Do you have adblock enabled?
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  
•       •       •

5881 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Jan 2014 at 1:24 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



200 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-01-26 12:54:32 PM  
I can relate. Well...except that I became a pagan instead of a Buddhist but...yeah. Similar awakening,
 
2014-01-26 01:18:21 PM  
Always good when someone can overcome some cognitive dissonance.
 
2014-01-26 01:28:19 PM  
That's a pretty snazzy zippered shirt he's got there. What am I reading again?

media.salon.com
 
2014-01-26 01:30:54 PM  
There's no such thing as Libertarians. Just myopic hypocrites.
 
2014-01-26 01:31:00 PM  
The Buddhist Genie:

A man is toiling in his field and unearths an old lamp. He rubs the dirt off and out pops a genie. "You get three wishes, but beware." 

So the man says "I want to be wealthy" and the genie removed his desire for excess worldly goods.
 
2014-01-26 01:31:48 PM  
If Mitt Romney was a Buddhist Libertarian: "I couldn't reconcile my two beliefs, so I left Buddhism for Mormonism."
 
2014-01-26 01:32:33 PM  

FnkyTwn: That's a pretty snazzy zippered shirt he's got there. What am I reading again?

[media.salon.com image 620x412]


www.writeincolor.com

/proud of you, son
 
2014-01-26 01:33:29 PM  
Is a Buddhist libertarian serenely at peace with the fact that they refuse to help others under the guise of helping others?
 
2014-01-26 01:34:33 PM  
Well that ended abruptly, I searched for a page 2 link or something.

Did this whiny hipster (who apparently is paid by the adjective) abandon Buddhism or Libetarianism?
 
2014-01-26 01:36:29 PM  
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.
 
2014-01-26 01:37:38 PM  
He is still an idiot.

He just hates taxes and the services/distributions that they fund.

And if he wants to see some wasteful spending he should go check out corporations.
 
2014-01-26 01:41:27 PM  

ransack.: Well that ended abruptly, I searched for a page 2 link or something.

Did this whiny hipster (who apparently is paid by the adjective) abandon Buddhism or Libetarianism?


He disliked being thought of as a smug asshole, realized he was being a smug asshole, and will probably find a new way of being a smug asshole shortly.

The epiphany of his shock when "people didn't care for others" was about as heartfelt and touching as when Greenspan testified before Congress.

Greedy, narassistic, amoral assholes with tremendous wealth gained by farking over other people on a daily basis lack a general sense of compassion towards their fellow man? Do tell.
 
2014-01-26 01:42:33 PM  
Your ideology is based, at best, on your experiences, assumptions, and reasonings.

As far as i can tell, there is yet to be complete knowledge.

More news at 11
 
2014-01-26 01:44:00 PM  
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.
 
2014-01-26 01:45:16 PM  
Also, government has often been forced to police ethics at the point of a gun. See: slavery, civil rights, women's rights, gay rights, labor rights, etc.

When people biatch how evil society can be, they ignore that it's still made up of people. All the bad shiat in history was our doing.
 
2014-01-26 01:46:24 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.


Basically...and both avow the same conclusion through different means: Libertarians think everyone will get what they want through the free market alone. Communists think everyone will get what they want through the state alone.

The truth lies in between. Probably not with laissez-faire capitalism (which is probably the closest to the utopian libertarianism they want, except for the irrational actors, of course), probably not Marxism, probably pretty close to what certain European socialist states look like now: A well-regulated market backed by a government that does not want to cannibalize itself.  Of course, the faults in that way lie with other state actors that can't hold up their end of the bargain (see Greece).
 
2014-01-26 01:47:30 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.


No, it means you don't really care about the plight of unfortunate people all that much. You might still get a certain amount of pleasure from personal altruism, but that's a pretty narrow view of helping people.
 
2014-01-26 01:47:37 PM  
I wonder how much of that was influenced by the douchebags migrating from the now evangelical republican party after 2008.
 
2014-01-26 01:48:13 PM  
I don't think a Libertarian is going to be too pleased with the commerce and freedom stranding regulations of the 8 fold noble path.
 
2014-01-26 01:49:11 PM  
That article is horrible. Just horrible.

Still unclear about what it has to do with buddhism. The guy grew a new empathy. If he didn't have it before, he was kindof a shiatty buddhist.
 
2014-01-26 01:49:41 PM  

DamnYankees: 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.

No, it means you don't really care about the plight of unfortunate people all that much. You might still get a certain amount of pleasure from personal altruism, but that's a pretty narrow view of helping people.


Mind you, "f*ck you I got mine" is still a perfectly valid philosophy, it's just not a very nice one. I only find it despicable when someone tells me that they're an ayn rand objectivist and some flavor of Christian.
 
2014-01-26 01:50:20 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.


If everyone believed that, there wouldn't be any Libertarians.

/now Socialism....
 
2014-01-26 01:50:58 PM  

Enemabag Jones: I wonder how much of that was influenced by the douchebags migrating from the now evangelical republican party after 2008.


This.
 
2014-01-26 01:51:18 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.


Like building roads and public transportation that would help someone get to a food drive.
 
2014-01-26 01:53:45 PM  
Since were all so generous with others money, why not max out your own credit cards and help feed the poor in Mexico?

Don't be stingy!
 
2014-01-26 01:54:03 PM  
So part of Buddhism requires the use of force on people if they don't make the "right" decisions when it comes to "helping" people?
 
2014-01-26 01:55:41 PM  
The central message of Buddhism is not every man for himself?
 
2014-01-26 01:56:01 PM  
"During college, a friend admitted he was confounded by my politics. He didn't know how to reconcile my libertarianism with my other commitments. We were Buddhists and vegetarians, and ...."


img.4plebs.org
 
2014-01-26 01:57:11 PM  
I'm guessing hipster dude in the article wasn't much of a libertarian, now thinks hes a Buddhist and will lack onto some other "alternative" philosophy in a few years.

Their needs to be a test before you can call yourself a libertarian. I've met hard core moon bad socialists, who claim to be libertarian. You can't give up a philosophy you never really understood to start with.
 
2014-01-26 01:57:41 PM  
And then, when he's forty-five, he discovers that compassion is totally overrated as well.
 
2014-01-26 01:58:19 PM  
Let me guess: some high-nosed hipster who originally claimed to be a deep thinker and a believer in two diametrically opposed philosophies suddenly RTFM and realizes that he can't be both. Is that it?
 
2014-01-26 01:59:24 PM  
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.
 
2014-01-26 01:59:46 PM  
peacheslatour
The central message of Buddhism is not every man for himself?


You have never heard of anarchical buddhism?

\I just made it up as a joke, and it really does exist.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2014-01-26 02:00:31 PM  

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


happened with the hippies.
 
2014-01-26 02:00:58 PM  

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.


Low hanging fruits
 
2014-01-26 02:02:13 PM  
I read the whole article expecting a few clues that this was either written ironically or satire.  Except for his use of interlocutor it all looks legit.

 So I will bite.  Same thing happened to me, except with Christianity. But in my case the two did not occur simultaneously.  I was an atheist libertarian, classic style.  But as soon as I converted to Christianity, I could not remain a libertarian without shame and guilt.   So in order to sleep at night, I became a liberal.  But I had promised myself I would remain open to becoming a conservative evangelical if I ever had more than 10 million for tax purposes.
 
2014-01-26 02:02:33 PM  

Pocket_Fisherman: Their needs to be a test before you can call yourself a libertarian. I've met hard core moon bad socialists, who claim to be libertarian.

You don't need a test to be libertarian, just severe brain damage.
 
2014-01-26 02:03:47 PM  

lordjupiter: 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.

Low hanging fruits


But the articles just destroy strawmen by the dozen.
 
2014-01-26 02:05:13 PM  

peacheslatour: The central message of Buddhism is not every man for himself?


Thank you. It took way longer than I expected.
 
2014-01-26 02:05:19 PM  

Pocket_Fisherman: I'm guessing hipster dude in the article wasn't much of a libertarian, now thinks hes a Buddhist and will lack onto some other "alternative" philosophy in a few years.

