Libertarians

[MrSquished]

one of the greatest video clips of all time

https://twitter.com/x/status/1379141881876123651

 

[Fanatical Meat]

That is great

 

[dank69]

Follow the link to the extended version. Not sure why "requires" needs air quotes but it is entertaining to say the least.

 

[woolfe9998]

one of the greatest video clips of all time

https://twitter.com/x/status/1379141881876123651

People who carelessly label themselves "libertarian" just because they like the sound of it should watch that video.

Years back we had someone on P&N who argued that driving under the influence should be legal, that there should be no penalty unless or until you actually harmed or killed someone.

 

[pmv]

"libertarian" is just a euphemism for "sociopath".

 

[dank69]

"libertarian" is just a euphemism for "sociopath".

It depends on the context. I consider myself a libertarian liberal or libertarian progressive, because I believe that the government should only stick its nose where it is absolutely required, while also acknowledging that there are a LOT of areas where it is required.

Way too many conservatives that are fed up with Republicans use it as an excuse to not vote for Democrats, and this is where we find all of the sociopaths. The Libertarian party in the US is 100% shit.

 

[pmv]

It depends on the context. I consider myself a libertarian liberal or libertarian progressive, because I believe that the government should only stick its nose where it is absolutely required, while also acknowledging that there are a LOT of areas where it is required.

Way too many conservatives that are fed up with Republicans use it as an excuse to not vote for Democrats, and this is where we find all of the sociopaths. The Libertarian party in the US is 100% shit.

I don't entirely agree with you on that, but it's probably just a question of nomenclature rather than anything more profound. I feel the word itself is beyond reclaiming at this point, it's entirely associated with that Rothbard/Rand school of 'I've got mine and I'm keeping it'.

What I find interesting is that not only are libertarian politics often a manifestation of extreme selfishness, and a philosophy that very clearly serves the interests of those who have done well out of our decededly non-libertarian history of pillage, exploitation, theft and looting, but many self-styled 'libertarians' one encounters seem to be driven at least as much by a really strong need to believe themselves smarter than everyone else. As if that's the only thing they have, as they lack the usual capacity for emotional connection with other humans. That seems apparent in someone like Dominic Cummings, for example. It's like an alliance-of-convenience between geeks and plutocrats.

The sad truth seems to be that the question of the use of state power is not a simple one, and there are pitfalls on all sides. Libertarians try to pretend the world is simpler than it is. We don't really seem to have found a definitive answer to how humans organise to live together in large numbers.

 

[dank69]

I don't entirely agree with you on that, but it's probably just a question of nomenclature rather than anything more profound. I feel the word itself is beyond reclaiming at this point, it's entirely associated with that Rothbard/Rand school of 'I've got mine and I'm keeping it'.

What I find interesting is that not only are libertarian politics often a manifestation of extreme selfishness, and a philosophy that very clearly serves the interests of those who have done well out of our decededly non-libertarian history of pillage, exploitation, theft and looting, but many self-styled 'libertarians' one encounters seem to be driven at least as much by a really strong need to believe themselves smarter than everyone else. As if that's the only thing they have, as they lack the usual capacity for emotional connection with other humans. That seems apparent in someone like Dominic Cummings, for example. It's like an alliance-of-convenience between geeks and plutocrats.

The sad truth seems to be that the question of the use of state power is not a simple one, and there are pitfalls on all sides. Libertarians try to pretend the world is simpler than it is. We don't really seem to have found a definitive answer to how humans organise to live together in large numbers.

It is nomenclature. Vast difference between "I lean libertarian" and "I am a libertarian." Hell, even Libertarian != libertarian.

 

[mikeymikec]

It depends on the context. I consider myself a libertarian liberal or libertarian progressive, because I believe that the government should only stick its nose where it is absolutely required, while also acknowledging that there are a LOT of areas where it is required.

That's a pretty vague opinion. Either you need to address specifics or you need to describe the kind of resulting society you'd like to live in.

I mean, it's not "absolutely required" that every kid gets an education but if I want to live in a society where people aren't likely to get burnt at the stake for witchcraft etc, then I'd class education for all as a requirement.

As much as I like to think that people should be generally free to do what they want to do, libertarians in my experience are idiots who for example think that safety standards for food/drink etc shouldn't be required. There's tonnes of evidence to point to the conclusion that developed societies came up with so many rules because without them, really stupid/horrible shit starts to happen.

