Libertarianism is applied autism

[TechBoyJK]

That's not the point. Libertarians dismiss the concept of a common good, well in reality that's bullshit, as aforecited.

Many libertarians seem to see society and the world as each individual acting on his or her in a bubble like existence.

I don't think Libertarianism means what you think it means and that's why you're getting some friction.

 

[BoberFett]

Libertarians have an almost infinite optimism in the wisdom and altruism of their fellow man, despite mountains of evidence to the contrary.

In other words, libertarians love and trust their fellow man, despite all of mankinds faults. Statists hate and mistrust their fellow man, and put all of their energy in trying to appear as though they care to cover up this hatred.

I'd say that's pretty accurate.

 

[IronWing]

I don't think I've ever met a libertarian in real life who wasn't angry all the time.

 

[nextJin]

I don't think I've ever met a libertarian in real life who wasn't angry all the time.

You must not have met many libertarians. Unless you want to automatically associate potheads to them.

 

[IronWing]

You must not have met many libertarians. Unless you want to automatically associate potheads to them.

No, not potheads, I don't score the politics of plain old idiots.

The libertarians I have met have been mean, bitter old men, nihilists at heart, who, frustrated in their own lives, want to tear everything down.

 

[BoberFett]

I don't think I've ever met a libertarian in real life who wasn't angry all the time.

Really? I find "liberals" and "conservatives" alike to be very angry people.

 

[Phokus]

In other words, libertarians love and trust their fellow man, despite all of mankinds faults. Statists hate and mistrust their fellow man, and put all of their energy in trying to appear as though they care to cover up this hatred.

I'd say that's pretty accurate.

98% of adults know texting and driving is dangerous, but a shocking 49% of adults do it anyway. These things are why we have laws and really highlights why libertarianism is a delusional political movement not based on reality. I was debating morons over at the r/libertarian reddit last year why we SHOULD have drunk driving laws (while most libertarians took the position that you should really only be arrested if you actually injure/kill someone). Libertarians don't give a shit about their fellow man.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/28/tech/mobile/survey-texting-while-driving/index.html?hpt=hp_bn5

 

[xBiffx]

Believing laws prevent people from behaving a certain way is only for the delusional.

Exhibit 1:

98% of adults know texting and driving is dangerous, but a shocking 49% of adults do it anyway. These things are why we have laws and really highlights why libertarianism is a delusional political movement not based on reality. I was debating morons over at the r/libertarian reddit last year why we SHOULD have drunk driving laws (while most libertarians took the position that you should really only be arrested if you actually injure/kill someone). Libertarians don't give a shit about their fellow man.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/28/tech/mobile/survey-texting-while-driving/index.html?hpt=hp_bn5

Hint, making something illegal doesn't make it go away.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I doubt I've ever before encountered as large a collection of ignorant myths and false statements about libertarians as is contained in this thread.

 

[Phokus]

Believing laws prevent people from behaving a certain way is only for the delusional.

Exhibit 1.

Again, this is the difference between liberals and conservatives (of which libertarianism is a variant of), conservatives just spout out whatever bullshit they want based on their gut feeling, while liberals use facts, despite our population increasing, drunk driving has gone down, thanks to toughening of drunk driving laws from the late 70's through the 90's:

http://www.centurycouncil.org/drunk-driving/drunk-driving-fatalities-national-statistics

Edit: Nice edit btw:

Hint, making something illegal doesn't make it go away.

Hint: Lifting drunk driving laws WILL increase the number of drunk drivers.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

... conservatives (of which libertarianism is a variant of) ...

Oy.

 

[Phokus]

Oy.

So you deny that libertarians aren't part of the GOP's 'big tent'?

To quote Reagan: "I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism"

I swear, this forum is taking crazy pills recently.

 

[Moonbeam]

In other words, libertarians love and trust their fellow man, despite all of mankinds faults. Statists hate and mistrust their fellow man, and put all of their energy in trying to appear as though they care to cover up this hatred.

I'd say that's pretty accurate.

Like you, I am only able to decide for myself what the author of the quote intended, but I didn't get the same 'in other words' as you did. As you should know, I am an optimist too, but not in the wisdom and altruism of my fellow beings, but in their potential for such things. Otherwise, there would be nothing to say to somebody as deluded and mean spirited as you are who wields his libertarianism like a hammer. The way I see it, you simply don't want to be told you are sick and fear being punished somehow for it just by having it pointed out to you. You are living at a child state emotionally. I simply want you to know you are sick so you can get well and consider it a being duty to try to help you. You believe in equal opportunity self destruction but the healthy know there is no reason for emotional atrophy and suicide. A parent doesn't allow the screams of his child to prevent a child his tetanus shot and vaccines unless the parent is insane. And for the good of the child in the wisdom of medical expertise, the state will step in.

