What is a libertarian?

[Votingisanillusion]

Neuroses are so gross.

 

[Worlocked]

:roll:

 

[Moonbeam]

Worlocked:

"Mumbo jumbo of some dye on a piece of paper called a deed? You're insane, and definately communist. Sometimes I wonder if the two are intertwined."

M: Is it insane to question your basic assumptions? On what basis do you conclude that I am insane and not yourself. Where do you come by your faith in paper? Why do you worship such things and allow them to bind you?

Worlocked: More like the use of force to prevent a tyrannical government from controlling people... "You force me to be liberated and free there for you control me."? That about right? Yeah, nutty, just like I said.

M: Huh? Is it me, or is there something here wrong with your English? I get the first sentence, but not the next. The last two look a bit like muttering. And what right do you have to use force to protect other people from themselves? I thought you were against such things.

 

[Worlocked]

Is it insane to question your basic assumptions? On what basis do you conclude that I am insane and not yourself. Where do you come by your faith in paper? Why do you worship such things and allow them to bind you?

Yeah, black could be white, up could be down, square could be round. I have to be totally objective, right? :roll:

Huh? Is it me, or is there something here wrong with your English? I get the first sentence, but not the next. The last two look a bit like muttering.

The second sentence is a feceuteus(sp?) "quote", me speaking as someone else(you).

In other words; "You": "You force me to be liberated and free there for you control me."
Back to me: That about right? Yeah, nutty, just like I said.

And what right do you have to use force to protect other people from themselves? I thought you were against such things.

Mumbo jumbo of some dye on a piece of paper called the Constitution.

 

[imported_hscorpio]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I am suggesting the possibility that libertarianism is an intellectual fraud and an illusion because it denies the existence of these social, organic, genetic facts of human nature that that its failure as a political philosophy to have any penetrating effect on society at large is that people instinctively realize that it is a joke.

You just called the basic philosophical principle behind the most successful society in history a joke, no?

Also there is nothing about libertarianism that denies the social grouping nature of man. It actually emphasizes the best method that individuals do interact and form groups, voluntary association.

 

[Votingisanillusion]

Originally posted by: hscorpio

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I am suggesting the possibility that libertarianism is an intellectual fraud and an illusion because it denies the existence of these social, organic, genetic facts of human nature that that its failure as a political philosophy to have any penetrating effect on society at large is that people instinctively realize that it is a joke.

You just called the basic philosophical principle behind the most successful society in history a joke, no?

Also there is nothing about libertarianism that denies the social grouping nature of man. It actually emphasizes the best method that individuals do interact and form groups, voluntary association.

The most polluting, consuming, materialistic, brainwashed, dumbed-down, war-waging society in history. You are welcome.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Votingisanillusion

Originally posted by: hscorpio

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I am suggesting the possibility that libertarianism is an intellectual fraud and an illusion because it denies the existence of these social, organic, genetic facts of human nature that that its failure as a political philosophy to have any penetrating effect on society at large is that people instinctively realize that it is a joke.

You just called the basic philosophical principle behind the most successful society in history a joke, no?

Also there is nothing about libertarianism that denies the social grouping nature of man. It actually emphasizes the best method that individuals do interact and form groups, voluntary association.

The most polluting, consuming, materialistic, brainwashed, dumbed-down, war-waging society in history. You are welcome.

I take it you haven't picked up a history book in your entire life.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Votingisanillusion

Originally posted by: hscorpio

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I am suggesting the possibility that libertarianism is an intellectual fraud and an illusion because it denies the existence of these social, organic, genetic facts of human nature that that its failure as a political philosophy to have any penetrating effect on society at large is that people instinctively realize that it is a joke.

You just called the basic philosophical principle behind the most successful society in history a joke, no?

Also there is nothing about libertarianism that denies the social grouping nature of man. It actually emphasizes the best method that individuals do interact and form groups, voluntary association.

But the argument here isn't just history. It is also current events.