I imagine to many Germans I'd sound a bit libertarian-leaning in my views, because according to my wife they have rules to say that you can't make much noise outside on a Sunday, and that you can't wash your car in your own driveway, or teach your kid to drive in a normal car, that you can only put out your rubbish for pickup within a certain timeframe before its due to be picked up, and that you need to sweep your bit of the pavement (that last one I can relate to though!).

While power tool noise when I'm trying to relax on a weekend can be mildly irritating, I can definitely relate to only having a certain amount of time in a typical week to get those kinds of chores done.

Overall I think if civilisation wants to improve, then more rules and structure are needed. Can we trust the people coming up with the rules though.

 

[mikeymikec]

That video is mind-boggling. Apparently it's not a spoof.

 

[herm0016]

most "libertarians" in real life are asking questions like "why cant i paint my shed on my property a color i choose" "why cant i build a garage within the setbacks of my property with out paying 1000s for a permit on my agricultural land? why cant I put a flag up of my choosing? etc. and not " why cant I own nukes?" and "we need to privatize the national parks" and " we should get rid of public education"

That's a pretty vague opinion. Either you need to address specifics or you need to describe the kind of resulting society you'd like to live in.

I mean, it's not "absolutely required" that every kid gets an education but if I want to live in a society where people aren't likely to get burnt at the stake for witchcraft etc, then I'd class education for all as a requirement.

As much as I like to think that people should be generally free to do what they want to do, libertarians in my experience are idiots who for example think that safety standards for food/drink etc shouldn't be required. There's tonnes of evidence to point to the conclusion that developed societies came up with so many rules because without them, really stupid/horrible shit starts to happen.

if you want to disagree with people making broad generalizations about a political party, you must provide every exacting detail of your opnion, otherwise your argument/opinion is invalid. I am surprised you did not know that @dank69

 

[pmv]

That's a pretty vague opinion. Either you need to address specifics or you need to describe the kind of resulting society you'd like to live in.

I mean, it's not "absolutely required" that every kid gets an education but if I want to live in a society where people aren't likely to get burnt at the stake for witchcraft etc, then I'd class education for all as a requirement.

As much as I like to think that people should be generally free to do what they want to do, libertarians in my experience are idiots who for example think that safety standards for food/drink etc shouldn't be required. There's tonnes of evidence to point to the conclusion that developed societies came up with so many rules because without them, really stupid/horrible shit starts to happen.

I imagine to many Germans I'd sound a bit libertarian-leaning in my views, because according to my wife they have rules to say that you can't make much noise outside on a Sunday, and that you can't wash your car in your own driveway, or teach your kid to drive in a normal car, that you can only put out your rubbish for pickup within a certain timeframe before its due to be picked up, and that you need to sweep your bit of the pavement (that last one I can relate to though!).

While power tool noise when I'm trying to relax on a weekend can be mildly irritating, I can definitely relate to only having a certain amount of time in a typical week to get those kinds of chores done.

Overall I think if civilisation wants to improve, then more rules and structure are needed. Can we trust the people coming up with the rules though.

I think you misunderstand what we are disagreeing about. It really is mainly about words. I think the word has different implications depending on if one is a native English-speaker or not, and one's generation. I suppose one could look more closely at the relationship between 'progressive' or 'social' libertarianism and the right-wing or 'economic' type. I think the connection is very weak though, but just maybe there is a bit more of a link there than is entirely comfortable for a leftist.
Personally I'm always rather surprised when a self-styled 'libertarian' actually seems to treat the social part of it with as much seriousness as the economic part. Generally it seems that anyone who says they are "socially liberal but fiscally conservative" is just a conservative.

 

[dank69]

That's a pretty vague opinion. Either you need to address specifics or you need to describe the kind of resulting society you'd like to live in.

I mean, it's not "absolutely required" that every kid gets an education but if I want to live in a society where people aren't likely to get burnt at the stake for witchcraft etc, then I'd class education for all as a requirement.

As much as I like to think that people should be generally free to do what they want to do, libertarians in my experience are idiots who for example think that safety standards for food/drink etc shouldn't be required. There's tonnes of evidence to point to the conclusion that developed societies came up with so many rules because without them, really stupid/horrible shit starts to happen.

I imagine to many Germans I'd sound a bit libertarian-leaning in my views, because according to my wife they have rules to say that you can't make much noise outside on a Sunday, and that you can't wash your car in your own driveway, or teach your kid to drive in a normal car, that you can only put out your rubbish for pickup within a certain timeframe before its due to be picked up, and that you need to sweep your bit of the pavement (that last one I can relate to though!).