What the paranoid fear is having their fears taken from them and that is a good definition of insanity. So what you fear is that evil people and not medical expertise will determine for you your fate. So let's not pretend it's not you who fears the evil in men. You reject at a deep level the notion of sound judgment and the expertise arrived at via love and wisdom because you're, well, special and have your own bus.

Remember, I will never take from you your free will. I will only show you what I believe. Nobody can be brought to the truth by force, only by need. I only ask you to think to increase your need. And all the terrible restrictions I would impose on your life, like only up to 16 oz. sugary drinks I can only do if I can elect a sufficient number of like minded thinkers to pass such laws in a constitutional democracy. And I will have to live in he same chains I put on you. Love you my dear friend.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

So you deny that libertarians aren't part of the GOP's 'big tent'?

The GOP also insists that it loves minorities and doesn't disparage the poor and that the "war on women" is an evil liberal lie. Do you accept all of those claims too?

To quote Reagan: "I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism"

Go look up that quote and read the full answer in context. It's not as simple as the one-liner suggests.

Furthermore, what was considered "conservatism" in Reagan's day has little to do with the current extreme version.

I swear, this forum is taking crazy pills recently.

Obviously if I think you're wrong about something, it must be because I'm crazy.

Libertarians and conservatives have some things in common. So do liberals and libertarians.

If conservatism and libertarianism have so much in common, why did Ron Paul get his ass handed to him every time he ran for president?

 

[BoberFett]

Like you, I am only able to decide for myself what the author of the quote intended, but I didn't get the same 'in other words' as you did. As you should know, I am an optimist too, but not in the wisdom and altruism of my fellow beings, but in their potential for such things. Otherwise, there would be nothing to say to somebody as deluded and mean spirited as you are who wields his libertarianism like a hammer.

You are utterly ridiculous. How does one wield libertarianism like a hammer? By forcing people to live their lives in the manner of their choosing? Do you also accuse astronomers of forcing stars to shine?

The way I see it, you simply don't want to be told you are sick and fear being punished somehow for it just by having it pointed out to you. You are living at a child state emotionally. I simply want you to know you are sick so you can get well and consider it a being duty to try to help you. You believe in equal opportunity self destruction but the healthy know there is no reason for emotional atrophy and suicide. A parent doesn't allow the screams of his child to prevent a child his tetanus shot and vaccines unless the parent is insane. And for the good of the child in the wisdom of medical expertise, the state will step in.

You are incompetent to make that decision about me, or even yourself. It is you who are deluded and need medical attention. Your denial of your illness is only further proof of that illness.

What the paranoid fear is having their fears taken from them and that is a good definition of insanity. So what you fear is that evil people and not medical expertise will determine for you your fate. So let's not pretend it's not you who fears the evil in men. You reject at a deep level the notion of sound judgment and the expertise arrived at via love and wisdom because you're, well, special and have your own bus.

No, a good definition of insanity is believing that of the infinite number of choices one can make in life, that you have found the only correct answer. Moonie, you are insane at a level few humans are, because you actually believe that you're enlightened. A sane person realizes that neither they nor anyone else have the answers, because their is no answer. Your denial of that simple truth is just another symptom of your insanity. Do the world a favor, and step in front of the bus.

Remember, I will never take from you your free will. I will only show you what I believe. Nobody can be brought to the truth by force, only by need. I only ask you to think to increase your need. And all the terrible restrictions I would impose on your life, like only up to 16 oz. sugary drinks I can only do if I can elect a sufficient number of like minded thinkers to pass such laws in a constitutional democracy. And I will have to live in he same chains I put on you. Love you my dear friend.

But you do take free will. Every statist does. That's their whole existence, using the state to bend others to their desires.

You love nobody but yourself.

You hate anyone who is not you.

You are a blight on mankind.

The sooner your recognize this, the sooner you can begin to correct yourself.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Remember, I will never take from you your free will.

.. and then four sentences later ..

And I will have to live in he same chains I put on you.

Your posts are self-parody.

 

[Moonbeam]

Again, this is the difference between liberals and conservatives (of which libertarianism is a variant of), conservatives just spout out whatever bullshit they want based on their gut feeling, while liberals use facts, despite our population increasing, drunk driving has gone down, thanks to toughening of drunk driving laws from the late 70's through the 90's:

I don't dismiss the notion that tougher drunk driving laws don't help reduce drunk driving. I saw draconian measures work against a drunk relative who had a lot to lose and did lose a lot over several convictions, but had a lot to lose. Those who have lost everything already probably don't care so much.

But anyway, the problem with facts like this is the difficulty of teasing out of data caused for changes in it. your time line suggests that the Baby Boomers might also have been becoming more mature and getting drunk less, not sure.

