If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Salon)   Confessions of a former Buddhist Libertarian who realized his two ideologies could never reconcile   (salon.com) divider line 200
    More: Silly, Buddhist Libertarian, natural response, intellectuals  
•       •       •

5834 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Jan 2014 at 1:24 PM (43 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



200 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-01-26 03:13:37 PM  

Coming on a Bicycle: And then, when he's forty-five, he discovers that compassion is totally overrated as well.


Age 0-12: Communist sucking off parental teat.
Age 13-24: Libertarian ready to take on the world.
Age 25-36: Communist realizing life is hard.
Age 37-48: Libertarian realizing you had to work to get where you are.
Age 49-60: Communist as you realize your own mortality.
Age 61+: Libertarian saying "Fark it all. I gotta enjoy the few years I've got left."
 
2014-01-26 03:18:32 PM  

Fatty McFatcheeks: I think what many in the US would be willing to settle on is a Libertarianisim that embraces the individual choices of americans to make their own destiny, and have a small effective federal government to maintain infrastructure, order (including a well run adn effecitve social welfare), and defense.


So fantasy then.
 
2014-01-26 03:21:01 PM  
Extremism in either direction is bad. I hope he learned that.
.
/DNRTFA
 
2014-01-26 03:26:22 PM  
What happened? Did a bunch of freepers see that there was a libertarian/Salon post on fark and decide libertarianism needed to be saved? Or do you people get paid by the post? Is there a good version of that sock puppeting? Like some rich guy liberal pays a think tank to "influence public policy...." but for actual good purposes?

Oh... nonprofit business idea:

1) Create nonprofit to "influence public policy to promote peace and diversity, and increase appreciation for intellectualism."
2) Solicit donations from liberal rich people.
3) Sit around on fark everyday telling libertarians that they're stupid.

Sounds like a good idea to me.
 
2014-01-26 03:28:27 PM  
This is why I embrace Compassionate Geniocracy; The idea that our government should be comprised of the most intelligent and most creative members of our society, rather than the current state of being comprised of the most powerful, wealthy, or popular people.

In a geniocracy, the geniuses rule. In my ideal geniocracy, these public servants would not be elected, but selected--  drafted,  if you will-- upon detection and determination of their high intelligence and creativity. They would be required to serve their nation for the greater good, and there would be term limits that are non-negotiable. There's no election. No re-election. No buying your way into another term. You serve your time as a leader of the people, making the logical (but compassionate and humane) decisions, and then you step down and retire from politics, never to influence government policy again.

There would be no single leader-- No President-- but a Triumvirate of the three most intelligent people in the current administrative cycle. Each member would represent a political/philosophical ideal, i.e. there would be one liberal, one conservative, and one centrist. They would make decisions by a majority vote, i.e. two out of the three, or all three, must agree to move forward.

The Senate would be made up of the remaining creative and intellectual geniuses of the current political cycle, each representing a state, city-state, or territory with equal influence. And no one in this Senate would be possessed of an I.Q. under 130 (5 points higher than the current adult standard for genius).

Local governors and representatives would be the same. Nobody elected. Nobody with an I.Q. under 130.

Governor Triumvirates could not act in a way that affects the welfare of the people of their state without first bringing their proposed course of action to the National Triumvirate, who would decide whether or not the lower triumvirate was acting in the best interest of the people.

Lobbyists would be banned, and any corporation attempting to influence a member of government with bribes, lunches, gifts, or private meetings would be penalized heavily. The actual lobbyist would be incarcerated for no fewer than two years in a federal prison. The corporation would get three strikes, after which their assets would be frozen and their board of directors dissolved. The company would temporarily be held by the government until such time as new private leadership could be put in place. Any meetings between corporations and government officials-- particularly Senators or Representatives-- would be required to be held in a public forum. If corporations want something, they have to ask in front of the entire nation; Not behind closed doors.

Every session of Congress and the Senate would be public and televised, unless the topic pertained to national security and was of a sensitive nature (i.e. could be used by foreign powers to undermine the safety of the nation).

I know this would never happen, but I believe that if it ever did, we'd have as close to a perfect system as possible. We'd still have liberalism, conservativism, and centrism represented, but  only by the most intelligent or creative people in our society  instead of by dumbasses and superstitious ninnies.

