalm
The other bad not-really libertarians I’m sure, not you. You’re special. /smh
> I don’t believe you are careless or stupid enough to think I said that
You seem to think there’s a difference between explicitly saying something and making no other conclusion possible from previous statements.
You’ve made it abundantly clear that the political world can be useful carved into three groups from your perspective, and if you don’t actually believe this then you have a lot of revisions to make.
First group: True libertarians, that think as you do more or less and present a generally flattering picture of the movement.
Second group: False libertarians, that claim to think as you do but actually don’t as evidenced by their unflattering behavior or statements.
Third group: All other political identities, as evidenced by your insane assertion that trump and sanders (and presumably everyone in between, which is like 99% of all other political identities since sanders is a socialist and trump is obviously a literal fascist) are qualitatively identical and ultimately foolish or evil some how compared to true libertarians.
Thus… The only people that have a chance of being different from group three must be wearing the libertarian label.
It’s logically inescapable given your previous positions. You don’t have to come out and say it explicitly, thus failing to do so won’t save you. At least not from me.
> I wonder why it matters.
Because each time you do you make it clear that this is more about your ego than anything else. Which I don’t judge by the way, I’m just saying it tells me about you.
> I have found myself cringing at some of the delivery even as I’m generally unmoved by your responses.
So he’s group 2 and I’m group 3. /smh
> stints between Guild Wars runs, working, and chasing kids around the house. But if you want to be that petty, then suit yourself.
Nice hedge.
So if you lose this debate, (and yes there is something to lose here) it’s not because you’re politically wrong or demonstrably unethical, it’s because you have more important thing to do.
Well, I have a life too guy. You don’t see me throwing up my real life conditions as excuses.
If you don’t have time, don’t fucking reply. It makes no sense to whine about not having time for a reply, in your reply.
You could reply a full year later and I’d be fine with that. Your only hurry is your own ego.
What I actually think — and, hell, what I’ve actually taken time to plaster in black and white right in front of your face — really is of no particular concern to you, is it?
I fully expect you to disagree with me on some things, but your willingness to make up positions I don’t hold, and present them as if I do, has become frustrating and foreboding. I’m pressed to isolate a single reply of yours that accurately reflects anything I said previously, including your contrived group list and rather sardonic attempt to justify your earlier insults. For someone who is so quick to accuse others of committing logical fallacies, this is strange behavior.
> “(and yes there is something to lose here)” <
Yes, namely the continued expenditure of my time on someone who's already thrown the Talking Stick on the campfire. Your pro-state article is a mass of confusions, poorly defined or undefined terms and concepts (from which a lot of your problems arise, and ditto for your opponent), alongside the odd salient point. I even agree with a lot of what you say on this website. But, for me, why bother now? As evidenced more than once, you wrap yourself in a veneer of quasi-intellectualism, but you don't actually seem that interested in an honest exchange with anyone who doesn't already agree with you. I have no reason to expect anything going forward except more of the same vitriol and misrepresentation.
And these are just basic, factual misrepresentations of uncomplicated statements. I'm loath to combat the straw-man onslaught of an in-the-trenches philosophical exchange along these same lines. I have the time, and never said otherwise (another of your petty fabrications, when what I actually said was that I wanted to give your claims their due diligence), but you've frankly made the prospect something of a ridiculous joke.
> …to make up positions I don’t hold, and present them as if I do…
True or false:
You’re not in favor of any sort of government, yet you balk when I call you an anarchist.
You accept no intrinsic responsibility to your fellow humans to which you submit to being held to by force, yet you balk when I call you social darwinist.
You balk at being called 1% puppets, yet you mouth their talking points and vote in lockstep with their puppet party. Failing that, you fatalistically encourage disengagement from the process which is clearly what the right wing wants with their voter fraud sham.
You are to me functionally a right wing republican if any of the above is true, let alone all of it.
> from which a lot of your problems arise, and ditto for your opponent
That is the root of your delusion. You think just because you dismiss both sides you aren’t serving one or the other.
Don’t you get it? Your disengagement serves them every bit as much as a republican vote.
If you vote on lost causes, or don’t vote at all, that makes them your proxy. When you don’t vote you are equal to a felon in terms of the process. Your headcount will be gerrymandered into usefulness, your lack of vote entirely exploitable as an asset.
> you wrap yourself in a veneer of quasi-intellectualism
Asking why I talk funny? Really? My intelligence and command of the language annoys you it seems I assure you this is how I actually speak and actually think. I can provide ample evidence.
Even as a child I had well above average linguistic skills (except for penmanship and spelling.) My psych evaluation is somewhere on my blog also even. It comments on this fact. I’m not “quasi” anything in this context.
> I have no reason to expect anything going forward except more of the same vitriol and misrepresentation.
I asked you point blank for example which elements of government you would keep and you essentially said none. You dismissed force outright. That’s baby and bathwater, big time.
Deny my core points above. Tell me what government you’d see, tell me what responsibility humans have to other humans in your view that’s worthy of enforcement, tell me why you vote and who you vote for, tell me what human authority is legitimate.
Am I wrong that your answers are essentially in order: None, none, I don’t, and none?
If those are your answers essentially then you have not refuted my core assertion.
> And these are just basic, factual misrepresentations of uncomplicated statements.
And yet you don’t offer a single claim of factual error specifically. You just keep asserting I’ve made them hoping the label of error will stand in place of citation of the error.
I happily accept my burden of proof. I’m perfectly fine with being wrong. Pick a factual error you see of core relevance to the assertion that libertarians are functionally identical to republicans in that the both serve the 1% goal of “deregulation” and a general exploitative agenda.
I don’t have to make a straw man for the pyre. What you are is more than sufficient kindling. If I’m wrong then you aren’t a libertarian.
But the thing is, the great good news of all of this, is that the compassionate thing is also the most efficient thing in so many contexts. Just like adding oil is better than replacing the engine. It’s like the healthcare debate. (Single payer is both cheaper and better.) And the efficacy of the UBI. Economy of scale and the cost effectiveness of prevention. The asymmetric impact of money. The diminishing returns of accumulating it.
The cost is that you can’t enshrine individual freedom above everything else because some people want truly toxic things. Serial killers are the obvious example, but pathological wealth hoarding is arguably even more toxic.
http://davidbrin.blogspot.com/2011/09/libertarians-and-conservatives-must.html