Additionally, when it comes to knowing things in their guts, conservatives found their morality of six or so factors whereas liberals basically on two. This makes conservatives morally superior in one dimension. They have survival adaptation because of this in competitive situations. A nation functioning on input from both conservative and liberal sources is superior, perhaps, to one in which one or the other has the only voice. This is a surmise I make based on how some read the data that neuroscience has revealed about liberal and conservative survival adaptation. Each has its strength and weaknesses. I think of it in a frying pan analogy. A conservative may leap out of the pan and into the fire at the first sign of heat, whereas the liberal, evaluation his leap, may do so long enough to cook.

At any rate, as sick as those MoFos are, they are our fellow citizens and brothers and the aim should be to find some way warn them how dangerous they become when they don't have external threats to tap off their aggressive insularity, and become Joseph McCarthys. That is a difficult problem, no?

 

[BoberFett]

At any rate, as sick as those MoFos are, they are our fellow citizens and brothers and the aim should be to find some way warn them how dangerous they become when they don't have external threats to tap off their aggressive insularity, and become Joseph McCarthys. That is a difficult problem, no?

Sounds like Chairman Maonbeam is getting ready to start the purge.

 

[Phokus]

The GOP also insists that it loves minorities and doesn't disparage the poor and that the "war on women" is an evil liberal lie. Do you accept all of those claims too?

It's not a "claim", it's a reality. There's a reason why people like Ron and Rand Paul are in the GOP. There's no similar 'big tent' for libertarians in the Democratic Party.

Go look up that quote and read the full answer in context. It's not as simple as the one-liner suggests.

Furthermore, what was considered "conservatism" in Reagan's day has little to do with the current extreme version.

Actually, it is that simple:

REAGAN: If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.

Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are travelling the same path.

Reagan was describing the anarcho-capitalist wing of the libertarian party, which is fringe even by libertarian standards. Most mainstream libertarians believe in some minimal government.

Obviously if I think you're wrong about something, it must be because I'm crazy.

Libertarians and conservatives have some things in common. So do liberals and libertarians.

If conservatism and libertarianism have so much in common, why did Ron Paul get his ass handed to him every time he ran for president?

Ron Paul can't get elected for a variety of reasons. A) Because he has absolutely no charisma (a highly underrated trait in a presidential election), B) Because even if 100% of republicans agree with his views, they still have to choose who's electable in the general election which is why they elected Mitt Romney, even though it was quite obvious no mainstream GOP was really excited about him or even really like him as a candidate.

If liberals and libertarians have 'some things in common', where is the 'libertarian wing' of the Democratic party? Where's the democratic party big tent?

You're fooling yourself if you don't think libertarianism isn't a big part of the GOP and just another flavor of conservativism.

Funny how Rand Paul is the party's attack dog against Obama right now, isn't it?

 

[Charles Kozierok]

It's not a "claim", it's a reality.

Sorry, your opinions do not define "reality" for anyone but yourself.

There's a reason why people like Ron and Rand Paul are in the GOP.

There's also a reason why Ron is outside the mainstream of the GOP. As for Rand, I haven't decided if he's really a libertarian, a conservative, or trying to have his cake and eat it too. (I lean towards the last.)

Most mainstream libertarians believe in some minimal government.

And? I already said there is some overlap between conservatives and libertarians. That does not make libertarianism a "variant" of conservatism.

Ron Paul can't get elected for a variety of reasons. A) Because he has absolutely no charisma (a highly underrated trait in a presidential election), B) Because even if 100% of republicans agree with his views, they still have to choose who's electable in the general election which is why they elected Mitt Romney, even though it was quite obvious no mainstream GOP was really excited about him or even really like him as a candidate.

Did you follow the polls during the GOP primaries last year? I did. Ron Paul consistently garnered the lowest approval numbers from Republican voters with respect to his policy positions. And that's because about half of what he stands for is in rather direct opposition to the current Republican platform -- the half that represents where libertarians and conservatives diverge.

If liberals and libertarians have 'some things in common', where is the 'libertarian wing' of the Democratic party?

Around and growing, especially among younger people. In fact, many of Paul's supporters in the primaries were Democrats or liberals.

You're fooling yourself if you don't think libertarianism isn't a big part of the GOP and just another flavor of conservativism.

No, I'm fooling myself in thinking there is any point in discussing libertarianism with you.

If you actually were interested in this subject, you could educate yourself on it; for example, you might start with the Libertarian Party platform, where you'd quickly find major policy differences between libertarians and Republicans, in areas such as abortion, energy subsidies, social security, foreign policy, use of the military, and a lot more.

But you aren't really interested, you just want to angrily, mindlessly trash libertarians in the same way you do conservatives.

 

[Moonbeam]

.. and then four sentences later ..



Your posts are self-parody.

I do not know what you mean because you don't really say. You quote two things I said and imply they are self parody, leaving to me to decide what you might mean. I could reply that you think like a donkey, leaving to you to work out the reasons.