And as a side note, when I say "most creative" I mean they must still be geniuses with the appropriate I.Q. scores. Not all geniuses are science, math, or business-oriented. Not all geniuses are intellectual in nature. Think of Van Gogh, DaVinci, Mozart, etc..

Which brings up one more issue: ALL members of this government would have to be subjected to testing to determine their mental health condition. Genius can often mean insanity. We want smart people making decisions, but we don't want them to be loonies.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2014-01-26 03:34:22 PM  

Dangl1ng: What happened? Did a bunch of freepers see that there was a libertarian/Salon post on fark and decide libertarianism needed to be saved? Or do you people get paid by the post? Is there a good version of that sock puppeting? Like some rich guy liberal pays a think tank to "influence public policy...." but for actual good purposes?

Oh... nonprofit business idea:

1) Create nonprofit to "influence public policy to promote peace and diversity, and increase appreciation for intellectualism."
2) Solicit donations from liberal rich people.
3) Sit around on fark everyday telling libertarians that they're stupid.

Sounds like a good idea to me.


That's an existing FOR profit business model.

images.politico.com
 
2014-01-26 03:37:53 PM  

ZeroCorpse: This is why I embrace Compassionate Geniocracy; The idea that our government should be comprised of the most intelligent and most creative members of our society, rather than the current state of being comprised of the most powerful, wealthy, or popular people.

In a geniocracy, the geniuses rule. In my ideal geniocracy, these public servants would not be elected, but selected--  drafted,  if you will-- upon detection and determination of their high intelligence and creativity. They would be required to serve their nation for the greater good, and there would be term limits that are non-negotiable. There's no election. No re-election. No buying your way into another term. You serve your time as a leader of the people, making the logical (but compassionate and humane) decisions, and then you step down and retire from politics, never to influence government policy again.

There would be no single leader-- No President-- but a Triumvirate of the three most intelligent people in the current administrative cycle. Each member would represent a political/philosophical ideal, i.e. there would be one liberal, one conservative, and one centrist. They would make decisions by a majority vote, i.e. two out of the three, or all three, must agree to move forward.

The Senate would be made up of the remaining creative and intellectual geniuses of the current political cycle, each representing a state, city-state, or territory with equal influence. And no one in this Senate would be possessed of an I.Q. under 130 (5 points higher than the current adult standard for genius).

Local governors and representatives would be the same. Nobody elected. Nobody with an I.Q. under 130.

Governor Triumvirates could not act in a way that affects the welfare of the people of their state without first bringing their proposed course of action to the National Triumvirate, who would decide whether or not the lower triumvirate was acting in the best interest of the people.

Lobbyists would be banned, ...


Sounds familiar.

media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com
 
2014-01-26 03:38:14 PM  
I could never be a libertarian.  I had sex in high school.
 
2014-01-26 03:39:31 PM  

ZeroCorpse: This is why I embrace Compassionate Geniocracy; The idea that our government should be comprised of the most intelligent and most creative members of our society, rather than the current state of being comprised of the most powerful, wealthy, or popular people.

In a geniocracy, the geniuses rule. In my ideal geniocracy, these public servants would not be elected, but selected--  drafted,  if you will-- upon detection and determination of their high intelligence and creativity. They would be required to serve their nation for the greater good, and there would be term limits that are non-negotiable. There's no election. No re-election. No buying your way into another term. You serve your time as a leader of the people, making the logical (but compassionate and humane) decisions, and then you step down and retire from politics, never to influence government policy again.

There would be no single leader-- No President-- but a Triumvirate of the three most intelligent people in the current administrative cycle. Each member would represent a political/philosophical ideal, i.e. there would be one liberal, one conservative, and one centrist. They would make decisions by a majority vote, i.e. two out of the three, or all three, must agree to move forward.

The Senate would be made up of the remaining creative and intellectual geniuses of the current political cycle, each representing a state, city-state, or territory with equal influence. And no one in this Senate would be possessed of an I.Q. under 130 (5 points higher than the current adult standard for genius).

Local governors and representatives would be the same. Nobody elected. Nobody with an I.Q. under 130.

Governor Triumvirates could not act in a way that affects the welfare of the people of their state without first bringing their proposed course of action to the National Triumvirate, who would decide whether or not the lower triumvirate was acting in the best interest of the people.

