The Revival Of Libertarianism

[bfdd]

I wish we could have a revival of free thought.

 

[Amused]

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=education_campus_libertarians

I enjoy Rand's philosophy as well as the ideas of the Libertarian movement, but both are Utopian at best.

You'll note she doesn't bash libertarianism itself, but the members of that party at that time (the 70s). And she was right. It was (and to a pointm, still is) infested with religious conservatives and anarchists.

She ALWAYS opposed religious conservatives and anarchists. But not true libertarianism.

So the old harp of "Ayn Rand hates libertarianism" is just bullshit, plain and simple. She hated the current party at the current time for all the RIGHT reasons, because it was dominated by anarchists and religious nutballs. But not the basic ideals of libertarianism, which were her own.

 

[Amused]

Your instincts are pretty good, since she wrote a book called "The Virtue of Selfishness."

- wolf

Altruism is individual slavery, selfishness is individual freedom. You choose. Would you rather live for yourself, or someone else?

Maybe you should have read the book? NAW! A knee-jerk, feel-good reaction to a title is good enough, huh?

 

[woolfe9999]

Altruism is individual slavery, selfishness is individual freedom. You choose. Would you rather live for yourself, or someone else?

Maybe you should have read the book? NAW! A knee-jerk, feel-good reaction to a title is good enough, huh?

I've read Atlas and the Fountainhead, not that particular book.

- wolf

 

[Robor]

You can attribute the loss of states rights and the bloated federal government to the "new deal" and FDR more than anything else.

You have a hard on for FDR lately? Who is paying you to spew your talking/attack points?

 

[Patranus]

You have a hard on for FDR lately? Who is paying you to spew your talking/attack points?

Pick up a history book.
Much of the divisiveness in national politics are the direct result of FRD policies.

 

[shiner]

I expected the same thing. When a corrupt ideology is out of power, it can attack the party in power, evenm if things are going well, with all kinds of fantasies about how much better things would be.

If given limited power, they can still blame the other side for quite a bit. Even if given dominant power for an extended period and pursuing and doing terribl,e they can win if they can make people hate the other side.

'Maybe things suck, but Democrats are communists who will destroy the constitution and hand the country to the terrorirsts' lasts for a while.

Eventually, though, the brand finally wears out, and people look for another flavor. Hey, look - libertarianism, it's not that dirty Republican word. It's new and shiny and will work great.

It has a nice simpleness and 'purity' many find appeling if they don't understand the implications, just as communism was a century ago.

It's not entirely unlike the way some on the left looked for new flavors when 'Democrat' was unfashionable.

So basically the same thing you have been doing with all your "If only there were more Progressives" talk. Right?

 

[Craig234]

So basically the same thing you have been doing with all your "If only there were more Progressives" talk. Right?

Wrong. I was discussing the political issues, a Machiavellian discussion. That's not progressives, who have yet to get a majority, unfortunately, and whose agenda is quite different.

Oh, progressives do it a little too, but the bigger issue is that if progressives get to be the majority preference, you will see all kinds of non-progressives looking to grab the word and use it.

Kind of like big agra using the word 'organic'.

Or for another example, when health got more important for cereal buyers, the industry made its own symbol for 'health', a check mark, before any real health group could make one, and it has absolutely no reuls as far as I'm aware of, and is put onto some of the worst health cereals. Hey, it has a check that it's approved as healthy!

Progressives are not about the same thing - which is why they haven't done what Repub and corporatist Dems have done, taken the big bucks and gotten more seats. They're not the problem.

 

[feralkid]

Pick up a history book.
Much of the divisiveness in national politics are the direct result of FRD policies.

Negative.

Political divisions have existed since the dawn of humanity, and very little has changed.

 

[Patranus]

Negative.

Political divisions have existed since the dawn of humanity, and very little has changed.

And there you go again taking something to the extreme.

I never said that "political divisions" are new rather that much of the current polarization is the result of a "one size fits all" mentality creates.

The current problems with the federal government, most specifically the power grab away from the states, has most definitely cause much of this polarization.

After all, the federal government promotes what is good for California is good for Texas, and that is simply not the case.

 

[Craig234]

And there you go again taking something to the extreme.

I never said that "political divisions" are new rather that much of the current polarization is the result of a "one size fits all" mentality creates.

The current problems with the federal government, most specifically the power grab away from the states, has most definitely cause much of this polarization.

After all, the federal government promotes what is good for California is good for Texas, and that is simply not the case.

Well you're partly right. What's good for Texas is a neutron bomb. On the rest, you're nutty, just as usualy funneling everything into the you hate FDR blather.

 

[Patranus]

Well you're partly right. What's good for Texas is a neutron bomb. On the rest, you're nutty, just as usualy funneling everything into the you hate FDR blather.

And much of what FDR did was unconstitutional so he threatened to stack the supreme court and then it magically become constitutional.

Funny how that works isn't it.

 

[Craig234]

And much of what FDR did was unconstitutional so he threatened to stack the supreme court and then it magically become constitutional.

Funny how that works isn't it.

Or, the Supreme Court was radical right, and was rejecting much of FDR's constitutional program for illegitmate reasons, so he proposed adding Justices to fix that, and failed.

 

[Amused]

Well you're partly right. What's good for Texas is a neutron bomb.

And this is why people tend to call people like you "elitist pricks."

Now, what is someone said that about Mexico, or Africa? How about a minority or liberal enclave?

Hypocrisy at it's finest.

 

[drebo]

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=education_campus_libertarians

I enjoy Rand's philosophy as well as the ideas of the Libertarian movement, but both are Utopian at best.

And Socialism and Communism aren't utopian dreams?

Denial much?

 

[Craig234]

And this is why people tend to call people like you "elitist pricks."

Now, what is someone said that about Mexico, or Africa? How about a minority or liberal enclave?

Hypocrisy at it's finest.

I'll take some heat for the joke, but you reply as if you don'tunderstnad it's kidding the other side, as if there's one ounce of real aillingness to kill Texans in it, unlike unfortunately the ones you mention.

 

[Craig234]

And Socialism and Communism aren't utopian dreams?

Denial much?

You are saying Sweden is a utopiast dream?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Altruism is individual slavery, selfishness is individual freedom. You choose. Would you rather live for yourself, or someone else?

Maybe you should have read the book? NAW! A knee-jerk, feel-good reaction to a title is good enough, huh?

Not having read the book, was I altruistic or selfish when I went to a storm wrecked town in another country at my own expense to help rebuild?

 

[Amused]

Not having read the book, was I altruistic or selfish when I went to a storm wrecked town in another country at my own expense to help rebuild?

Did doing so make you feel good?

 

[Vic]

A populist libertarian movement would be an oxymoron. Populism and libertarianism are as opposite as communism and free market capitalism.

 

[Zebo]

I'm libertarian on social issues but economics is another story entirely as wealth begets more wealth until we have a situation like any other totally free market system where one dude of a collective of them owns everything and everyone else is fighting for scraps to serve them.

This is why revolutionary redistributive efforts were implemented such as homestead act, SBA loans, etc to offer some opportunity to all.

Incidentally that is self interest Amused talks about since I'm no Rockefeller another one is not getting shot in face by droves of unhappy homeless since I do have some assets.

 

[Vic]

Altruism is individual slavery, selfishness is individual freedom. You choose. Would you rather live for yourself, or someone else?

Maybe you should have read the book? NAW! A knee-jerk, feel-good reaction to a title is good enough, huh?

It's all about having stark self-honesty with one's own sense of self-interest. You could deceive yourself and believe you're acting for some mythical greater good, or you can be honest and admit that your actions are driven by self-interest and accept all the implications that go with that. And as lies are slavery, and truth is freedom, then so are altruism and selfishness, respectively.

And I prefer Rand's non-fiction. Her fiction is, quite frankly, pretty horrible.

 

[glenn1]

Seems to me they rationalize the flaws with Republicans by using the word Libertarian (as I described above), but when it comes to voting, they (wrongly) hate Democrats and vote Republican to block them.

As a libertarian myself, I can say this isn't true. When a Libertarian candidate isn't running, my vote can go to either the (D) or (R) candidate. Often it depends on which lines up best with my views on issues and whether social or economic issues are my bigger concern at the time.

 

[destrekor]

Seems to me they rationalize the flaws with Republicans by using the word Libertarian (as I described above), but when it comes to voting, they (wrongly) hate Democrats and vote Republican to block them.

Nah, it mostly comes down to voting for who is perceived to be the lesser of the evils.

Current Libertarian politicians, are more truly independent, and even then... there just isn't the public opinion to really back a Libertarian candidate. They have gone nowhere, because the public is stuck on the two party system. And in the end, the true Libertarian kind of hurts itself with its stance on no public campaign financing, so getting themselves established as a large party might not happen any time soon.

I also don't get the "wrongly" hate democrats mentality. Why is it wrong some hate democrats? Democrats often are far more favorable of establishing new Federal government projects. And this latest round, I voted against Obama due to the whole notion of Public Healthcare.
It's not necessarily an evil thing, but push comes to shove, now is NOT the time to be debating it. What IS needed, is regulation. Regulation by means of encouraging the States to regulate health care. More importantly, the cost of war and our large budget deficit in general are the primary issues that need to be managed. Tax needs to be increased, and spending needs to be cut.

And voting along party lines in general is a ridiculously retarded American method.
My region in Ohio is primarily Democrat. I voted for the (now in office) Independent Mayoral candidate (and in truth, he's more Democrat but his attitude is cooperation. Plus, he was chiefly responsible for getting Ohio up to speed with the Department of Homeland Security, and was the local Fire Chief prior to that).
Also voted for our local House of Representatives lady, a Democrat. Though, after more terms than I can count on two hands, she's done. She's lost my confidence and trust.

The way people vote, they are so damn apathetic it's disappointing.
I say, one wrong policy vote, get some fresh blood in there. One policy they stand for and hope to achieve while in office should be enough to lose votes. Yet, a few good things done, and that red mark gets ignored. Why? Over time, that's how we've gotten to the mess we currently see. And I'm not talking Presidential. The President is largely insignificant in the long run. Congress has fucked over the country countless times. The current Congressional makeup is certainly trying to standout as the worst group of politicians ever put in the same room. And that is both parties.

I vote for the most qualified candidate, not by party lines.

 

[glenn1]

The way people vote, they are so damn apathetic it's disappointing.
I say, one wrong policy vote, get some fresh blood in there. One policy they stand for and hope to achieve while in office should be enough to lose votes. Yet, a few good things done, and that red mark gets ignored. Why? Over time, that's how we've gotten to the mess we currently see. And I'm not talking Presidential. The President is largely insignificant in the long run. Congress has fucked over the country countless times. The current Congressional makeup is certainly trying to standout as the worst group of politicians ever put in the same room. And that is both parties.

I vote for the most qualified candidate, not by party lines.

Politicians should serve two terms only - one in Congress, followed by one in jail.