While power tool noise when I'm trying to relax on a weekend can be mildly irritating, I can definitely relate to only having a certain amount of time in a typical week to get those kinds of chores done.

Overall I think if civilisation wants to improve, then more rules and structure are needed. Can we trust the people coming up with the rules though.

Point taken, and perhaps absolutely required is the wrong choice of words. What I mean by that is "required in order to minimize suffering because the free market has failed to do so." Even that statement in and of itself sparks a lot of debate on specific issues.

 

[mikeymikec]

]if you want to disagree with people making broad generalizations about a political party, you must provide every exacting detail of your opnion, otherwise your argument/opinion is invalid. I am surprised you did not know that @dank69

1) We were not talking about a specific political party.
2) I didn't tell him that his opinion was invalid, just that I thought it was a bit vague.

In conclusion, stop being an ass.

 

[dank69]

most "libertarians" in real life are asking questions like "why cant i paint my shed on my property a color i choose" "why cant i build a garage within the setbacks of my property with out paying 1000s for a permit on my agricultural land? why cant I put a flag up of my choosing? etc. and not " why cant I own nukes?" and "we need to privatize the national parks" and " we should get rid of public education"

I have to disagree that most are not for privatizing national parks and getting rid of public education. Many, if not most, believe that all taxes are theft, at least in my experience. I readily admit that my experiences are as anecdotal as yours, however. From what I have seen, "most" self-identified libertarians (again, not libertarian leaning) fall into at least one of the following categories:
Wildly misinformed/uninformed and/or not bright.
Excessively selfish and antisocial.
Hardcore white supremacist and/or religious fundamentalist.

That last group has appropriated the libertarian term almost completely to mean "rules for thee and none for me" resulting in wildly contradictory policy positions that would make some of the smarter Republicans blush, but not enough to detect under all that make-up. A huge swath of self-identified libertarians are hardcore pro-lifers, for example, and that includes most mainstream Libertarian party leaders.

if you want to disagree with people making broad generalizations about a political party, you must provide every exacting detail of your opnion, otherwise your argument/opinion is invalid. I am surprised you did not know that @dank69

I am trying to parse this last bit. I read it as "if you want to disagree with x" where x = people making broad generalizations about a political party. But that can't be right because when someone makes a broad generalization about anything, all you have to do is find one counter example to blow up their argument.

So maybe if we insert the word "by" strategically:
if you want to disagree with people [by] making broad generalizations about a political party, you must provide every exacting detail of your opnion[sic], otherwise your argument/opinion is invalid.

I still disagree, since it is not practical. For example: Every human needs water to survive. Must we deprive every single human on the planet of water until they die to prove that statement true?

Maybe you can help me understand what point you were trying to make?

 

[dank69]

most "libertarians" in real life are asking questions like "why cant i paint my shed on my property a color i choose" "why cant i build a garage within the setbacks of my property with out paying 1000s for a permit on my agricultural land? why cant I put a flag up of my choosing? ...

After all that typing in my previous post I realized I forgot to address your examples here.

Q: "why cant i paint my shed on my property a color i choose"
A: I agree, that seems like government overreach, but need to understand the exact situation. If I had to guess, this is a case of a libertarian confusing an HOA with the gooberment, thus falling squarely into category 1, above. If it is actually the gooberment, I'd need to at least see what their reasoning is.

Q: "why cant i build a garage within the setbacks of my property with out paying 1000s for a permit on my agricultural land?
A: Probably because too many goobers built too many garages that collapsed on too many people throughout history, and/or because you chose to live in a town that funds public services in that way, in which case you are free to sell that land and buy a different piece of property in unregulated buttfuckistan.

Q: why cant I put a flag up of my choosing?
A: What flag? What regulation prevents you from flying it?

 

[brycejones]

most "libertarians" in real life are asking questions like "why cant i paint my shed on my property a color i choose" "why cant i build a garage within the setbacks of my property with out paying 1000s for a permit on my agricultural land? why cant I put a flag up of my choosing?

Because the government hates you....just you.

 

[ivwshane]

Libertarianism is political thinking that lacks any foresight.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Libertarianism is political thinking that lacks any foresight.

Gotta agree here. "Let the market do it' thing" doesn't always work for the benefit of society.