Lobbyists would be banned, and any corporation attempting to influence a member of government with bribes, lunches, gifts, or private meetings would be penalized heavily. The actual lobbyist would be incarcerated for no fewer than two years in a federal prison. The corporation would get three strikes, after which their assets would be frozen and their board of directors dissolved. The company would temporarily be held by the government until such time as new private leadership could be put in place. Any meetings between corporations and government officials-- particularly Senators or Representatives-- would be required to be held in a public forum. If corporations want something, they have to ask in front of the entire nation; Not behind closed doors.

Every session of Congress and the Senate would be public and televised, unless the topic pertained to national security and was of a sensitive nature (i.e. could be used by foreign powers to undermine the safety of the nation).

I know this would never happen, but I believe that if it ever did, we'd have as close to a perfect system as possible. We'd still have liberalism, conservativism, and centrism represented, but  only by the most intelligent or creative people in our society  instead of by dumbasses and superstitious ninnies.

And as a side note, when I say "most creative" I mean they must still be geniuses with the appropriate I.Q. scores. Not all geniuses are science, math, or business-oriented. Not all geniuses are intellectual in nature. Think of Van Gogh, DaVinci, Mozart, etc..

Which brings up one more issue: ALL members of this government would have to be subjected to testing to determine their mental health condition. Genius can often mean insanity. We want smart people making decisions, but we don't want them to be loonies.


This sounds great as long as I get to be the head of the committee that produces the IQ tests.
 
2014-01-26 03:39:32 PM  

Fatty McFatcheeks: badhatharry: Enemabag Jones: Fatty McFatcheeks ,
jigger: And it sure does seem that Salon has a real hard on for libertarianism. It's got a regular schedule of articles about how terrible it is.
this...
I think they fear losing people from the left side to Libertarianisim. So we get this article every week with a hyperbolic view of the ideology. Classic enemy making tactic.

See 'left wing' and 'briefly tempting'. Things have changed since 2008.

\I have never understood how there can be pro-life libertarians.

They believe that an unborn human's individual right to life trumps it's mother's individual right to kill it.

Which, while Ideologicaly pure idea, is not a pragmatic one. There will always be unwanted pregnancy. And forcing laws on the mother does not follow the ideal of individual choice. From a pragmatic point of view, Abortions will continue to happen since it is safest for the mother, but alternatives should be encouraged, not forced.


Most libertarians believe the states and communities should decide their own abortion laws. Anyone that thinks abortion should be federally regulated is not very libertarian.
 
2014-01-26 03:41:12 PM  

Weaver95: I can relate. Well...except that I became a pagan instead of a Buddhist but...yeah. Similar awakening,


Depending on the type of pagan, you're not obligated to be nice to anybody.  The Franks were real assholes, at least according to some historians.
 
2014-01-26 03:41:59 PM  
ransack.:
This sounds great as long as I get to be the head of the committee that produces the IQ tests.


Thus underlining the problem with the Libertarian viewpoint. There will always be someone who seeks to corrupt the system.
 
2014-01-26 03:47:50 PM  

badhatharry: Most libertarians believe the states and communities should decide their own abortion laws. Anyone that thinks abortion should be federally regulated is not very libertarian.


So, libertarians think it is OK for a state to regulate women's reproductive organs?

Are there any libertarian women?  I haven't encountered any.
 
2014-01-26 03:50:34 PM  

jaytkay: Enemabag Jones: \I have never understood how there can be pro-life libertarians.

"Libertarians" are authoritarian when it comes to other peoples' lives.
Think of the "states rights" types who say that eliminating slavery was an encroachment on freedom.


Well, everyone is kinda authoritarian when it comes to what they think is right versus what they think other people are wrong about.

/Also, those Jappos were good Buddhists when they farked the shiat out of Nanjing
 
2014-01-26 03:54:25 PM  
badhatharry,
Most libertarians believe the states and communities should decide their own abortion laws. Anyone that thinks abortion should be federally regulated is not very libertarian.


You are saying that libertarians are strong believers in community standards?
 
2014-01-26 03:56:25 PM  

legion_of_doo: jaytkay: Enemabag Jones: \I have never understood how there can be pro-life libertarians.

"Libertarians" are authoritarian when it comes to other peoples' lives.
Think of the "states rights" types who say that eliminating slavery was an encroachment on freedom.

Well, everyone is kinda authoritarian when it comes to what they think is right versus what they think other people are wrong about.

/Also, those Jappos were good Buddhists when they farked the shiat out of Nanjing


Or ethnic violence against the Rohingya in Thailand.

Buddhists are about as "pure" as the Catholic church, though I'm sure Asians see most Christian clergy as holy exorcists too.
 
2014-01-26 03:56:46 PM  

flondrix: badhatharry: Most libertarians believe the states and communities should decide their own abortion laws. Anyone that thinks abortion should be federally regulated is not very libertarian.

So, libertarians think it is OK for a state to regulate women's reproductive organs?

Are there any libertarian women?  I haven't encountered any.


Usually single white guys in the ESPN demo (18-35) who can't stomach the Xtian bent of the GOP and/or just want to smoke dope.  Then you have the single issue married guys who think they could support their crotchfruit better if they didn't pay so much in taxes, which of course means changing the entire system for everyone (and leaving them with only slightly more money that buys less in a society with fewer public benefits).

But no women.  They seem to either line up in the "you should be scared of thuggy blacks" side or the "you should be scared of old men with bibles" side.  It's also very un-libertarian to let guys buy you dinner all the time.
 
2014-01-26 03:57:15 PM  

badhatharry: Most libertarians believe the states and communities should decide their own abortion laws


Why would libertarians even support any laws regarding abortion regardless of what level of government handles it? Don't they favor a hands off approach to these sorts of things?
 
2014-01-26 03:58:45 PM  

PC LOAD LETTER: I view Libertarianism and Communism in the same light: two philosophies that can only exist in theory, and are in direct opposition to the reality of what humans behave like.


That pretty much sums it up.  Communism fails because it assumes you can get everyone on the same page, philosophically speaking, and working for the same goals.  Libertarianism fails because it assumes you can't naturally get  anyone to share goals without threat of physical violence.

Sort of puzzling that anyone could buy into either philosophy since both of those are really, really obviously untrue to anyone with any observational skills whatsoever, but I guess every system has its simplifying assumptions.
 
2014-01-26 04:01:50 PM  
Never thought it was possible for a picture to radiate such pretentiousness, smug, and all other things douchbaggery.  I wanted to punch my screen when I seen his face pop up.   He is like a reverse image of a Jersey shore kid.   Cant stand either of them.
 
2014-01-26 04:03:05 PM  

lordjupiter: flondrix: badhatharry: Most libertarians believe the states and communities should decide their own abortion laws. Anyone that thinks abortion should be federally regulated is not very libertarian.

So, libertarians think it is OK for a state to regulate women's reproductive organs?

Are there any libertarian women?  I haven't encountered any.

Usually single white guys in the ESPN demo (18-35) who can't stomach the Xtian bent of the GOP and/or just want to smoke dope.  Then you have the single issue married guys who think they could support their crotchfruit better if they didn't pay so much in taxes, which of course means changing the entire system for everyone (and leaving them with only slightly more money that buys less in a society with fewer public benefits).

But no women.  They seem to either line up in the "you should be scared of thuggy blacks" side or the "you should be scared of old men with bibles" side.  It's also very un-libertarian to let guys buy you dinner all the time.


And libertarians don't see to like giving women handouts, they seem prefer going dutch and expect women to be responsible for half the expenses at home. Hence why so many of them are single.
 
2014-01-26 04:07:57 PM  

super_grass: lordjupiter: flondrix: badhatharry: Most libertarians believe the states and communities should decide their own abortion laws. Anyone that thinks abortion should be federally regulated is not very libertarian.

So, libertarians think it is OK for a state to regulate women's reproductive organs?

Are there any libertarian women?  I haven't encountered any.

Usually single white guys in the ESPN demo (18-35) who can't stomach the Xtian bent of the GOP and/or just want to smoke dope.  Then you have the single issue married guys who think they could support their crotchfruit better if they didn't pay so much in taxes, which of course means changing the entire system for everyone (and leaving them with only slightly more money that buys less in a society with fewer public benefits).

But no women.  They seem to either line up in the "you should be scared of thuggy blacks" side or the "you should be scared of old men with bibles" side.  It's also very un-libertarian to let guys buy you dinner all the time.

And libertarians don't see to like giving women handouts, they seem prefer going dutch and expect women to be responsible for half the expenses at home. Hence why so many of them are single.



Any good feminist would be fine with such an arrangement.  It's probably more the selfishness and lack of empathy that shuts down the relationship process.  Eventually, dat ass probably wins out and they grow out of it.  Or else they put on a bow tie and find some insecure desperate shrew that will tolerate them.
 
2014-01-26 04:10:59 PM  
I'm a Libertarian Republican. Atheist.

There's all spectrum of "Libertarian"-ness. What joins us all together is that, well, from a historical critical perspective, governments are generally more inefficient and corrupt as they get larger.

That's pretty much the gist of it.

"Smug-ness" depends on the individual and can be found in all political, social, religious circles, so there's no escaping that.

If he thinks Libertarianism only works in theory and became a Liberal, then he should probably crack open a history book, because there's plenty of examples of big over reaching governments doing terrible things, being corrupt, and falling apart.
 
2014-01-26 04:13:50 PM  

Dadoody: I'm a Libertarian Republican. Atheist.

There's all spectrum of "Libertarian"-ness. What joins us all together is that, well, from a historical critical perspective, governments are generally more inefficient and corrupt as they get larger.

That's pretty much the gist of it.

"Smug-ness" depends on the individual and can be found in all political, social, religious circles, so there's no escaping that.

If he thinks Libertarianism only works in theory and became a Liberal, then he should probably crack open a history book, because there's plenty of examples of big over reaching governments doing terrible things, being corrupt, and falling apart.


And no examples of libertarianism even coming close to working, ever.
 
2014-01-26 04:15:02 PM  

Dadoody: I'm a Libertarian Republican. Atheist.

There's all spectrum of "Libertarian"-ness. What joins us all together is that, well, from a historical critical perspective, governments are generally more inefficient and corrupt as they get larger.

That's pretty much the gist of it.

"Smug-ness" depends on the individual and can be found in all political, social, religious circles, so there's no escaping that.

If he thinks Libertarianism only works in theory and became a Liberal, then he should probably crack open a history book, because there's plenty of examples of big over reaching governments doing terrible things, being corrupt, and falling apart.


You're no libertarian, you don't follow the stra- I mean purity test I have made up for them.
 
2014-01-26 04:15:10 PM  

Mrtraveler01: badhatharry: Most libertarians believe the states and communities should decide their own abortion laws

Why would libertarians even support any laws regarding abortion regardless of what level of government handles it? Don't they favor a hands off approach to these sorts of things?


Some libertarians are pro-life. Some are pro-choice. Some are against all abortion. Some are against late term abortion. Some are ok with it in the case of rape or incest. Contrary to fark belief, libertarians are not anti-government. The government would be the one to enforce these regulations. As it is not a power given to the federal government in the constitution, the power to regulate abortion falls to the states.
 
2014-01-26 04:17:08 PM  
There are degrees of libertarianism. A libertarian can be col with soup kitchens and shelters, while not advocating a welfare system that promotes birthing of children one can't afford to raise otherwise.

Isn't there evidence that reveals "helping" in Africa is making things worse?

Someone can certainly have libertarian leanings and Buddhist philosophy in their life.
 
2014-01-26 04:17:55 PM  

badhatharry: libertarians are not anti-government


Wait what? They're no anarchists but they are certainly not sympathetic to government either.
 
2014-01-26 04:26:23 PM  

Dadoody: If he thinks Libertarianism only works in theory and became a Liberal, then he should probably crack open a history book, because there's plenty of examples of big over reaching governments doing terrible things, being corrupt, and falling apart.


Government is bad. Private parties and corporations are always better than government.

www.wrestlingforum.com
 
2014-01-26 04:29:06 PM  
badhatharry
Some libertarians are pro-life. Some are pro-choice. Some are against all abortion. Some are against late term abortion. Some are ok with it in the case of rape or incest. Contrary to fark belief, libertarians are not anti-government. The government would be the one to enforce these regulations. As it is not a power given to the federal government in the constitution, the power to regulate abortion falls to the states.


Link
Given that Wayne Allyn Root is a Libertarian candidate, I fully accept your definition of a libertarian.
 