Their needs to be a test before you can call yourself a libertarian. I've met hard core moon bad socialists, who claim to be libertarian. You can't give up a philosophy you never really understood to start with.


And here we have a textbook example of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy used un-ironically in the wild.  Try not to point and laugh.
 
2014-01-26 02:05:36 PM  

ransack.: Well that ended abruptly, I searched for a page 2 link or something.

Did this whiny hipster (who apparently is paid by the adjective) abandon Buddhism or Libetarianism?


Make me one with everything except an intrusive, grasping, freedom-limiting yet ever-expanding government?
 
2014-01-26 02:06:37 PM  

madgonad: He is still an idiot.

He just hates taxes and the services/distributions that they fund.

And if he wants to see some wasteful spending he should go check out corporations.


I saw no begging bowl. A libertarian Buddhist would have one, not have one, and then have one again.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2014-01-26 02:07:02 PM  

rev. dave: I read the whole article expecting a few clues that this was either written ironically or satire.  Except for his use of interlocutor it all looks legit.

 So I will bite.  Same thing happened to me, except with Christianity. But in my case the two did not occur simultaneously.  I was an atheist libertarian, classic style.  But as soon as I converted to Christianity, I could not remain a libertarian without shame and guilt.   So in order to sleep at night, I became a liberal.  But I had promised myself I would remain open to becoming a conservative evangelical if I ever had more than 10 million for tax purposes.


The fact that there are so many evangelicals that can somehow reconcile the type of bullshiat Joel Olsteen is feeding them and actual biblical gospel has to do with they *want* to believe these two things are reconcilable and they have a cult of personality somewhere backing that belief up.  In their small minds they have all the evidence they need and it's not contradictory.  EVERYTHING I have ever read about buddhism conflicts with the "fark you, I've got mine jack" philosophy that has become libertarianism today.  If he ever thought the two matched he was really, really REALLY farking self delusional.
 
2014-01-26 02:07:54 PM  
All pure political theories--libertarianism, communism--fail simply because they assume that somehow all people will think the same way. Libertarianism fails because it assumes everyone will voluntarily contribute for the common good without external constraints like government.

This is demonstrably not true; but they want to believe it anyway because it sounds good.
 
2014-01-26 02:08:16 PM  

houstondragon: Also, government has often been forced to police ethics at the point of a gun. See: slavery, civil rights, women's rights, gay rights, labor rights, etc.

When people biatch how evil society can be, they ignore that it's still made up of people. All the bad shiat in history was our doing.


Imagine: no religion, too.
 
2014-01-26 02:08:30 PM  

The WindowLicker: Pocket_Fisherman: I'm guessing hipster dude in the article wasn't much of a libertarian, now thinks hes a Buddhist and will lack onto some other "alternative" philosophy in a few years.

Their needs to be a test before you can call yourself a libertarian. I've met hard core moon bad socialists, who claim to be libertarian. You can't give up a philosophy you never really understood to start with.

And here we have a textbook example of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy used un-ironically in the wild.  Try not to point and laugh.


Ugh. To be a Scotsman you have to be born in Scotland. No one is born with a particular political philosophy. The NTS fallacy cannot be used when talking about someone's political philosophy or how they label it. What you're doing is the The NTS fallacy fallacy.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2014-01-26 02:10:33 PM  

Gyrfalcon: Libertarianism fails because it assumes everyone will voluntarily contribute for the common good without external constraints like government.


That is libertarianism from 20 years ago.  Today's libertarianism is just "I'm all right, Jack" and nothing else.  All the "lazy" people (because we ARE in a meritocracy, right?!?) will cease to be a problem because they'll be dead!
 
2014-01-26 02:10:48 PM  
This guy probably just circled "C" right down the line on every test he's ever taken.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-01-26 02:11:11 PM  

jigger: So part of Buddhism requires the use of force on people if they don't make the "right" decisions when it comes to "helping" people?


I think that's part of life.  Or at least a part of civilization.
 
2014-01-26 02:12:12 PM  

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


It was Siddartha who, in order to understand the nature of suffering, abandoned his family, thereby presumably creating a fair bit of suffering. Boy, life's sure full of paradoxes!
 
2014-01-26 02:13:03 PM  

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.


Salon is commie propaganda. That is their job. It's what they do.
 
2014-01-26 02:13:07 PM  

jigger: The WindowLicker: Pocket_Fisherman: I'm guessing hipster dude in the article wasn't much of a libertarian, now thinks hes a Buddhist and will lack onto some other "alternative" philosophy in a few years.

Their needs to be a test before you can call yourself a libertarian. I've met hard core moon bad socialists, who claim to be libertarian. You can't give up a philosophy you never really understood to start with.

And here we have a textbook example of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy used un-ironically in the wild.  Try not to point and laugh.

Ugh. To be a Scotsman you have to be born in Scotland. No one is born with a particular political philosophy. The NTS fallacy cannot be used when talking about someone's political philosophy or how they label it. What you're doing is the The NTS fallacy fallacy.


A true libertarian don't give one cotton-pickin rootytoot what you and yer kind are up to providin you'n yer kin stay on y'all's side of the mountain is all
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2014-01-26 02:13:30 PM  

vpb: jigger: So part of Buddhism requires the use of force on people if they don't make the "right" decisions when it comes to "helping" people?

I think that's part of life.  Or at least a part of civilization.


If you don't believe in taxes ("all taxes are theft") then you should not be a part of a civilization.
 
2014-01-26 02:14:01 PM  

ransack.: Well that ended abruptly, I searched for a page 2 link or something.

Did this whiny hipster (who apparently is paid by the adjective) abandon Buddhism or Libetarianism?


Why not both?
 
2014-01-26 02:14:03 PM  

vpb: jigger: So part of Buddhism requires the use of force on people if they don't make the "right" decisions when it comes to "helping" people?

I think that's part of life.  Or at least a part of civilization.


Is it part of Buddhism?
 
2014-01-26 02:14:23 PM  

d23: vpb: jigger: So part of Buddhism requires the use of force on people if they don't make the "right" decisions when it comes to "helping" people?

I think that's part of life.  Or at least a part of civilization.

If you don't believe in taxes ("all taxes are theft") then you should not be a part of a civilization.


I think that's the whole idea behind the soverign citizens deal
 
2014-01-26 02:14:47 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2014-01-26 02:15:04 PM  

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.


That's because:

1. Libertarianism is truly terrible.
2. Salon must have a fan base that loves to read about how terrible it is.

Actually, #1 is unnecessary, but still true.
 
2014-01-26 02:15:05 PM  

d23: vpb: jigger: So part of Buddhism requires the use of force on people if they don't make the "right" decisions when it comes to "helping" people?

I think that's part of life.  Or at least a part of civilization.

If you don't believe in taxes ("all taxes are theft") then you should not be a part of a civilization.


It's true. There was no civilization before the income tax.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2014-01-26 02:16:32 PM  

ransack.: d23: vpb: jigger: So part of Buddhism requires the use of force on people if they don't make the "right" decisions when it comes to "helping" people?

I think that's part of life.  Or at least a part of civilization.

If you don't believe in taxes ("all taxes are theft") then you should not be a part of a civilization.

I think that's the whole idea behind the soverign citizens deal


yeah.. and the sovereign citizens are paying tolls on every road they use, not using electricity or public water, etc. etc. etc.   If they aren't subject to our laws then we can just kidnap them and deport them, right?
 
2014-01-26 02:17:32 PM  

d23: rev. dave: I read the whole article expecting a few clues that this was either written ironically or satire.  Except for his use of interlocutor it all looks legit.

 So I will bite.  Same thing happened to me, except with Christianity. But in my case the two did not occur simultaneously.  I was an atheist libertarian, classic style.  But as soon as I converted to Christianity, I could not remain a libertarian without shame and guilt.   So in order to sleep at night, I became a liberal.  But I had promised myself I would remain open to becoming a conservative evangelical if I ever had more than 10 million for tax purposes.

