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 81
    More: Silly, Buddhist Libertarian, natural response, intellectuals  
•       •       •

5825 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Jan 2014 at 1:24 PM (30 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2014-01-26 01:44:00 PM
9 votes:
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 01:36:29 PM
9 votes:
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 01:30:54 PM
9 votes:
There's no such thing as Libertarians. Just myopic hypocrites.
2014-01-26 02:07:54 PM
5 votes:
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 01:51:18 PM
5 votes:

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 01:34:33 PM
5 votes:
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 01:49:11 PM
4 votes:
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 01:47:30 PM
4 votes:

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 01:45:16 PM
4 votes:
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 01:37:38 PM
4 votes:
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 04:32:48 PM
3 votes:
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 02:12:12 PM
3 votes:

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 01:49:41 PM
3 votes:

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 01:41:27 PM
3 votes:

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 12:54:32 PM
3 votes:
I can relate. Well...except that I became a pagan instead of a Buddhist but...yeah. Similar awakening,
2014-01-26 06:09:18 PM
2 votes:
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 04:30:12 PM
2 votes:

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 02:41:09 PM
2 votes:

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.
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-01-26 02:31:07 PM
2 votes:
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 02:29:41 PM
2 votes:

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 02:25:20 PM
2 votes:

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.
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-01-26 02:21:16 PM
2 votes:

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 02:20:07 PM
2 votes:

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
2014-01-26 02:17:58 PM
2 votes:
i173.photobucket.com
d23 [TotalFark]
2014-01-26 02:13:30 PM
2 votes:

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 02:08:16 PM
2 votes:

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.
d23 [TotalFark]
2014-01-26 02:07:02 PM
2 votes:

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 02:05:19 PM
2 votes:

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 02:02:33 PM
2 votes:

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 01:57:11 PM
2 votes:
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 01:46:24 PM
2 votes:

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 01:42:33 PM
2 votes:
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 01:33:29 PM
2 votes:
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 01:18:21 PM
2 votes:
Always good when someone can overcome some cognitive dissonance.
2014-01-26 07:43:36 PM
1 votes:

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 06:31:14 PM
1 votes:

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 06:09:21 PM
1 votes:

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 05:53:08 PM
1 votes:
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 05:50:03 PM
1 votes:

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 05:39:25 PM
1 votes:

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 05:37:15 PM
1 votes:

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 05:34:40 PM
1 votes:

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 05:26:54 PM
1 votes:

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 05:05:23 PM
1 votes:

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 04:39:36 PM
1 votes:
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 04:31:13 PM
1 votes:

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 04:13:50 PM
1 votes:

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 03:58:45 PM
1 votes:

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 03:56:46 PM
1 votes:

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 03:50:34 PM
1 votes:

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 03:47:50 PM
1 votes:

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 03:41:59 PM
1 votes:
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 03:26:22 PM
1 votes:
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 03:21:01 PM
1 votes:
Extremism in either direction is bad. I hope he learned that.
.
/DNRTFA
2014-01-26 03:18:32 PM
1 votes:

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 03:07:53 PM
1 votes:

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 03:03:47 PM
1 votes:

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 02:58:30 PM
1 votes:

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 02:51:48 PM
1 votes:
What has this site come to? Am I the only Libertarian left on Fark?
2014-01-26 02:47:26 PM
1 votes:
"If you accepted that the individual was sacrosanct..." Buddhism holds that the individual is an illusion.
2014-01-26 02:45:23 PM
1 votes:

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 02:36:24 PM
1 votes:

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.
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-01-26 02:36:10 PM
1 votes:
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 02:30:04 PM
1 votes:

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 02:26:40 PM
1 votes:

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 02:22:08 PM
1 votes:
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 02:18:30 PM
1 votes:
I don't think he was really either.

Since the article is from Salon, I think my suspicion is probably true.
2014-01-26 02:18:10 PM
1 votes:
I'm glad he got better.
d23 [TotalFark]
2014-01-26 02:16:32 PM
1 votes:

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 02:15:04 PM
1 votes:

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 02:14:23 PM
1 votes:

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 02:10:48 PM
1 votes:
This guy probably just circled "C" right down the line on every test he's ever taken.
d23 [TotalFark]
2014-01-26 02:10:33 PM
1 votes:

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 02:08:30 PM
1 votes:

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.
2014-01-26 02:03:47 PM
1 votes:

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 01:59:24 PM
1 votes:
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 01:58:19 PM
1 votes:
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 01:57:41 PM
1 votes:
And then, when he's forty-five, he discovers that compassion is totally overrated as well.
2014-01-26 01:54:03 PM
1 votes:
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 01:53:45 PM
1 votes:
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 01:31:00 PM
1 votes:
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.
 
Displayed 81 of 81 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report