2014-01-26 04:30:12 PM  

badhatharry: Fatty McFatcheeks: badhatharry: Enemabag Jones: Fatty McFatcheeks ,
jigger: And it sure does seem that Salon has a real hard on for libertarianism. It's got a regular schedule of articles about how terrible it is.
this...
I think they fear losing people from the left side to Libertarianisim. So we get this article every week with a hyperbolic view of the ideology. Classic enemy making tactic.

See 'left wing' and 'briefly tempting'. Things have changed since 2008.

\I have never understood how there can be pro-life libertarians.

They believe that an unborn human's individual right to life trumps it's mother's individual right to kill it.

Which, while Ideologicaly pure idea, is not a pragmatic one. There will always be unwanted pregnancy. And forcing laws on the mother does not follow the ideal of individual choice. From a pragmatic point of view, Abortions will continue to happen since it is safest for the mother, but alternatives should be encouraged, not forced.

Most libertarians believe the states and communities should decide their own abortion laws. Anyone that thinks abortion should be federally regulated is not very libertarian.


I don't think anyone is calling for federal regulation of abortion. That's a strawman.
The SCOTUS ruled that women have a fundamental right to an abortion if they choose. That's not regulation. That's just establishing a right.
When individual states attempt to restrict (or regulate or abolish) that right they are overreaching and violating what the SCOTUS has established as constitutional.
 
2014-01-26 04:31:13 PM  

Pocket_Fisherman: I think its cute when people think that being a libertarian means you don't help others.

I'm a libertarian (atheist) and donate about 10k locally a year and run two food drives. Being a libertarian doesn't mean you don't help, it means you don't force other people to help via government.


Finally!
Thanks for clearing that up. Libertarians aren't cruel people. Cruel people are cruel.
A lot of folks I have met don't really get what Libertarian thinking is. Conservatives view it as left wing and Liberals view it as right. Neither can get past their own ideologies long enough to even try and understand.
This is especially sad for a Liberal. You guys are supposed to be open minded.
 
2014-01-26 04:32:48 PM  
Disclaimer: I'm in my state Libertarian Party's Executive Committee. So I'm in deep.

Abortion: Libertarians, like most Americans, are 50/50 on this one. Some libertarians argue that the right of a woman to her body is supreme. Others argue that the right of an unborn child to its self and existence is supreme. About the only thing we can universally agree on is that letting the government decide is a really lousy way of handling what is ultimately a personal moral choice. We've already seen what a world of locally regulated and prohibited abortion looks like - look up life before Roe v. Wade. Or Romania when Ceaucescu was still in power - he actually sent out doctors to examine teenaged girls monthly for signs of pregnancy to keep them from aborting future factory workers and soldiers.

The role of government and the market: Depends on who you ask. Admittedly, the Anarcho-Capitalist strain gets most of the press - their positions are the most "interesting", after all, since they're the most extreme. Truth be told, even most libertarians in the LP (which, in turn, represents a small subset of the libertarian movement) aren't full-metal ancaps hell-bent on abolishing the state. Most are different flavors of "minarchist", meaning we acknowledge that a state is useful in certain circumstances. Personally, for example, I prefer a democratically represented government in charge of the police over privatized police because the people that would have the most concerns regarding police conduct - the poor and the desperate - should have every bit as much of a say in how the police operates in their neighborhoods as the better off paying the bills.

Also, I live in the west and have read my history. There was plenty of "privatized" police in the 19th century, mostly owned and controlled by mine owners. It wasn't pretty.

Libertarian women: There's quite a few of them, actually. Julie Borowski, Sarah Skwire, and plenty more have at least as strong of a voice in the movement as any man. The issues of where feminism and privilege fit into libertarianism is also a hot one - since we favor the rights of the individual, the issue of how much force and constraint is exerted by culture and government against an individual's ability to meaningfully express those rights certainly has our attention. There's no clear consensus yet, but there's definitely healthy debate about the topic.

State's rights: Libertarians don't want states to have rights. We want people to have rights. We're well aware of the horrors of Jim Crow and state-sanctioned institutional racism and we're quite happy those days are over. We're also well aware that there are more than a few self-styled "libertarians" using our philosophies of freedom and self-determination against us to support reprehensible behavior that, as a people, we should be well past ignoring now. These individuals are merely following the well-trodden paths of their ancestors, who used liberal Enlightment philosophy to justify their antediluvian, Stone Age behavior as a form of "enlightenment" and "stewardship". They ultimately failed, and, as long as we have anything to say about it, they will continue to fail as they settle into the alcohol and tobacco ash filled bottom of the trash bin of history.
 