The fact that there are so many evangelicals that can somehow reconcile the type of bullshiat Joel Olsteen is feeding them and actual biblical gospel has to do with they *want* to believe these two things are reconcilable and they have a cult of personality somewhere backing that belief up.  In their small minds they have all the evidence they need and it's not contradictory.  EVERYTHING I have ever read about buddhism conflicts with the "fark you, I've got mine jack" philosophy that has become libertarianism today.  If he ever thought the two matched he was really, really REALLY farking self delusional.


Actually I loathe most mainline evangelicals because they don't even follow the teachings.   Buddhism is not always in its purest form either, he did not mention what kind of Buddhism.  My experience with logically consistent atheism forced me to find a form of religion which also remained consistent if not in the same ways.  But I would never have that 10M anyway so it was the never going to happen scenario.
 
2014-01-26 02:17:58 PM  
i173.photobucket.com
 
2014-01-26 02:18:10 PM  
I'm glad he got better.
 
2014-01-26 02:18:30 PM  
I don't think he was really either.

Since the article is from Salon, I think my suspicion is probably true.
 
2014-01-26 02:19:15 PM  
Ugh. That was just awful.
 
2014-01-26 02:20:07 PM  

jigger: vpb: jigger: So part of Buddhism requires the use of force on people if they don't make the "right" decisions when it comes to "helping" people?

I think that's part of life.  Or at least a part of civilization.

Is it part of Buddhism?


You realize that Samurai often were Zen Buddhists?   Yeah, Buddhists, tolerant passivists, every one.

/if you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-01-26 02:21:16 PM  

jigger: vpb: I think that's part of life.  Or at least a part of civilization.

Is it part of Buddhism?


Well I didn't say that did I?

People can't coexist without some coercion because there are people who will take but not contribute.  There are plenty of people who would show up at the food bank with their hand out if they were short of food but won't contribute anything when they are able to.

It's called the free rider problem in economics, but it applies to more than just economics.  There are people who won't respect other people's rights without police and a legal system to make them.

That's why you will never have civilization without coercion.
 
2014-01-26 02:21:30 PM  

jigger: It's true. There was no civilization before the income tax.


Yeah, the ancient Egyptian Empire was built on levying taxes. That's an astute observation.
 
2014-01-26 02:22:08 PM  
it's cute when communists pretend that destroying the economy counts as "reducing inequality for goodness cause we're goody happy people who hate success and america"
 
2014-01-26 02:23:17 PM  

Odoriferous Queef: "During college, a friend admitted he was confounded by my politics. He didn't know how to reconcile my libertarianism with my other commitments. We were Buddhists and vegetarians, and ...."


[img.4plebs.org image 250x272]


Hey, he didn't say he was a vegan, at least.
 
2014-01-26 02:25:20 PM  

Gyrfalcon: All pure political theories--libertarianism, communism--fail simply because they assume that somehow all people will think the same way. Libertarianism fails because it assumes everyone will voluntarily contribute for the common good without external constraints like government.

This is demonstrably not true; but they want to believe it anyway because it sounds good.


That and they believe in the benevolence of companies, and somehow they won't turn the working class into indentured servants. I believe libertarianism would devolve into the feudalism within a couple years of implementation.
 
2014-01-26 02:26:40 PM  

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.
 
2014-01-26 02:28:46 PM  

vpb: jigger: So part of Buddhism requires the use of force on people if they don't make the "right" decisions when it comes to "helping" people?

I think that's part of life.  Or at least a part of civilization.


Buddhism, as I understand it, is more about internal development.  Helping others is encouraged, but not absolutely necessary -- not even as much as in (say) Christianity -- since there's no one supreme being in charge of judging your actions in life.  The point is self-enlightenment.  Presumably, an enlightened person would choose to help others voluntarily.

Anyway, it all seems pretty orthogonal to the question of what the government is doing one way or the other.  If a Buddhist found him/herself in the role of dictator, then you'd end up with a country much like (pre-invasion) Tibet, since that's what Tibet was: a Buddhist dictatorship.  ...and it wasn't exactly a welfare state.
 
2014-01-26 02:29:41 PM  

jigger: d23: vpb: jigger: So part of Buddhism requires the use of force on people if they don't make the "right" decisions when it comes to "helping" people?

I think that's part of life.  Or at least a part of civilization.

If you don't believe in taxes ("all taxes are theft") then you should not be a part of a civilization.

It's true. There was no civilization before the income tax.


There certainly was a lot less of it.
 
2014-01-26 02:30:04 PM  

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.


Yeah it's not like libertarian ideals and politicians have had any affect on national politics the last 4-5 years.  Leave libertarianism alone!
 
2014-01-26 02:30:41 PM  

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.


LOL, shouldn't they promote it? It's a big election spoiler for republicans.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-01-26 02:31:07 PM  
Fatty McFatcheeks:

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.

I don't think anyone fears that.  Libertarianism is a pretty childish philosophy.  Basically it's just anarchy without the ideological basis.
 
2014-01-26 02:35:13 PM  

proteus_b: it's cute when communists pretend that destroying the economy counts as "reducing inequality for goodness cause we're goody happy people who hate success and america"


Who is advocating pure communism? Pure systems are facile. Solutions lie in reasoned thought, not the wholesale buy in to idealism. Capitalism is pretty destructive and unsustainable itself when left unchecked.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-01-26 02:36:10 PM  
Nonrepeating Rotating Binary:
There certainly was a lot less of it.

Even in tribal societies people have to contribute to the welfare of the tribe.  Even social animals work that way.
 
2014-01-26 02:36:24 PM  

rev. dave: Buddhism is not always in its purest form either, he did not mention what kind of Buddhism.


I suppose you could make the argument that Theravada Buddhism has some aspects that are consistent with libertarianism.

The short version is: in Mahayana Buddhism, once you've achieved enlightenment, you're expected to forego Nirvana and stick around and help other people achieve it, too. We only get to Nirvana as a group. Theravada Buddhism is much more individualized: once you've achieved enlightenment, you're good -- it's up to everybody else to find their own way there. If there's a libertarian version of Buddhism, Theravada is it.
 
2014-01-26 02:36:34 PM  
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.
 
2014-01-26 02:38:52 PM  

MayoSlather: proteus_b: it's cute when communists pretend that destroying the economy counts as "reducing inequality for goodness cause we're goody happy people who hate success and america"

Who is advocating pure communism? Pure systems are facile. Solutions lie in reasoned thought, not the wholesale buy in to idealism. Capitalism is pretty destructive and unsustainable itself when left unchecked.


What you said might have a place in more calm and subdued places on the internet, but on Fark all liberals want to live in North Korea, all conservatives want to live in Nazi Germany, and all Libertarians want to live in Somalia.

And they are fierce critics of what they believe other ideologies are.
 
2014-01-26 02:39:46 PM  
1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-01-26 02:41:09 PM  

d23: vpb: jigger: So part of Buddhism requires the use of force on people if they don't make the "right" decisions when it comes to "helping" people?

I think that's part of life.  Or at least a part of civilization.

If you don't believe in taxes ("all taxes are theft") then you should not be a part of a civilithat'sthat's


I agree. Live off the grid like Ted Kaczynski. THEN come back and tell me you're a libertarian. Otherwise when you use those roads, eat that inspected food, drink that clean water, get treated at that hospital, retire to that social security check, drive over those repaired bridges, you likes you some socialism.
 
2014-01-26 02:45:11 PM  
lordjupiter:

Yeah it's not like libertarian ideals and politicians have had any affect on national politics the last 4-5 years.  Leave libertarianism alone!

I think pot smokers in Colorado and Washington would disagree with you

super_grass:

LOL, shouldn't they promote it? It's a big election spoiler for republicans.

Probably, but some of the ideas are just as attractive to thinkers on the left as well

vpb:

I don't think anyone fears that.  Libertarianism is a pretty childish philosophy.  Basically it's just anarchy without the ideological basis.

There is the hyperbole again, 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. These ideals dont seem to fire up bases or win elections.