The most polluting, consuming, materialistic, brainwashed, dumbed-down, war-waging society in history. You are welcome.

I take it you haven't picked up a history book in your entire life.

Why cannot the greatest government ever conceived by man as of yet and the greatest country in the world be at the same time the most polluting, consuming, materialistic, brainwashed, dumbed-down, war-waging society in history? It's not like there's a lot of competition out there, is there?

And isn't this part of the liberal conservative divide, the worship of a golden past idealized good, or the notion that the human future can evolve into something better? Is man good or evil and is human evolution down or up?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: hscorpio

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I am suggesting the possibility that libertarianism is an intellectual fraud and an illusion because it denies the existence of these social, organic, genetic facts of human nature that that its failure as a political philosophy to have any penetrating effect on society at large is that people instinctively realize that it is a joke.

You just called the basic philosophical principle behind the most successful society in history a joke, no?

Also there is nothing about libertarianism that denies the social grouping nature of man. It actually emphasizes the best method that individuals do interact and form groups, voluntary association.

Look, I would assume that the libertarian party exists to promote a libertarian agenda which to my mine, anyway, implies that not everything in the libertarian's universe is hunky-dory. So how did the basic philosophical principle behind the most successful society in history get us in this un-libertarian fix? I am simply suggesting possible reasons why for comment? I try not to worship sacred cows or shy away from analyzing them when and where I can.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Legend
Calling them anarchists is a hasty generalization. It's the absolute extreme. A liberatarian wants government, but reduced. They want Social Security thrown out completely, and other fats to be cut off the budget.

Indeed it is. Let me clarify for those who do not understand the different kinds of libertarians.

The three main kinds are:

1. Anarchist libertarians

Anarchist libertarians are libertarians who believe in 0 government and they also believe in private property rights (or at least that people ought to own private property).

2. Minarchist libertarians

Minarchist libertarians are libertarians who believe that the only function of government ought to be security production. In other words, they only function of government that is justified to them is protecting people from force or fraud.

3. Classical liberals

Classical liberals are libertarians who believe in a small number of functions of government mostly relating to 'public goods' infrastructure. The list of legitimate government functions for them is greater than that of a minarchist, but still relatively very small.

There are many other kinds of libertarians (i.e. left libertarians and right libertarians etc.) and many different kinds of anarchism (left anarchists and right anarchists etc.).

As a side note: sometimes people have the terms 'classical liberal' and 'minarchist' as being synonymous. For this post, however, I made the distinction.

This is kind of what I mean by intellectual masturbation and doubtless these three can be broken down further and further till we get to my left big toe.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
This is kind of what I mean by intellectual masturbation and doubtless these three can be broken down further and further till we get to my left big toe.

I see authoritarians like yourself jacking each other off all the time. Oh look! It's the IRS! *squirt*

 

[imported_hscorpio]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: hscorpio

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I am suggesting the possibility that libertarianism is an intellectual fraud and an illusion because it denies the existence of these social, organic, genetic facts of human nature that that its failure as a political philosophy to have any penetrating effect on society at large is that people instinctively realize that it is a joke.

You just called the basic philosophical principle behind the most successful society in history a joke, no?

Also there is nothing about libertarianism that denies the social grouping nature of man. It actually emphasizes the best method that individuals do interact and form groups, voluntary association.

Look, I would assume that the libertarian party exists to promote a libertarian agenda which to my mine, anyway, implies that not everything in the libertarian's universe is hunky-dory. So how did the basic philosophical principle behind the most successful society in history get us in this un-libertarian fix? I am simply suggesting possible reasons why for comment? I try not to worship sacred cows or shy away from analyzing them when and where I can.

It has nothing to do with worshipping sacred cows or even the libertarian party. The ideas behind libertarianism were around long before anyone thought up the term libertarian let alone formed a party. And those ideas are at the root of what I consider to be mans greatest achievements in terms of how societies function.

Do you disagree that things like individual freedom, democracy, free markets, freedom of speech/religion, etc. are not positive advancements man has made? Don't you enjoy the fact that you are free to choose so many things for yourself that were once decided for us by kings, masters, rulers or whatever you want to call them?

And to point out that all things aren't perfect doesn't discount the fact that in so many ways things are a lot better than they used to be when man was not considered an individual free to choose his own destiny, but was instead just another body occupingy whatever space his rulers allowed him. To say that the presence of imperfections somehow negates the basic ideas behind libertarianism you would have to deny the existance of all the authoritarian forms of philosophy that so many people subscribe to. There are a lot of people who want to impose their will onto others forcibly.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Votingisanillusion

Originally posted by: hscorpio

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I am suggesting the possibility that libertarianism is an intellectual fraud and an illusion because it denies the existence of these social, organic, genetic facts of human nature that that its failure as a political philosophy to have any penetrating effect on society at large is that people instinctively realize that it is a joke.

You just called the basic philosophical principle behind the most successful society in history a joke, no?

Also there is nothing about libertarianism that denies the social grouping nature of man. It actually emphasizes the best method that individuals do interact and form groups, voluntary association.

The most polluting, consuming, materialistic, brainwashed, dumbed-down, war-waging society in history. You are welcome.

Go back to your Stalin apologist. Oh btw, how was the environment treated under Stalin?

 

[Votingisanillusion]

Stalin apologist? Did Parenti write a book called "Apology of comrade Stalin?"

 

[imported_Aelius]

Originally posted by: Votingisanillusion
Stalin apologist? Did Parenti write a book called "Apology of comrade Stalin?"

I suggest you try using a dictionary. Might help you understand what it is you are talking about.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Votingisanillusion
Stalin apologist? Did Parenti write a book called "Apology of comrade Stalin?"

Actually, it's called Blackshirts and Reds : Rational Fascism and the Overthrow of Communism

Apologist

 

[Cerb]

Entertaining thread (except for Votingisanillusion, who's just trolling). It was answered pretty early on, though. Amazing how people will bite at anything to argue.

 

[Moonbeam]

hscorpio:

"It has nothing to do with worshipping sacred cows or even the libertarian party. The ideas behind libertarianism were around long before anyone thought up the term libertarian let alone formed a party. And those ideas are at the root of what I consider to be mans greatest achievements in terms of how societies function."

M: I am just saying that you have a belief, a kind of religion if you will in that you refer to them as man's greatest achievements. This is what I call a sacred cow. I am not challenging the validity of your belief, only looking at it for what I can see in it.



hscorpio: "Do you disagree that things like individual freedom, democracy, free markets, freedom of speech/religion, etc. are not positive advancements man has made? Don't you enjoy the fact that you are free to choose so many things for yourself that were once decided for us by kings, masters, rulers or whatever you want to call them?"

M: I do not want to fall into the trap of unexamined assumptions. How am I to know for sure if what you say is true? I know it is what a great number of people assume to be true. I am interested in why. I look to see if and where these things are appealing because they may, not so coincidentally, flatter some artificial aspect of the ego. I find that behind so much belief there is really just emotion.

hscorpio: "And to point out that all things aren't perfect doesn't discount the fact that in so many ways things are a lot better than they used to be when man was not considered an individual free to choose his own destiny, but was instead just another body occupingy whatever space his rulers allowed him. To say that the presence of imperfections somehow negates the basic ideas behind libertarianism you would have to deny the existance of all the authoritarian forms of philosophy that so many people subscribe to. There are a lot of people who want to impose their will onto others forcibly."

There is nothing you say here with which I would basically disagree. I find the point of view, however, one-sided. I tried to emphasize that fact when I mentioned that the US can be both the greatest and terrible at the same time. I am not saying that the presence of imperfections negates our society's strength but I am not also saying that our strengths negate our imperfections. It seems to me that I am looking at what is without taking sides whereas you are, so to speak, on a team. I am asking questions and your reaction seems to be to defend. So I ask questions that probe your defense.

Take this for example from above: " Do you disagree that things like individual freedom, democracy, free markets, freedom of speech/religion, etc. are not positive advancements man has made?" Before we can answer we need to have communality of question. Does what you mean by individual freedom, for example, mean what those words mean to me. If they do not, how will you understand my answer? We will be talking at cross purposes. I raised some questions that probe whether man is really free. Is a married man free? You may find this a joke, but I do not. Remember in a pm you suggested that man in a mob is different than man alone. Is there anybody who is really alone. I was questioning whether in reality the concept of personal freedom has any validity other than as a theoretical construct. If not then this has implications for libertarianism's theoretical applicability. It may ignore a vital reality of human life that we are inextricably bound to each other and are, not in our fancy ideas, but in our being, slaves to the matrix in which we are enmeshed. I am simply looking to see whether libertarianism isn't just another form of idealistic dreaming.

As to free markets, well thing I notice about them is that they aren't free. Every time I engage in market activity I pay. I have read that the Kung who live in one of the most sever environments on earth spend about 20 hours a week on necessities. The rest is play time. They don't have good hospitals, but I would think that because they live as the human animal evolved to live their way of life should be protected. They own what fits in a hand so people with dye on paper have stolen their land. They have no paper with marks on it that says private property. So why is it not a fiction that anybody owns anything? Why is there no market to go to for those who want to opt out of the labor for dollars insanity?

 

[Votingisanillusion]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Votingisanillusion
Stalin apologist? Did Parenti write a book called "Apology of comrade Stalin?"

Actually, it's called Blackshirts and Reds : Rational Fascism and the Overthrow of Communism

Apologist

Very interesting. Thank you very much!
I agree in large part with Luc REYNAERT's (top 1000 reviewer) analysis on that page (I hate Lenin and Stalin just as much as he does), except that for me more democracy also means democracy in the workplace, and "free markets" totally discard the fact that salarymen are not free, so "free markets" make corporations free, but human freedom should be our main goal, not corporate freedom, and since corporations are authoritarian structures...both these freedoms are incompatible.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Votingisanillusion

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Votingisanillusion
Stalin apologist? Did Parenti write a book called "Apology of comrade Stalin?"

Actually, it's called Blackshirts and Reds : Rational Fascism and the Overthrow of Communism

Apologist

Very interesting. Thank you very much!
I agree in large part with Luc REYNAERT's (top 1000 reviewer) analysis on that page (I hate Lenin and Stalin just as much as he does), except that for me more democracy also means democracy in the workplace, and "free markets" totally discard the fact that salarymen are not free, so "free markets" make corporations free, but human freedom should be our main goal, not corporate freedom, and since corporations are authoritarian structures...both these freedoms are incompatible.

Still trolling? Corporations are owned by "salarymen." A free democracy cannot exist without a free market. And hey, just a few of your posts back you were touting Parenti as someone so amazingly great and brilliant that my "neurosis cannot accept what he teaches about reality," and now you have to admit that you (and he) were wrong, but YOUR neurosis can't accept that, now can it?

 

[Votingisanillusion]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Votingisanillusion

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Votingisanillusion
Stalin apologist? Did Parenti write a book called "Apology of comrade Stalin?"

Actually, it's called Blackshirts and Reds : Rational Fascism and the Overthrow of Communism

Apologist

Very interesting. Thank you very much!
I agree in large part with Luc REYNAERT's (top 1000 reviewer) analysis on that page (I hate Lenin and Stalin just as much as he does), except that for me more democracy also means democracy in the workplace, and "free markets" totally discard the fact that salarymen are not free, so "free markets" make corporations free, but human freedom should be our main goal, not corporate freedom, and since corporations are authoritarian structures...both these freedoms are incompatible.

Still trolling? Corporations are owned by "salarymen." A free democracy cannot exist without a free market. And hey, just a few of your posts back you were touting Parenti as someone so amazingly great and brilliant that my "neurosis cannot accept what he teaches about reality," and now you have to admit that you (and he) were wrong, but YOUR neurosis can't accept that, now can it?

