Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
Clearly Moonie's love for the "group," for this greater good or whole to whom he says we are to owe our allegiance, is not as strong as he would have us believe.
Which IMO is not surprising. I have found in all the proponents of authoritarians crying "for the greater good" a streak of petty selfish tyrannical individualism. "This is the way I want the world to be, and so it must be, by force as necessary, for the 'greater good' of all, starting with myself." Ah, but there is nothing more selfless than allowing your neighbor the freedom of choice. These proclaimers of the "greater good" hide their doublethink from themselves by use of Us and Them.
Dissipate
Diamond Member
- Jan 17, 2004
- 6,815
- 0
- 0
Well first of all, we must note that your question is rhetorical in nature. What you really implied through your rhetoric is that a group of people ought to be allowed to make rules that limit personal freedom and those who do not like it should leave.
Unfortunately, your statement implies that the enforcement of the rules of that group of people could be legitimate. But the legitimacy of those rules is the very subject that is to be explored. Hence, the circular nature of the argument.
Social liberals
Economic convervatives
In terms of social issues, they tend to agree with democrats.
In ecnomic issues, they've generally agreed more with Republicans, however the old guard's recents fiscal liberalism and government expansion is the exact oppostive of a liberatarian's ideal.
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.
I'm a centrist/liberatarian according to political scores, and I can see that.
Economic convervatives
In terms of social issues, they tend to agree with democrats.
In ecnomic issues, they've generally agreed more with Republicans, however the old guard's recents fiscal liberalism and government expansion is the exact oppostive of a liberatarian's ideal.
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.
I'm a centrist/liberatarian according to political scores, and I can see that.
Dissipate
Diamond Member
- Jan 17, 2004
- 6,815
- 0
- 0
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.
Piasabird you have no idea what you're talking about. Libertarians are not "extremist republicans" by any stretch of the meaning. Libertarians are generally social liberals, so we are "hated" by the far right republicans... Yet we are also generally economic conservatives, and thus we are "hated" by the far left democrats.
Moonbeam, I'm growing increasingly annoyed with your pathetic 5 year old insult tactics. Can it. Yes the Libertarian party could use some work on becoming more mainstream, but that doesn't mean the party sits back and "intellectually masturbates themselves". I carry no delusion that I am a smarter or somehow more intelluctual person than the next... But ignorance and stupidty, is ignorance and stupidity... There's no other way to call it. When, for example Zendari comes in here spouting off about Libertarians being pro gun control, I feel the need, as a Libertarian, to correct him. The spread of false information never helped anyones cause.
Votingisanillusion, calling Libertarians spoiled little children is quite humorous. The welfare class are the spoiled children. Running around like the world owes them four square meals, a roof over their head, and expensive medical treatment just for being born.... That is the spoiled child mentality. I believe in charity, not theft and redistrobution.
That is Facism you just described, I hope you realize it. If you want to live that way, fine. But not in this country. I will fight it tooth and nail any way I can until the day I die. But from the way you talk about capitolists being evil I can almost guarantee you are the typical delusional Marxist/Lenonist.
Oh please, you get payed for those 8 hours a day, if you feel you are not being compensated properly for your 8 hours of service, take your service elsewhere. More working class marxist bulls**t, and this is coming from a working class man. What, do you want to sit around on your ass all day and be given the high life? Oh wait, you probably do.
Moonbeam, I'm growing increasingly annoyed with your pathetic 5 year old insult tactics. Can it. Yes the Libertarian party could use some work on becoming more mainstream, but that doesn't mean the party sits back and "intellectually masturbates themselves". I carry no delusion that I am a smarter or somehow more intelluctual person than the next... But ignorance and stupidty, is ignorance and stupidity... There's no other way to call it. When, for example Zendari comes in here spouting off about Libertarians being pro gun control, I feel the need, as a Libertarian, to correct him. The spread of false information never helped anyones cause.
Votingisanillusion, calling Libertarians spoiled little children is quite humorous. The welfare class are the spoiled children. Running around like the world owes them four square meals, a roof over their head, and expensive medical treatment just for being born.... That is the spoiled child mentality. I believe in charity, not theft and redistrobution.
That is Facism you just described, I hope you realize it. If you want to live that way, fine. But not in this country. I will fight it tooth and nail any way I can until the day I die. But from the way you talk about capitolists being evil I can almost guarantee you are the typical delusional Marxist/Lenonist.
Oh please, you get payed for those 8 hours a day, if you feel you are not being compensated properly for your 8 hours of service, take your service elsewhere. More working class marxist bulls**t, and this is coming from a working class man. What, do you want to sit around on your ass all day and be given the high life? Oh wait, you probably do.