But since I have to guess I will try two things:

1. That is because you are very very literal even myopic in the way you think and you believe what you think you see. You lack modesty and humility in your approach to people. You could have asked me how I reconcile such apparent self parody instead of assuming you see it when it's not there saving yourself the appearance of being intellectually weak minded.

Those chains I spoke of exist for him but not for me and that is why I willingly wear them. They are not chains for me, but common sense. Why you do not see this is beyond me.

2. We are all equal under the law. We create law by means of duly elected representatives thus hopefully creating law that is the will of the people. My one vote on that huge tableau is all I get. Any law that restricts my personal desire to act in any way I might want and to which we will all be subject to can never happen by my will alone but can only happen where a majority feels like I do. In a democracy we are subject to the laws we create in common with a majority, limited by the Constitution, which means my personal opinion will not create a dictatorship itself. So any real chains I might participate in creating must also be the will of the people and I will be subject to them in that case, whether I agree or not.

If I have missed what you mean by self parody, I welcome you telling me.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

If I have missed what you mean by self parody, I welcome you telling me.

I thought it was rather obvious -- you claim you would not restrict someone's free will, and then immediately give an example of a (completely unnecessary) restriction you would support.

At least most liberals are honest enough to admit that they are indeed looking to tell others how to live their lives.

 

[BoberFett]

But you aren't really interested, you just want to angrily, mindlessly trash libertarians in the same way you do conservatives.

Phokus claims that he used to be a libertarian, until he wised up and became a Democrat.

I think he also has a black friend that proves he isn't racist.

 

[Phokus]

Sorry, your opinions do not define "reality" for anyone but yourself.

Literally everything you have said is factually wrong on every level.

There's also a reason why Ron is outside the mainstream of the GOP. As for Rand, I haven't decided if he's really a libertarian, a conservative, or trying to have his cake and eat it too. (I lean towards the last.)

Rand Paul is pretty much libertarian. See, you're problem is that you think if Rand says something that's unlibertarian, that automatically makes him not a libertarian or a fake one. If you look at the pre-ponderance of his positions, he's a libertarian.

And? I already said there is some overlap between conservatives and libertarians. That does not make libertarianism a "variant" of conservatism.

Yes it does. I didn't say libertarians are equal to mainstream republicans. When i say 'big tent', i mean evangelicals, neo-conservatives, and libertarians. That's why i say they're a VARIANT of conservativism. I can't believe i have to explain this to you. Have you followed politics for the last few decades?

Did you follow the polls during the GOP primaries last year? I did. Ron Paul consistently garnered the lowest approval numbers from Republican voters with respect to his policy positions. And that's because about half of what he stands for is in rather direct opposition to the current Republican platform -- the half that represents where libertarians and conservatives diverge.

You're confusing the fact that Ron Paul (and his supporters) did some extremely shady things (at least according to mainstream GOPers) during the primaries in trying to win delegates to the GOP conventions that really antagonized the GOP and made them pissed off at him. Did you happen to miss that?

Around and growing, especially among younger people. In fact, many of Paul's supporters in the primaries were Democrats or liberals.

Oh really? Then why is there no 'ron paul' in the democratic party?

No, I'm fooling myself in thinking there is any point in discussing libertarianism with you.

That's because what you have said is factually incorrect.

If you actually were interested in this subject, you could educate yourself on it; for example, you might start with the Libertarian Party platform, where you'd quickly find major policy differences between libertarians and Republicans, in areas such as abortion, energy subsidies, social security, foreign policy, use of the military, and a lot more.

But you aren't really interested, you just want to angrily, mindlessly trash libertarians in the same way you do conservatives.

Dude, i was a FORMER libertarian, don't preach to me what is and isn't libertarianism. If you don't think there's a large contingent of libertarians in the GOP and they have mostly aligned with the right rather than the left, you are sorely misinformed.

Edit: oh and one more thing, it's funny how the tea party sprung from ron paul's movement and the tea party has the GOP by the balls. Sure you can argue that the Tea Party isn't 100% libertarian, but there IS a VERY big overlap. Funny when the occupy movement sprung forth, some libertarians tried to inject themselves into it, but there has been a huge disagreement between them and most occupy participants and there hasn't been the same sort of synergy.

 

[xBiffx]

Again, this is the difference between liberals and conservatives (of which libertarianism is a variant of), conservatives just spout out whatever bullshit they want based on their gut feeling, while liberals use facts, despite our population increasing, drunk driving has gone down, thanks to toughening of drunk driving laws from the late 70's through the 90's:

http://www.centurycouncil.org/drunk-driving/drunk-driving-fatalities-national-statistics

I see how you showed that it was the law that caused drunk driving to go down and no other stimulus. Talk about spouting off bullshit...

Hint, correlation does not imply causation.