I will admit that there are those who personify the hyperbolic view of Libertarianisim, and for some reason they seem to be the ones driving the ideology. I just fail to see that view of the idea getting any kind of realistic traction for change and leads to more Salon articles like this.

Now back to TFD so I can talk about boobs.
 
2014-01-26 02:45:23 PM  

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.


Or as an alternate theory, with so many conservatives citing 'libertarian' ideals.  (Rand Paul. Paul Ryan, TPers in general, etc) despite being in the party of the GOP, its convent to let them own the libertarian derp too.
 
2014-01-26 02:47:02 PM  

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.
 
2014-01-26 02:47:26 PM  
"If you accepted that the individual was sacrosanct..." Buddhism holds that the individual is an illusion.
 
2014-01-26 02:50:44 PM  

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.
 
2014-01-26 02:51:48 PM  
What has this site come to? Am I the only Libertarian left on Fark?
 
2014-01-26 02:58:30 PM  

8 inches: What has this site come to? Am I the only Libertarian left on Fark?


No, I'm a Libertarian too, for many years. Likely we've all independently decided that it's pointless to argue with idiots. I've scrolled down so far, and haven't seen "self-ownership" mentioned once, even to mock it. Just for the record, I've met several Libertarians who also were buddhists.
 
2014-01-26 02:59:48 PM  
badhatharry
They believe that an unborn human's individual right to life trumps it's mother's individual right to kill it.


A libertarian that is pro-life.....seems like an oxymoron looking at the definitions below.

The central idea of libertarianism is that people should be permitted to run their own lives as they wish.

Libertarianism is the view that each person has the right to live his life in any way he chooses so long as he respects the equal rights of others. Libertarians defend each person's right to life, liberty, and property-rights that people have naturally, before governments are created. In the libertarian view, all human relationships should be voluntary; the only actions that should be forbidden by law are those that involve the initiation of force against those who have not themselves used force-actions like murder, rape, robbery, kidnapping, and fraud.

lib-er-tar-i-an, n. 1. a person who advocates liberty, esp. with regard to thought or conduct.... advocating liberty or conforming to principles of liberty.

NOUN: 1. One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state.
The Challenge of Democracy (6th edition), by Kenneth Janda, Jeffrey Berry, and Jerry Goldman
Liberals favor government action to promote equality, whereas conservatives favor government action to promote order. Libertarians favor freedom and oppose government action to promote either equality or order.
 
2014-01-26 03:03:12 PM  

lenfromak: 8 inches: What has this site come to? Am I the only Libertarian left on Fark?

No, I'm a Libertarian too, for many years. Likely we've all independently decided that it's pointless to argue with idiots. I've scrolled down so far, and haven't seen "self-ownership" mentioned once, even to mock it. Just for the record, I've met several Libertarians who also were buddhists.


Too bad, I was hoping there was only one hopelessly naive blinkered person left.
 
2014-01-26 03:03:47 PM  

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.
 
2014-01-26 03:05:01 PM  

Fatty McFatcheeks: lordjupiter:

Yeah it's not like libertarian ideals and politicians have had any affect on national politics the last 4-5 years.  Leave libertarianism alone!

I think pot smokers in Colorado and Washington would disagree with you


It was sarcasm.

But, to your point, drug legalization is not an issue owned by libertarians.  It's just the main one party kids latch onto when they reach voting age.
 
2014-01-26 03:07:21 PM  
FTA: When the lens of ideology grows so thick it's all a person sees, a sense of humor is often the first thing to be occluded.

Well put.
 
2014-01-26 03:07:30 PM  

lordjupiter: Fatty McFatcheeks: lordjupiter:

Yeah it's not like libertarian ideals and politicians have had any affect on national politics the last 4-5 years.  Leave libertarianism alone!

I think pot smokers in Colorado and Washington would disagree with you

It was sarcasm.

But, to your point, drug legalization is not an issue owned by libertarians.  It's just the main one party kids latch onto when they reach voting age.


Damn... sarcasm meter is busted.... need moar beer.
 
2014-01-26 03:07:53 PM  

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


Your character has had an interesting arc in the FARK mythos. There were several seasons in which people were not sure if you had done a heel face turn or face heel turn turn or if they had just misinterpreted earlier episodes. And then for the longest time others were waiting for what seemed to be the inevitable next turn.

You have outlasted many of your contemporaries. I would love to see original Wo Fat return.
 
2014-01-26 03:09:31 PM  

Enemabag Jones: [1.bp.blogspot.com image 255x400]


Libertarians: good at image scaling.
 
2014-01-26 03:12:13 PM  
ikanreed
Enemabag Jones: [1.bp.blogspot.com image 255x400]
Libertarians: good at image scaling.

I tried to find a bigger one, there were two or three and none hot-linked.

I figure most of the people here have seen that page.
 
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.
 
2014-01-26 05:39:25 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.


Actually, if I had to pick one of the major parties, I'd personally lean Democrat. They're closer to where I lean, culturally and socially, than the GOP.

Put another way, it's a little difficult to take a political party seriously when they run a Senate candidate that openly wants to criminalize blowjobs because... uh... children! Yeah, that's it!
 
2014-01-26 05:50:03 PM  

Mrtraveler01: 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.


Those make absolute sense in that they are examples of terrible State controls. Somalia, on the other hand, has no rule of law. They are an anarchy with spurts of totalitarian regimes.

Venezuela is no stretch at all.
 
2014-01-26 05:51:44 PM  

Oatworm: Actually, if I had to pick one of the major parties, I'd personally lean Democrat. They're closer to where I lean, culturally and socially, than the GOP.


Ditto. I tend to vote straight-ticket LP, but if I was going to support one of the two major parties it would be the Dems. I agree with them on nearly all of the social issues that are far, far more important to me than the fiscal ones.

Just more anecdotal proof that saying that Libertarians are "far right" is both lazy and indicative of someone who doesn't understand libertarian philosophy.
 
2014-01-26 05:53:08 PM  
Just wanted to point out that the libertarian argument is not that a society of people free of coercion will take care of each other.  The argument is that all things being equal, a society of people free of coercion will take care of each other no worse than if that same society of people had a state apparatus through which they could instigate coercion.  The idea the libertarians put forward is that while the state can provide useful things like welfare, food stamps, education, and other social safety net programs, all of those things also come bundled with a certain degree of warfare, religion based morality laws, cronyism, special interest funding, censorship, excessive taxation, etc.  Further, the libertarians argue that the only way to separate the good aspects of the state from the bad aspects, is if you have an ethical and egalitarian populous, however if you had such a populous, you wouldn't need a coercive state apparatus in the first place.  Or in other words, the libertarian argument is that while the level of public welfare provided by the state through coercion may appear greater than what it would be absent that coercion, this higher level of public welfare is offset by abuses by the state of it's coercive powers.

Now, the counter to this argument is that the libertarian argument would only apply if you assume that a given populous all has an equal level of influence in how their state operates.  (Which might explain why so many populous political movements often seem to end with a government that's more inefficient and more oppressive.)  The anti-libertarian argument would be that despite all of the democratic trappings, the actual leadership in any democracy is not simply a reflection of the populous they rule over, and thus it might be possible to have a state apparatus that is marginally more ethical and egalitarian than what you would get if the clueless, less intelligent, less politically involved masses were left to their own devices.  This argument, though, depends on the assumption that the traits that allow an individual to succeed to a place of leadership in a democratic system predispose that individual to have a greater chance at being more ethical and more egalitarian than an average member of the society.
 
2014-01-26 05:55:44 PM  

media.salon.com



ARE WE NOT MEN?


WE ARE DEVO!

 
2014-01-26 06:02:49 PM  

Oatworm: 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.


Takes a special kind of Libertarian to realize that total Libertarianism failed hard and still be in favor of Libertarianism.
 