2014-01-26 04:33:23 PM  
PC LOAD LETTER: [A philosophy] that can only exist in theory, and [is] in direct opposition to the reality of what humans behave like.

That's Reagan's presidency in a nutshell.
 
2014-01-26 04:39:36 PM  
Well, I know a lot of pro-big government types love coming to this website. So go visit Sunny Venezuela. That's a Liberal Paradise.

americasinc.com
 
2014-01-26 04:44:00 PM  
fc03.deviantart.net
"There's Buddhism, Confucianism, and Taoist alchemy and sorcery. We take what we want and leave the rest... Just like your salad bar."
 
2014-01-26 04:47:47 PM  

Dadoody: Well, I know a lot of pro-big government types love coming to this website. So go visit Sunny Venezuela. That's a Liberal Paradise.


This is why I can never take you Libertarians seriously. Because you start with the "Statist" crap and then mention North Korea and Venezuela, almost as stupid as the people saying Libertarians want us to be Somalia when in actuality they just want to pretend that the Articles of Confederations (which is based on their own beliefs) wasn't a colossal failure.
 
2014-01-26 04:52:42 PM  

Oatworm: About the only thing we [Libertarians] can universally agree on is that letting the government decide is a really lousy way of handling what is ultimately a personal moral choice.


"I am 100% pro-life. I believe life begins at conception and that abortion takes the life of an innocent human being. It is the duty of our government to protect this life as a right guaranteed under the Constitution. For this reason, I introduced S. 583, the Life at Conception Act on March 14, 2013. This bill would extend the Constitutional protection of life to the unborn from the time of conception."
Paul.Senate.gov
 
2014-01-26 04:59:29 PM  
How hard would it be to duplicate the Republicans and start an anti-LINO movement?
 
2014-01-26 05:02:29 PM  

jaytkay: Oatworm: About the only thing we [Libertarians] can universally agree on is that letting the government decide is a really lousy way of handling what is ultimately a personal moral choice.

"I am 100% pro-life. I believe life begins at conception and that abortion takes the life of an innocent human being. It is the duty of our government to protect this life as a right guaranteed under the Constitution. For this reason, I introduced S. 583, the Life at Conception Act on March 14, 2013. This bill would extend the Constitutional protection of life to the unborn from the time of conception."
Paul.Senate.gov


Quoting a Republican to argue against a Libertarian? Yeah, that makes sense.
 
2014-01-26 05:05:23 PM  

jaytkay: Oatworm: About the only thing we [Libertarians] can universally agree on is that letting the government decide is a really lousy way of handling what is ultimately a personal moral choice.

"I am 100% pro-life. I believe life begins at conception and that abortion takes the life of an innocent human being. It is the duty of our government to protect this life as a right guaranteed under the Constitution. For this reason, I introduced S. 583, the Life at Conception Act on March 14, 2013. This bill would extend the Constitutional protection of life to the unborn from the time of conception."
Paul.Senate.gov


And that right there is why I'm a card-carrying member of the Libertarian Party instead of the GOP.

Among other reasons.

I'll also note that the "libertarian-ness" of the Pauls (Elder and Junior) and their net effect on the libertarian movement and its place in the world is also subject to heated debate.
 
2014-01-26 05:10:16 PM  

Enemabag Jones: badhatharry
Some libertarians are pro-life. Some are pro-choice. Some are against all abortion. Some are against late term abortion. Some are ok with it in the case of rape or incest. Contrary to fark belief, libertarians are not anti-government. The government would be the one to enforce these regulations. As it is not a power given to the federal government in the constitution, the power to regulate abortion falls to the states.

Link
Given that Wayne Allyn Root is a Libertarian candidate, I fully accept your definition of a libertarian.


One of the few things libertarians do agree on - we're an argumentative, contrarian bunch - is that Wayne Allyn Root's defection to the GOP was the best thing he had ever done for the Libertarian Party.

Now he's *their* problem, and we couldn't be happier.
 
2014-01-26 05:14:34 PM  

Coniuratos: jaytkay: Oatworm: About the only thing we [Libertarians] can universally agree on is that letting the government decide is a really lousy way of handling what is ultimately a personal moral choice.

"I am 100% pro-life. I believe life begins at conception and that abortion takes the life of an innocent human being. It is the duty of our government to protect this life as a right guaranteed under the Constitution. For this reason, I introduced S. 583, the Life at Conception Act on March 14, 2013. This bill would extend the Constitutional protection of life to the unborn from the time of conception."
Paul.Senate.gov

Quoting a Republican to argue against a Libertarian? Yeah, that makes sense.


No TRUE libertarian can be a Republican.

lol

Conservatives are so childlike.
 
2014-01-26 05:19:31 PM  

jaytkay: Coniuratos: jaytkay: Oatworm: About the only thing we [Libertarians] can universally agree on is that letting the government decide is a really lousy way of handling what is ultimately a personal moral choice.

"I am 100% pro-life. I believe life begins at conception and that abortion takes the life of an innocent human being. It is the duty of our government to protect this life as a right guaranteed under the Constitution. For this reason, I introduced S. 583, the Life at Conception Act on March 14, 2013. This bill would extend the Constitutional protection of life to the unborn from the time of conception."
Paul.Senate.gov

Quoting a Republican to argue against a Libertarian? Yeah, that makes sense.

No TRUE libertarian can be a Republican.

lol

Conservatives are so childlike.


That's like, your opinion man.

The lines are blurred enough that anyone can self-identify as anything.
 
2014-01-26 05:21:07 PM  

jaytkay: Coniuratos: jaytkay: Oatworm: About the only thing we [Libertarians] can universally agree on is that letting the government decide is a really lousy way of handling what is ultimately a personal moral choice.

"I am 100% pro-life. I believe life begins at conception and that abortion takes the life of an innocent human being. It is the duty of our government to protect this life as a right guaranteed under the Constitution. For this reason, I introduced S. 583, the Life at Conception Act on March 14, 2013. This bill would extend the Constitutional protection of life to the unborn from the time of conception."
Paul.Senate.gov

Quoting a Republican to argue against a Libertarian? Yeah, that makes sense.

No TRUE libertarian can be a Republican.

lol

Conservatives are so childlike.


Is your username reference Capt Kirk?
 
2014-01-26 05:25:27 PM  
The article is stupid, the writer is stupid, and all of y'all are stupid. Not once did he bring up the non-aggression principle, which is the crucial linchpin to libertarianism. And there is nothing in Buddhism that is at odds with that principle. In fact, the two philosophies go together extremely well: to minimize suffering, it is better not to force others to accommodate your own worldview. Instead, seek to improve the world through your own actions.

Anyone who thinks libertarians are selfish because they don't want to force others to live their lives according to someone else's worldview simply doesn't understand the philosophy at all.
 
2014-01-26 05:26:54 PM  

Oatworm: I'll also note that the "libertarian-ness" of the Pauls (Elder and Junior) and their net effect on the libertarian movement and its place in the world is also subject to heated debate.


That's because Ron Paul is not a Libertarian; He's a Conservative Neo-Confederate.
 
2014-01-26 05:30:07 PM  

ransack.: Is your username reference Capt Kirk?


No, it's just something I typed out fast when confronted with a "create user name" dialog box. There's no meaning behind it.

Thanks for pointing that out though, I never noticed it before.
 
2014-01-26 05:34:40 PM  

Karma Chameleon: There's no such thing as Libertarians. Just myopic hypocrites.


Oh please. Another  clueless non-libertarian who is nonetheless an expert on libertarians.

Do explain.
 
2014-01-26 05:37:15 PM  

FarkingHateFark: The article is stupid, the writer is stupid, and all of y'all are stupid. Not once did he bring up the non-aggression principle, which is the crucial linchpin to libertarianism. And there is nothing in Buddhism that is at odds with that principle. In fact, the two philosophies go together extremely well: to minimize suffering, it is better not to force others to accommodate your own worldview. Instead, seek to improve the world through your own actions.

Anyone who thinks libertarians are selfish because they don't want to force others to live their lives according to someone else's worldview simply doesn't understand the philosophy at all.


It's a Salon article, all signs point to the guy being neither Buddhist or Libertarian in the first place.

Besides, political and religious conversion stories are like pageclick catnip.
 
Displayed 50 of 200 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report