I am not against labor. I am opposed to wage labor, 7 hour (France) to 15 hour (China) a day slavery. Salarymen die because of their daily slavery too: stress kills, so do pollutants in the workplace, accidents, all caused by capitalist greed that puts "more money" before human health and respect...the numbers worldwide are quite huge; not need for whips. Today's slaves have to take care of their food and housing themselves, those are two of the few differences between now and then.
Apparently you do not care about peoples' freedom. You must be some kind of anal-sado-masochistic neurosis, the kind of neurosis that enjoys the pyramidal structure of capitalism the most, finds it "natural".
Quote: << But that legislating away is not capitalism. >> That is exactly what I explained: libertarians are idealists who refuse to face the dirty realities of capitalism as being essential caracteristics of capitalism. Maybe your mind has been polluted by the likes of Adam Smith, who in his letters explained that he did not believe at all in his idealistic theories, but merely wrote them to please the capitalist powers that be, and in exchange get a high social status. Michael Parenti taught me that. Do not bother reading him; your neurosis cannot accept what he teaches about reality.
I am not marxist or leninist. I simply believe in more democracy and more freedom. Democracy in the workplace for example: everywhere production managed democratically by all those who produce, all those who work, and not just by a greedy authoritarian minority. And more freedom means the end of the huge power of the State over people's lives.
Quote: << if you feel you are not being compensated properly for your 8 hours of service, take your service elsewhere. >> Which means if you are not satisfied of being a slave here, go be a slave elsewhere. Or become a master of some slaves? Maybe you believe you like freedom, but you do hate freedom, since you are a slave whose vision of wage labor is the same as that of your capitalist masters. The perfect mental slave created by so many centuries of christianity according to Nietzsche. And of course you believe in christian charity, like all pathologically narcissistic people; you do not want social justice, or a human, fair and wise redistribution of human productions; you want more than the majority, hence you cannot accept a democratic redistribution of production. Typical of anal-sadistic need for accumulation.
Though libertarians may indeed also be, and above all, affected by an earlier form of neurosis: the oral one, of course. That fits almost perfectly. Let's make it oral-sadistic. Spoiled oral-sadistic children.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
Your powers of doublethink and illogic are truly inspiring. :laugh:
Laboring for food and housing are the lot of nature. It is not an anal-sado-masochistic neurosis :roll: , it is reality (which you are obviously completely blind to). An animal in nature has to labor for its food and housing and so do humans. No political or economic system can possibly be devised to change that, and it simply delusional to think otherwise. If no one works, then no one eats. It's as simple as that. The beauty of the free market is to give people no more encouragement to provide for their own sustenance than nature does on its own. Like you said, no need for whips. And you call it slavery... :roll:
OTOH, your precious communism/socialism is all about the whips. Do what the state tells you "for the greater good" OR ELSE.
Did Michael Parenti tell you that? The wealthy-born affluent Stalin-apologist Yalie who says the gulags of the USSR never existed? Yeah, I can see why you told me not to read him and then insulted me. His arguments are ludicrous and indefensible, like a racist's. 30 million political prisoners died in those gulags. He's no better than a Holocaust-denier.
Christian charity? No. I believe in charity, giving willingly to those in need. Not being the victim of thieves. Christianity has nothing to do with it. "Fair and wise redistribution of human productions" is a fancy catch phrase masking the true act; robbery. Stealing from the productive and giving to the lazy is all it is. "Spoiled oral-sadistic children" is a joke coming from you, you have no right to call anyone a spoiled child when you wish to steal from the working man and give to the lazy, that's nothing but a childish sense of entitlement. The world doesn't owe you CRAP. Get off your butt and earn your keep. Stop trying to hold society accountable for your inadequecies and/or unwillingness to succeed...
"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing
to work and give to those who would not." - Thomas Jefferson
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
He's another freakin' communist zealot. The kind who actually believe that they can call up the big monster of government to forcibly and violently change the world to their liking and then the monster will just quietly go away when it's done, leaving the glorious pseudo-religious utopia. Yeah, Lenin thought so too... and Stalin and gulags followed right after. You reap what you sow.Originally posted by: Dissipate
Wow, that made a lot of sense.
As any logical person will have noticed, the neuroses in this thread have once more proved that inversion is a central part of their pathological personalities.
NeoCons, Communists and Lunatics (and not necessarily in that order) coming together to attack Libertarians.
I never thought I see the day when these mutually exclusive clubs would become the Axis of Feeble.