2014-01-26 06:09:18 PM  
Stupid asshole is too stupid to understand libertarianism. Libertarianism is about what government ought or ought not do, how much "inherent right" government has to push people around and take things from them essentially at gunpoint. Personal charitable impulses are a non-issue for libertarianism. You want to give to the poor? GIVE TO THE POOR! Libertarianism has no problem with this. You want to form a "let's give all our stuff to the poor club"? FORM IT! Libertarianism has no problem with this. What libertarianism has a problem with is people who say "we will use the power of government to force people to live as we think they ought to live, including forcing them to be as charitable as we think they ought to be". "Keeping all your stuff" is NOT mandatory for libertarians. "Not letting government forcibly take away your stuff" is the point. Likewise, a libertarian government is not to play favorites. There is no such thing as "too big to fail" under libetarian government philosophy. Big banks act stupid? Big banks deserve to fail. Bankers break laws? Bankers are to go to jail. That's how libertarianism works.

There are very few libertarians. There are a lot of plutocrats and randie cultists who call themselves "libertarian".
 
2014-01-26 06:09:21 PM  

Dadoody: Venezuela is no stretch at all.


Yep Obama has us pretty much at the level of Venezuela.

/ This is what conservatives believe
 
2014-01-26 06:22:15 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.


Why is that stupid, I don't see non-aggression as being the calling card of libertarianism. It's sort of just there. It's the economic policy that the writer and others take issue with. It's basis is "I got mine f you." Most liberals, and buddhists alike agree with the social aspects of libertarianism, but it's the economic part where it really falls flat on its face.
 
2014-01-26 06:24:09 PM  

Oatworm: 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.


I'm on a mobile so ntire post, but I just want to make this clear:

Anarcho-Capitalism is an offensive term. There are many strains of anarchist beliefs, but they all share two important principles; no private property, and no private ownership of capital.

These beliefs alone make the very concept of anarcho-capitalism impossible.

Here's what's happening: you retards took the term "Libertarian" because it sounded cool and completely peeled off the actual meaning and history of the term. Seriously. Look it up. It actually meant something.

Now that isn't good enough, so you retards are trying to take another term that you think sounds cool or edgy and manipulate it to mean something it's not.

Anyone who identifies as an anarcho-capitalist is a fraud and a moron. Any libertarian who allows them to identify themselves as such is a moron and lacks any understanding of anarchism.

Which makes sense, since Libertarians often fail to understand their own political ideals.
 
2014-01-26 06:31:14 PM  

positronica: Just wanted to point out that the libertarian argument is not that a society of people free of coercion will take care of each other. The argument is that all things being equal, a society of people free of coercion


A libertarian society would not be free of coercion. It wouldn't even be free of government coercion, but that's not relevant here. What is relevant is the "free" market is powerfully coercive.

Normal people understand this. Libertarians do not. Normal people understand, for example, that a woman (or a man, but usually a woman) can be coerced to perform sex acts she doesn't care to via economic coercion. Rarely do harassers so boldly assert "blow me or I'll fire you;" but the fact is, libertarianism finds exactly that kind of "free" market behavior unobjectionable.

I can already hear the butthurt, turned all the way up to potato. "I find sexual harassment objectionable! Just because I'm a libertarian doesn't mean I like sexual harassment!"

Who gives a flying f*ck what you find objectionable? "Libertarianism" as an ideology does not find sexual harassment objectionable. It is perfectly okay with "blow me or I'll fire you," on the fantasy that somehow the market will correct such behavior "if it really is bad." This even though sexual harassment  happens in our world today, where sexual harassment is punished by force of law, and where there's no reason market forces wouldn't also work to deter it.

You imagine there's only one type of coercion. But everyone who lives outside of his mother's basement knows how coercive market forces can really be. And they know how government coercion can diminish market coercion, or at least provide some of its victims a hope for a remedy. That's why libertarianism as an ideology always has and always will be only marginally relevant to the American political conversation.
 
2014-01-26 06:35:26 PM  

Silly_Sot: Stupid asshole is too stupid to understand libertarianism. Libertarianism is about what government ought or ought not do, how much "inherent right" government has to push people around and take things from them essentially at gunpoint. Personal charitable impulses are a non-issue for libertarianism. You want to give to the poor? GIVE TO THE POOR! Libertarianism has no problem with this. You want to form a "let's give all our stuff to the poor club"? FORM IT! Libertarianism has no problem with this. What libertarianism has a problem with is people who say "we will use the power of government to force people to live as we think they ought to live, including forcing them to be as charitable as we think they ought to be". "Keeping all your stuff" is NOT mandatory for libertarians. "Not letting government forcibly take away your stuff" is the point. Likewise, a libertarian government is not to play favorites. There is no such thing as "too big to fail" under libetarian government philosophy. Big banks act stupid? Big banks deserve to fail. Bankers break laws? Bankers are to go to jail. That's how libertarianism works.

There are very few libertarians. There are a lot of plutocrats and randie cultists who call themselves "libertarian".


I don't get it.

Liberals don't like authority either. Liberals want a push for peace and unjust wars. They want the concept of police authority to change in America. But what liberals take issue with is letting the poor starve instead of using an organized government program to insure people that need help get help everywhere. Not just in localized places where there might be volunteers to help and there might not. Volunteer organizations that are not run by the government exist anyways, I don't see how that's not the best of both worlds.

Not only that but wealth inequality is a real problem, and it's getting worse. I don't see anything under libertarianism that fixes that problem, not only does libertarianism not seem to fix anything, but it seems to make it worse.
 
2014-01-26 06:37:48 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.


The problem is Pocket, is that by that definition you might as well not have a government at all. Just a bunch of individuals looking out for themselves like some Road Warrior movie. Roads, the police, the military, libraries, none of these things exist without you or I being taxed our income. Then there are things like public research, which you probably aren't for pay either right? I mean, corporations can do all the research right?!

Nope. The internet wouldn't exist without public research. Without DARPA and CERN there would be no internet and if corporations had somehow come up with it it wouldn't be the wide open internet we know and love.
 
2014-01-26 06:51:15 PM  
Bhutan is the Buddhist paradise, right? A constitutional monarchy with many restrictions on liberty. Shuns hyper-consumerism. Shipped out 30% of its people in the 90s when they were deemed "illegal residents." Now, it's supposedly the happiest place on Earth?
 
2014-01-26 07:00:52 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.

[americasinc.com image 612x459]



And conservatives, should go to Somalia.  No government and lots of guns!
 
2014-01-26 07:10:14 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, ...


Simpsons did it....

wtsof.tv
 
2014-01-26 07:16:22 PM  
Is there a rebuttal in this thread to any liberal argument about how public schools, roads, research, welfare is a bad thing or in someway is replaceable by libertarianism? Because I haven't seen it. I keep seeing people saying how everyone gets libertarianism wrong, but when it comes to how it solves the inherent ills of capitalism or how it replaces all the good parts of government services and regulations I don't see any explanation. Which seems to happen in every libertarian discussion I've ever seen, the details are always missing.

I believe a new paradigm of government is necessary in the future that is rooted in science/reason, focuses on the pursuit of happiness of the people, and emphasizes more socio/economic equality, but I don't see how economic libertarianism is part of that equation.
 
2014-01-26 07:39:15 PM  

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: jigger: It's true. There was no civilization before the income tax.

Yeah, the ancient Egyptian Empire was built on levying taxes. That's an astute observation.


I thought the ancient Egyptian Empire was built on the backs of slaves.  And then they told those slaves to stand very still because they had a whole ancient empire on their backs and it could slide off if they stood up.  That's in the history books.
 
2014-01-26 07:41:10 PM  

trappedspirit: Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: jigger: It's true. There was no civilization before the income tax.

Yeah, the ancient Egyptian Empire was built on levying taxes. That's an astute observation.

I thought the ancient Egyptian Empire was built on the backs of slaves.  And then they told those slaves to stand very still because they had a whole ancient empire on their backs and it could slide off if they stood up.  That's in the history books.


Some research show that the people who built the pyramids weren't actually slaves, they were paid laborers.
 
2014-01-26 07:43:36 PM  

MayoSlather: Is there a rebuttal in this thread to any liberal argument about how public schools, roads, research, welfare is a bad thing or in someway is replaceable by libertarianism? Because I haven't seen it. I keep seeing people saying how everyone gets libertarianism wrong, but when it comes to how it solves the inherent ills of capitalism or how it replaces all the good parts of government services and regulations I don't see any explanation. Which seems to happen in every libertarian discussion I've ever seen, the details are always missing.

I believe a new paradigm of government is necessary in the future that is rooted in science/reason, focuses on the pursuit of happiness of the people, and emphasizes more socio/economic equality, but I don't see how economic libertarianism is part of that equation.


Are you seriously taking public education & saying that's why government works? The public school system is exactly why we send our kids to private school. No amount of additional funding to the schools will make the inherently flawed system better.

Look, you just can't take the ideal of your system of government & compare it to the flawed reality of the other side. And that's true of both you rabid statists & rabid libertarians.

/science/reason? this government? Man, you're in some serious ivory tower or a river in Egypt or something.
 
2014-01-26 07:54:32 PM  

MayoSlather: Why is that stupid, I don't see non-aggression as being the calling card of libertarianism. It's sort of just there. It's the economic policy that the writer and others take issue with. It's basis is "I got mine f you." Most liberals, and buddhists alike agree with the social aspects of libertarianism, but it's the economic part where it really falls flat on its face.


You're joking, right? The NAP is  the linchpin of libertarian thought. It's the basis for the entire philosophy. Literally everything to do with libertarianism comes from the NAP and the idea that you shouldn't use force to compel others to do something. It's why taxation is viewed as theft, it's why interventionism in foreign policy is looked down on, it's why equality of treatment is so important. It's even why most libertarians disagree with things like the Civil Rights Act (since that's government force compelling people to behave a certain way) and free market economic policy (because people should be free to conduct their own business free of government compulsion).

You simply cannot be libertarian and not subscribe to the NAP. It would be like claiming to be a Christian and then saying that Jesus of Nazareth wasn't a god.
 
2014-01-26 08:02:03 PM  

Baz744: Normal people understand, for example, that a woman (or a man, but usually a woman) can be coerced to perform sex acts she doesn't care to via economic coercion.


Explain to me how that isn't a violation of the non-aggression principle. Because it sounds an awful like rape to me.
 
2014-01-26 08:02:38 PM  

legion_of_doo: Are you seriously taking public education & saying that's why government works? The public school system is exactly why we send our kids to private school. No amount of additional funding to the schools will make the inherently flawed system better.


Private schools on average perform worse because a big heap of them are religious schools that don't teach reality. And everyone gets an education with public schools not just those that can afford it. The quality issues have more to do with state's rights than anything else. If it was run at the federal level there would be national standard and the same dollars spent on every student. But do I need to present to you a flawless system for it to be valid?

Furthermore, there are schools in Europe purely run by government that perform better.

And yes, science and reason. Americans have given up on something better and have settled for shiat because it seems difficult to achieve. It will take a movement, with millions participating, but wealth inequality could just be that spring board to push change.
 
2014-01-26 08:19:51 PM  
Libertarians are self-centred and care about no one and nothing except their own happiness. (Western) buddhists are self-centred and care about no one and nothing except their own enlightenment. Where's the conflict?
 
2014-01-26 08:25:36 PM  

FarkingHateFark: Baz744: Normal people understand, for example, that a woman (or a man, but usually a woman) can be coerced to perform sex acts she doesn't care to via economic coercion.

Explain to me how that isn't a violation of the non-aggression principle. Because it sounds an awful like rape to me.


It's so simple.   Libertarians believe the woman is free to choose.

As long as she can choose to starve and to let her children starve, it's all good.
 
2014-01-26 09:41:07 PM  
Charity and forced wealth distribution are wildly different concepts.
We could exist as a free society and still care for the poor.
If history is any judge, that is the only way it will ever happen.
 
2014-01-26 09:43:01 PM  

Vlad_the_Inaner: As long as she can choose to starve and to let her children starve, it's all good.


So... You think prostitutes work to feed their children?

That's adorable.
 
2014-01-26 09:44:29 PM  

orbister: Libertarians are self-centred and care about no one and nothing except their own happiness. (Western) buddhists are self-centred and care about no one and nothing except their own enlightenment. Where's the conflict?


They both exist to create a world that benefits all those around them.
 
2014-01-26 09:51:53 PM  

MayoSlather: Is there a rebuttal in this thread to any liberal argument about how public schools, roads, research, welfare is a bad thing or in someway is replaceable by libertarianism?


Well, yeah. We do those things privately, for far less money, see far better results, and all people are free to be a part of the system.

Our privately owned power plants are doing fine, our national electric grid is collapsing.
Private schools provide better education at far lower costs.
Privately built roads are better constructed and maintained than those by the public.

Private ambulances pay to park in parking lots, alleyways, and anywhere else they can to make it to the customer first, while public ambulances sit at a central location and get there whenever they can.

Private entities are beholden to their customers, or else they lose money and go out of business. Public entities answer to no one, have no standards, and reign for generations.

Imagine what government run supermarkets, cell phone providers, or auto mechanics would be like.
 
2014-01-26 10:15:24 PM  

Dwindle: Vlad_the_Inaner: As long as she can choose to starve and to let her children starve, it's all good.

So... You think prostitutes work to feed their children?

That's adorable.


Only the once who screwed up at work.
 
2014-01-26 10:48:01 PM  

Dwindle: MayoSlather: Is there a rebuttal in this thread to any liberal argument about how public schools, roads, research, welfare is a bad thing or in someway is replaceable by libertarianism?

Well, yeah. We do those things privately, for far less money, see far better results, and all people are free to be a part of the system.

Our privately owned power plants are doing fine, our national electric grid is collapsing.
Private schools provide better education at far lower costs.
Privately built roads are better constructed and maintained than those by the public.

Private ambulances pay to park in parking lots, alleyways, and anywhere else they can to make it to the customer first, while public ambulances sit at a central location and get there whenever they can.

Private entities are beholden to their customers, or else they lose money and go out of business. Public entities answer to no one, have no standards, and reign for generations.

Imagine what government run supermarkets, cell phone providers, or auto mechanics would be like.


Aww, look another tween just read Ayn Rand. Congratulations. You read a book! Isn't that exciting!

/ Please share details about the government's "national electric grid". That was my favorite part.
 
2014-01-26 10:48:20 PM  
Buddhism?  Libertarianism?  -Ism's in my opinion are not good. A person should not believe in an -ism, he should believe in himself. I quote John Lennon, "I don't believe in Beatles, I just believe in me." Good point there. After all, he was the walrus.
 
2014-01-26 10:51:45 PM  

jaytkay: Please share details about the government's "national electric grid". That was my favorite part.


He must have meant this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Electric_Reliability_Corp o ration

...you know, the nonprofit corporation.
 
2014-01-26 11:14:13 PM  

super_grass: trappedspirit: Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: jigger: It's true. There was no civilization before the income tax.

Yeah, the ancient Egyptian Empire was built on levying taxes. That's an astute observation.

I thought the ancient Egyptian Empire was built on the backs of slaves.  And then they told those slaves to stand very still because they had a whole ancient empire on their backs and it could slide off if they stood up.  That's in the history books.

Some research show that the people who built the pyramids weren't actually slaves, they were paid laborers.


Some research show that it was aliens.
 
2014-01-26 11:45:35 PM  

FnkyTwn: That's a pretty snazzy zippered shirt he's got there. What am I reading again?

[media.salon.com image 620x412]


I RTFA. He sorta sucks as a Buddhist too. He's a mess.
 
2014-01-26 11:58:40 PM  

jigger: So part of Buddhism requires the use of force on people if they don't make the "right" decisions when it comes to "helping" people?

Um, no. No. Where on earth did you come up with this conclusion? You lost me.
 
2014-01-27 11:57:59 AM  

Vlad_the_Inaner: FarkingHateFark: Baz744: Normal people understand, for example, that a woman (or a man, but usually a woman) can be coerced to perform sex acts she doesn't care to via economic coercion.

Explain to me how that isn't a violation of the non-aggression principle. Because it sounds an awful like rape to me.

It's so simple.   Libertarians believe the woman is free to choose.

As long as she can choose to starve and to let her children starve, it's all good.


Yeah no, none of what you just wrote is true. But thanks for playing Burn The Strawman!

Using coercion to force someone to do something is wrong under libertarian thought; it really doesn't matter what form that coercion takes, whether physical, fiscal, societal, or something else. The scenario described would definitely fall under the heading of "using coercion to get someone to act against their own desires".
 
2014-01-27 05:36:43 PM  

Dwindle: Vlad_the_Inaner: As long as she can choose to starve and to let her children starve, it's all good.

So... You think prostitutes work to feed their children?

That's adorable.


What's adorable is you think that Baz774 was referring to prostitutes as opposed to people who put up with sexual harassment at their job for fear of losing it.

/and yeah, I think sex workers with children work to keep them fed.  Most humans want to feed their children.
 
2014-01-27 05:49:39 PM  

FarkingHateFark: Explain to me how that isn't a violation of the non-aggression principle. Because it sounds an awful like rape to me.

It's so simple. Libertarians believe the woman is free to choose.

As long as she can choose to starve and to let her children starve, it's all good.

Yeah no, none of what you just wrote is true. But thanks for playing Burn The Strawman!


I'm shocked, simply shocked to hear you say Milton Friedman constructed a strawman!

ecx.images-amazon.com

It's simple as this:  Free to choose The boss proposes an simple economic exchange.  The woman chooses to provide the boss with an intimate personal service, say with her vagina.  In exchange the boss chooses to provide the woman with continued employment and a steady paycheck.  They are both free to choose in this.  Just as Friedman talks about in his book.

None of that violates NAP.  Ditto with 9 year old Alterboy Timmy providing an intimate personal service to Father Frances.  Under NAP it's none of our business, its between Timmy and Frances.  But in this society such behavior is termed sexual harassment via economic or statutory rape coercion.

You're welcome
 
2014-01-27 05:51:33 PM  

Vlad_the_Inaner: economic or statutory rape coercion


err, make that 'economic coercion or statutory rape'.
 
2014-01-27 05:57:00 PM  

Vlad_the_Inaner: FarkingHateFark: Explain to me how that isn't a violation of the non-aggression principle. Because it sounds an awful like rape to me.

It's so simple. Libertarians believe the woman is free to choose.

As long as she can choose to starve and to let her children starve, it's all good.

Yeah no, none of what you just wrote is true. But thanks for playing Burn The Strawman!

I'm shocked, simply shocked to hear you say Milton Friedman constructed a strawman!

[ecx.images-amazon.com image 224x346]

It's simple as this:  Free to choose The boss proposes an simple economic exchange.  The woman chooses to provide the boss with an intimate personal service, say with her vagina.  In exchange the boss chooses to provide the woman with continued employment and a steady paycheck.  They are both free to choose in this.  Just as Friedman talks about in his book.

None of that violates NAP.  Ditto with 9 year old Alterboy Timmy providing an intimate personal service to Father Frances.  Under NAP it's none of our business, its between Timmy and Frances.  But in this society such behavior is termed sexual harassment via economic or statutory rape coercion.

You're welcome


Anyone can claim anything is written in a book. Unless you can cite page and paragraph of that particular book that has that exact scenario I'm going to assume you're lying. So get cracking and provide some actual, you know, proof.
 
2014-01-27 06:08:16 PM  

FarkingHateFark: It's simple as this: Free to choose The boss proposes an simple economic exchange. The woman chooses to provide the boss with an intimate personal service, say with her vagina. In exchange the boss chooses to provide the woman with continued employment and a steady paycheck. They are both free to choose in this. Just as Friedman talks about in his book.

None of that violates NAP. Ditto with 9 year old Alterboy Timmy providing an intimate personal service to Father Frances. Under NAP it's none of our business, its between Timmy and Frances. But in this society such behavior is termed sexual harassment via economic or statutory rape coercion.

You're welcome

Anyone can claim anything is written in a book. Unless you can cite page and paragraph of that particular book that has that exact scenario I'm going to assume you're lying. So get cracking and provide some actual, you know, proof.


And while I'm doing this you're going to show the examples above actually Do violate NAP, right?

/btw, there's a TV series if the words on paper thing is too tough for you.
 
2014-01-27 06:20:19 PM  

Vlad_the_Inaner: FarkingHateFark: It's simple as this: Free to choose The boss proposes an simple economic exchange. The woman chooses to provide the boss with an intimate personal service, say with her vagina. In exchange the boss chooses to provide the woman with continued employment and a steady paycheck. They are both free to choose in this. Just as Friedman talks about in his book.

None of that violates NAP. Ditto with 9 year old Alterboy Timmy providing an intimate personal service to Father Frances. Under NAP it's none of our business, its between Timmy and Frances. But in this society such behavior is termed sexual harassment via economic or statutory rape coercion.

You're welcome

Anyone can claim anything is written in a book. Unless you can cite page and paragraph of that particular book that has that exact scenario I'm going to assume you're lying. So get cracking and provide some actual, you know, proof.

And while I'm doing this you're going to show the examples above actually Do violate NAP, right?

/btw, there's a TV series if the words on paper thing is too tough for you.


No, because until you show that Friedman actually advanced those scenarios I have nothing to say. It should be plainly obvious that coercing someone with threat of job loss or abusing a child violate the NAP. If you can't see that then maybe  you're the sociopath who doesn't see those actions as inherently aggressive.

So get crackin', boyo. Time's a wastin' and you have to put up or shut up. Can't just start claiming shiat then not provide evidence when called on it.
 
2014-01-27 06:32:59 PM  

FarkingHateFark: No, because until you show that Friedman actually advanced those scenarios I have nothing to say. It should be plainly obvious that coercing someone with threat of job loss or abusing a child violate the NAP. If you can't see that then maybe you're the sociopath who doesn't see those actions as inherently aggressive.


Oh I get it.  I can't refer to a general thesis in Friedman's work if he doesn't use that exact example.

Wrong.  That's not how things work.

Now I think those actions are wrong.  Immoral.  I also don't think they violate NAP.  Which is why I think that people who claim NAP is all that is needed in the world are idiots.

So you claim those activities violate NAP.   Does the boss hold a gun to the head of the woman?  Does he break her nose, or pick her pocket (to cite Jefferson's criteria).  No?   Its an exchange.   From unequal economic positions.  That was given.   Likewise, Timmy and Father Frances.  No gun.  No force.  Just an abuse of someone's trust because they are too young to make an informed decision.

Go ahead.   Cite the force that makes those two examples violations of NAP.

And I leave you with this Milton Friedman quote.

"When government-- in pursuit of good intentions tries to rearrange the economy, legislate morality, or help special interests, the cost come in inefficiency, lack of motivation, and loss of freedom." (emphasis added)
 
2014-01-27 07:08:39 PM  

Baz744: "Libertarianism" as an ideology does not find sexual harassment objectionable. It is perfectly okay with "blow me or I'll fire you," on the fantasy that somehow the market will correct such behavior "if it really is bad."


Exactly. If she finds the proposal objectionable (ie:'really bad'), then she quits. And tells her friends, who may choose to quit if they work there, or choose not to do business with that company. If enough people do that, the business if affected. If the business is affected, they fire the guy who caused the problem with his advances.

What's the problem?
 
2014-01-27 07:17:33 PM  

Vlad_the_Inaner: FarkingHateFark: No, because until you show that Friedman actually advanced those scenarios I have nothing to say. It should be plainly obvious that coercing someone with threat of job loss or abusing a child violate the NAP. If you can't see that then maybe you're the sociopath who doesn't see those actions as inherently aggressive.

Oh I get it.  I can't refer to a general thesis in Friedman's work if he doesn't use that exact example.

Wrong.  That's not how things work.


Yes it is. Otherwise you're putting words in the man's mouth. It is literally building a strawman. I'll take this as your concession that Friedman never once said any of the things you attributed to him before. 

Now I think those actions are wrong.  Immoral.

I agree.

I also don't think they violate NAP.  Which is why I think that people who claim NAP is all that is needed in the world are idiots.

I disagree. Both of your examples are of individuals using the power/influence they have over another to compel that person to do something against their own interests. That is a textbook violation of the NAP.

So you claim those activities violate NAP.   Does the boss hold a gun to the head of the woman?  Does he break her nose, or pick her pocket (to cite Jefferson's criteria).  No?   Its an exchange.   From unequal economic positions.  That was given.   Likewise, Timmy and Father Frances.  No gun.  No force.  Just an abuse of someone's trust because they are too young to make an informed decision.

You seem to think that only physical violence can be viewed as aggression. What if I blackmail you to pay me money or I'll reveal an affair you had with your wife's sister, destroying your family? That's a very aggressive action but no physical violence is involved.

Also, in your example of the boss requiring sexual favors for the woman to remain employed she is most definitely having her pocket picked as she will lose her source of income if she doesn't comply. Again, very much against the concept of the NAP. 

Go ahead.   Cite the force that makes those two examples violations of NAP.

I just did, and did so rather swimmingly, I think.

And I leave you with this Milton Friedman quote.

"When government-- in pursuit of good intentions tries to rearrange the economy, legislate morality, or help special interests, the cost come in inefficiency, lack of motivation, and loss of freedom." (emphasis added)


He's right there, but we're not talking about legislating morality. Friedman here is likely talking about outlawingthings like prostitution, drugs, or gambling. None of those things are inherently wrong, they are only wrong within the prism of a certain moral framework. And as long as no coercion is present (for instance, as long as the sex worker is free to leave and wasn't kidnapped from Russia or something) there's no violation of the NAP in any of them.

Really it just seems like you want to rail against libertarianism without fully grasping what it is. So rather than think you're an idiot I think you're just grossly misinformed. Hopefully this discussion has helped dispel some myths you've been subjected to.
 
2014-01-27 08:16:29 PM  

FarkingHateFark: Vlad_the_Inaner: FarkingHateFark: No, because until you show that Friedman actually advanced those scenarios I have nothing to say. It should be plainly obvious that coercing someone with threat of job loss or abusing a child violate the NAP. If you can't see that then maybe you're the sociopath who doesn't see those actions as inherently aggressive.

Oh I get it.  I can't refer to a general thesis in Friedman's work if he doesn't use that exact example.

Wrong.  That's not how things work.

Yes it is. Otherwise you're putting words in the man's mouth. It is literally building a strawman. I'll take this as your concession that Friedman never once said any of the things you attributed to him before. 

Now I think those actions are wrong.  Immoral.

I agree.

I also don't think they violate NAP.  Which is why I think that people who claim NAP is all that is needed in the world are idiots.

I disagree. Both of your examples are of individuals using the power/influence they have over another to compel that person to do something against their own interests. That is a textbook violation of the NAP.

So you claim those activities violate NAP.   Does the boss hold a gun to the head of the woman?  Does he break her nose, or pick her pocket (to cite Jefferson's criteria).  No?   Its an exchange.   From unequal economic positions.  That was given.   Likewise, Timmy and Father Frances.  No gun.  No force.  Just an abuse of someone's trust because they are too young to make an informed decision.

You seem to think that only physical violence can be viewed as aggression. What if I blackmail you to pay me money or I'll reveal an affair you had with your wife's sister, destroying your family? That's a very aggressive action but no physical violence is involved.

Also, in your example of the boss requiring sexual favors for the woman to remain employed she is most definitely having her pocket picked as she will lose her source of income if she doesn't comply. Again, very much again ...


Look, its called NAP not because it restricts dick moves  (in fact I think its a disingenuous ploy to label some dick moves as moral and right.) It's called NAP because it is supposed to differentiate initiatory force from retaliatory force.  Article here

Now friend, let me tell you where you find yourself having stated "definitely having her pocket picked as she will lose her source of income "

Congratulations.  you are now the libertarian who thinks an employee OWNS her paycheck before she's done the work.  That that money does not belong to the boss until she actually does the work.  That he does not have the freedom to choose to fire her for any reason he sees fit.

Enjoy your corner.  Eventually the paint might dry.

I'd love to see you at a libertarian gathering  "Hi, I'm a guy who thinks, absent a contract explicitly saying otherwise, there are cases where an employee has a right to a continued future paychecks, even when the employer wishes otherwise"  I'd love to see how that flies.
 
2014-01-27 08:33:39 PM  

Vlad_the_Inaner: Now friend, let me tell you where you find yourself having stated "definitely having her pocket picked as she will lose her source of income "

Congratulations.  you are now the libertarian who thinks an employee OWNS her paycheck before she's done the work.  That that money does not belong to the boss until she actually does the work.  That he does not have the freedom to choose to fire her for any reason he sees fit.

Enjoy your corner.  Eventually the paint might dry.

I'd love to see you at a libertarian gathering  "Hi, I'm a guy who thinks, absent a contract explicitly saying otherwise, there are cases where an employee has a right to a continued future paychecks, even when the employer wishes otherwise"  I'd love to see how that flies.


Sigh. This is why we can't have nice things. I try to throw you a bone and you then claim I've somehow painted myself into a corner.

Bullshiat. If I hire someone for a given job then guess what? There's a contract on what the job entails. If I change the terms of the contract later by trying to force the employee to do something immoral I don't get to claim "Well if you don't like it quit." No, I've broken our contract, implied or written it makes no difference, and my presumably-former employee now has a tort against me. Now, in the real world, is that tort going to pan out? Probably not. But that's one of the benefits for employees to form unions (which, surprise!, are not anathema to libertarian thought as the employees have every right to form their own association and work together to compel honesty and fairness from their employer).

I'm sorry if I've somehow broken your pigeon-hole idea of what libertarianism is but really, you ought to get out more and get involved with actual libertarians. The results may surprise you.
 
2014-01-27 09:04:14 PM  

FarkingHateFark: Bullshiat. If I hire someone for a given job then guess what? There's a contract on what the job entails. If I change the terms of the contract later by trying to force the employee to do something immoral I don't get to claim "Well if you don't like it quit." No, I've broken our contract, implied or written it makes no difference, and my presumably-former employee now has a tort against me. Now, in the real world, is that tort going to pan out? Probably not. But that's one of the benefits for employees to form unions (which, surprise!, are not anathema to libertarian thought as the employees have every right to form their own association and work together to compel honesty and fairness from their employer).


Yay!  You're the libertarian who thinks reducing the freedom of employers via GOVERNMENT FORCE is OK too.  (or who did you think torts were argued in front of)   Ditto implied contracts.  Ditto regulations against sexual harassment.

Go ahead.  Tell me why else an employer is restricted by an 'implied' contract except by government regulation.

Now don't forget "The initiation of force is the start, or beginning, of the use of physical and/or legal coercion, violence, or restraint.  "

/and while your at it, explain how the asshat boss is using physical coersion or using the law to coerce.
 
2014-01-28 01:26:36 AM  

Vlad_the_Inaner: FarkingHateFark: Bullshiat. If I hire someone for a given job then guess what? There's a contract on what the job entails. If I change the terms of the contract later by trying to force the employee to do something immoral I don't get to claim "Well if you don't like it quit." No, I've broken our contract, implied or written it makes no difference, and my presumably-former employee now has a tort against me. Now, in the real world, is that tort going to pan out? Probably not. But that's one of the benefits for employees to form unions (which, surprise!, are not anathema to libertarian thought as the employees have every right to form their own association and work together to compel honesty and fairness from their employer).

Yay!  You're the libertarian who thinks reducing the freedom of employers via GOVERNMENT FORCE is OK too.  (or who did you think torts were argued in front of)   Ditto implied contracts.  Ditto regulations against sexual harassment.

Go ahead.  Tell me why else an employer is restricted by an 'implied' contract except by government regulation.

Now don't forget "The initiation of force is the start, or beginning, of the use of physical and/or legal coercion, violence, or restraint.  "

/and while your at it, explain how the asshat boss is using physical coersion or using the law to coerce.


Yay! You're the idiot who thinks libertarians are anarchists!
 
Displayed 200 of 200 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report