When you say "free market", you mean a free capitalist market. Freedom for corporations. Democracy is about freedom for the people. Corporations are structures within which most people are not free: they do not democratically decide how to run their workplace, they have to obey in a pyramidal authoritarian structure at the top of which we find the capitalists. So of course corporations limit the freedom of most people at least eight hours a day. Democracy would be much deeper is the workplace was entirely democratic: democracy would then be a daily experience. Today we can very well see how much capitalism corrupts democracy.
As for Parenti: as anyone else, he is not perfect. Most of what he writes is very interesting, as pointed by the top 1000 reviewer who severely criticizes him.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Votingisanillusion
When you say "free market", you mean a free capitalist market. Freedom for corporations. Democracy is about freedom for the people. Corporations are structures within which most people are not free: they do not democratically decide how to run their workplace, they have to obey in a pyramidal authoritarian structure at the top of which we find the capitalists. So of course corporations limit the freedom of most people at least eight hours a day. Democracy would be much deeper is the workplace was entirely democratic: democracy would then be a daily experience. Today we can very well see how much capitalism corrupts democracy.
As for Parenti: as anyone else, he is not perfect. Most of what he writes is very interesting, as pointed by the top 1000 reviewer who severely criticizes him.

No, I mean a free market. As in a market that operates with a minimum of government interference except for protection from fraud, theft, corruption, crimes, etc. How the market decides to organize itself is up to itself, but of course it will be meritocratic. Making money and paying bills is not a popularity contest. If it were, it would be even more corrupt.
You have ideals about democracy which are not based in reality, or lessons from history. I have found that to be not unusual from people who claim to be believe in freedom and democracy on one hand and authoritarianism and communism/socialism on the other. Comes from trying to have your cake and eat it too. You see, democracy is not about freedom for the people. It is about control by the people. The 2 are not the same, and freedom is not an inherent quality of democracy.

 

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Votingisanillusion

Originally posted by: hscorpio

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I am suggesting the possibility that libertarianism is an intellectual fraud and an illusion because it denies the existence of these social, organic, genetic facts of human nature that that its failure as a political philosophy to have any penetrating effect on society at large is that people instinctively realize that it is a joke.

You just called the basic philosophical principle behind the most successful society in history a joke, no?

Also there is nothing about libertarianism that denies the social grouping nature of man. It actually emphasizes the best method that individuals do interact and form groups, voluntary association.

But the argument here isn't just history. It is also current events.



The most polluting, consuming, materialistic, brainwashed, dumbed-down, war-waging society in history. You are welcome.

I take it you haven't picked up a history book in your entire life.

Why cannot the greatest government ever conceived by man as of yet and the greatest country in the world be at the same time the most polluting, consuming, materialistic, brainwashed, dumbed-down, war-waging society in history? ?

Actually America is far from that, you'd have to be an ignoramus to make a statement like that and mean it seriously.

Do you think that America really is the most war-waging society in history? The most brainwashed (however you quantify that) ?


JEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEZ



I barely post here in P+N anymore because I just cannot handle the dedicated segment of (IMO) lunatics who relentlessly post negativity day after day after day ... there are some impressive postings on this thread though, from some people who I haven't seen around here much.

 

[Vic]

Translated from the political language, "brainwashed" is an adjective used by a frustrated democrat when the unwashed masses prove to be smarter than he is. You see, it's very difficult to accept the sovereignty of democracy and the fact that the people didn't vote the way you wanted them to at the same time. Something's gotta give.

 

[Polish3d]

Indeed... one could theorize about a link between what some might call a lack of emphasis on personal responsibility in many democrat/left-wing ideas, and the attitudes of so many democrat/left-wingers after the 2004 election; rather than deciding they did not work hard enough or have the right ideas, instead many determined (and openly stated) that the voters were a bunch of idiots and that's why they lost.


("If only everyone were as smart as we were, Kerry would be president.")