Would vehicle emissions be as clean as they are today without government requires targets? Definitely not.

 

[ch33zw1z]

I used to consider myself libertarian, but realized it was just the easy way to label myself when I didn't want to think about what was going on too much.

I consider myself progressive now, and for me that label includes personal freedoms and keeping government in check. Admittedly, that doesn't always work out (looking at you Patriot Act), but it's just how I see things now.

 

[Muse]

That video is mind-boggling. Apparently it's not a spoof.

I'm quite certain that was not made in a studio, that the attendees were self professed libertarians. "Hell no!" There you go, Americans think they have a birthright to drive a car, goddamnit. So what if you've run down 3 people? So what if you've had 5 accidents in the last 5 years? So what if you've been convicted of manslaughter for one or more of those accidents? So what if you aren't licensed, have no insurance? So what if your car is spewing clouds of toxic exhaust? "Hell no!"

 

[SMOGZINN]

Years back we had someone on P&N who argued that driving under the influence should be legal, that there should be no penalty unless or until you actually harmed or killed someone.

That was probably me, as an overreach to my opinion that traffic laws are trying to do the impossible and failing. My main argument comes in that traffic laws have become focused on being funding for our police force and not doing much to actually fix the problems. My solution is to make harsh penalties for those that actually cause problems, and reduce or remove penalties for minor violations. It mostly focuses on removing drivers licenses from those that have accidents and then enforcing driving without a license extremely harshly.

 

[hal2kilo]

That was probably me, as an overreach to my opinion that traffic laws are trying to do the impossible and failing. My main argument comes in that traffic laws have become focused on being funding for our police force and not doing much to actually fix the problems. My solution is to make harsh penalties for those that actually cause problems, and reduce or remove penalties for minor violations. It mostly focuses on removing drivers licenses from those that have accidents and then enforcing driving without a license extremely harshly.

Why I will never in the guise of saving money, ever let an insurance company put a monitoring device on my car.

 

[woolfe9998]

That was probably me, as an overreach to my opinion that traffic laws are trying to do the impossible and failing. My main argument comes in that traffic laws have become focused on being funding for our police force and not doing much to actually fix the problems. My solution is to make harsh penalties for those that actually cause problems, and reduce or remove penalties for minor violations. It mostly focuses on removing drivers licenses from those that have accidents and then enforcing driving without a license extremely harshly.

No it wasn't. It was anarchist420. And it specifically pertained to DUI's.

Yours wasn't really the same argument. You never said there would be no penalty for DUI short of causing harm. In fact, you appear to have made exception for it.

What sort of policy do you support regarding breathalyzer interlocks on cars?

This came up in another thread, so I'm curious what others think. For those who don't know what these are, they're essentially small computers that you blow into; they analyze your breath for alcohol and if they judge it to be high enough that you're considered impaired, refuse to start the car.

forums.anandtech.com

 

[pmv]

That was probably me, as an overreach to my opinion that traffic laws are trying to do the impossible and failing. My main argument comes in that traffic laws have become focused on being funding for our police force and not doing much to actually fix the problems. My solution is to make harsh penalties for those that actually cause problems, and reduce or remove penalties for minor violations. It mostly focuses on removing drivers licenses from those that have accidents and then enforcing driving without a license extremely harshly.

Yeah, there are multiple, conflicting, issues involved in that. It's what makes politics such a PITA. The police (in the US) seem to use traffic policing to raise revenue, and to excessively focus on black drivers. But at the same time, black people, particularly children, are disproportionately the victims of reckless driving, which mostly, in the US, isn't prevented as much as it should be.

Another connection to libertarianism is the 'shared space' and 'naked streets' idea - smart-arse road traffic engineers, and particularly architects who just want things that look nice but have no real understanding of road traffic, are quite fond of pushing the idea that if you remove all the traffic lights and other road infrastructure like clearly demarcated kerbs (and put in nice looking fancy-paving at great expense) , everyone will just behave themselves and naturally 'self-organise'. It's a very libertarian idea, even if it's not explicitly described as such. And of course, it doesn't work. When you remove all the regulation, all that happens is that the most dangerous and threatening, i.e. large motorised vehicles, dominate the space and the vulnerable (i.e pedestrians) are shoved off of it and simply learn not to go there. Everywhere they try it it doesn't work.

To my mind, people's behaviour on roads is a strong argument against anarchism of all kinds, including the right-wing libertarian variety.