*Nelson laugh* HA HA
I never thought I see the day when these mutually exclusive clubs would become the Axis of Feeble.
*Nelson laugh* HA HA
Vic: Clearly Moonie's love for the "group," for this greater good or whole to whom he says we are to owe our allegiance, is not as strong as he would have us believe.
Which IMO is not surprising.
M: When you say 'clearly' why don't you actually make clear what it is you are talking about. In what way have I expressed a love of groups that is not as strong as I would have you believe. This sounds like pure nonsense. In the first place I am raising questions about groups and group bonds that you will not face or address. I am suggesting that we may have organic ties to other people that inhibit individualism and have done so for millions of years. You poo poo this, I think, because you do not get it and don't want to get it, perhaps. I asked you if a married man is free or if a man in a raft can read a book rather than bail. I am pointing to implicit obligations people have as social animals that are part of the matrix of our social being, ties and bonds and chains that limit our existence as islands of individuality. 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, however, make the mistake of assuming that I am convinced of the truth of this and you seem to want to stereotype me as some communist mystic. Hehe, I am only asking questions. You are, of course, free to do as you please.
Vic: I have found in all the proponents of authoritarians crying "for the greater good" a streak of petty selfish tyrannical individualism. "This is the way I want the world to be, and so it must be, by force as necessary, for the 'greater good' of all, starting with myself." Ah, but there is nothing more selfless than allowing your neighbor the freedom of choice. These proclaimers of the "greater good" hide their doublethink from themselves by use of Us and Them.
M: Do you not have your own illusions of the greater good. What is the value of mothering children? What is the value of childhood? What do we pay the kind. Isn't capitalism just a game of life for aggressive self centered males who are full of themselves? What right do you have to claim private property or to establish a force that protects it? You are the very thing you hold in contempt, no? Don't you draw lines as arbitrary as anybody else? Haven't you just brought the law of the jungle indoors? "Now kiddies, we are going to play grab everything from mother natures bounty that you can, but remember no stealing from somebody else's theft."
Which IMO is not surprising.
M: When you say 'clearly' why don't you actually make clear what it is you are talking about. In what way have I expressed a love of groups that is not as strong as I would have you believe. This sounds like pure nonsense. In the first place I am raising questions about groups and group bonds that you will not face or address. I am suggesting that we may have organic ties to other people that inhibit individualism and have done so for millions of years. You poo poo this, I think, because you do not get it and don't want to get it, perhaps. I asked you if a married man is free or if a man in a raft can read a book rather than bail. I am pointing to implicit obligations people have as social animals that are part of the matrix of our social being, ties and bonds and chains that limit our existence as islands of individuality. 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, however, make the mistake of assuming that I am convinced of the truth of this and you seem to want to stereotype me as some communist mystic. Hehe, I am only asking questions. You are, of course, free to do as you please.
Vic: I have found in all the proponents of authoritarians crying "for the greater good" a streak of petty selfish tyrannical individualism. "This is the way I want the world to be, and so it must be, by force as necessary, for the 'greater good' of all, starting with myself." Ah, but there is nothing more selfless than allowing your neighbor the freedom of choice. These proclaimers of the "greater good" hide their doublethink from themselves by use of Us and Them.
M: Do you not have your own illusions of the greater good. What is the value of mothering children? What is the value of childhood? What do we pay the kind. Isn't capitalism just a game of life for aggressive self centered males who are full of themselves? What right do you have to claim private property or to establish a force that protects it? You are the very thing you hold in contempt, no? Don't you draw lines as arbitrary as anybody else? Haven't you just brought the law of the jungle indoors? "Now kiddies, we are going to play grab everything from mother natures bounty that you can, but remember no stealing from somebody else's theft."
I don't know, maybe you are trying too hard and miss the obvious at least as is obvious to me. Vic ended his post with this:
"But that's not much different than the left. One side says morality is going to a specific church, the other side says morality is robbing Peter to pay Paul. Your precious groups become lynch mobs -- warring gangs of thugs without a shred of individual conscience."
So I asked:
"How come a group of people can't make rules that limit personal freedom and allow those who don't like it to leave?"
We have in this thread Worlocked talking about dying in defense of society as it is to protect it form votingisanillusions purported fascism, no? Talk about the use of force to control other people.
I was simply asking if a society that made rules to which those who disapproved were allowed to leave could then be called a gang of thugs without individual conscience? It seems that a libertarian society would do worse to me if I decided it was my natural right to help myself to something some libertarian had artificially determined by the mumbo jumbo of some dye on paper called a deed.
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.
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.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter