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 52
    More: Silly, Buddhist Libertarian, natural response, intellectuals  
•       •       •

5842 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Jan 2014 at 1:24 PM (46 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

2014-01-26 01:31:00 PM  
7 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.
2014-01-26 03:38:14 PM  
5 votes:
I could never be a libertarian.  I had sex in high school.
2014-01-26 01:33:29 PM  
4 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 02:17:58 PM  
3 votes:
i173.photobucket.com
2014-01-26 02:02:33 PM  
3 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 01:55:41 PM  
3 votes:
The central message of Buddhism is not every man for himself?
2014-01-26 01:31:48 PM  
3 votes:
If Mitt Romney was a Buddhist Libertarian: "I couldn't reconcile my two beliefs, so I left Buddhism for Mormonism."
2014-01-26 01:28:19 PM  
3 votes:
That's a pretty snazzy zippered shirt he's got there. What am I reading again?

media.salon.com
2014-01-26 03:09:31 PM  
2 votes:

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


Libertarians: good at image scaling.
2014-01-26 02:30:04 PM  
2 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 02:06:37 PM  
2 votes:

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.
2014-01-26 01:56:01 PM  
2 votes:
"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 01:34:33 PM  
2 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 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 06:09:18 PM  
1 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 06:02:49 PM  
1 votes:

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 05:55:44 PM  
1 votes:

media.salon.com



ARE WE NOT MEN?


WE ARE DEVO!

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 04:59:29 PM  
1 votes:
How hard would it be to duplicate the Republicans and start an anti-LINO movement?
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 03:39:31 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:37:53 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:28:27 PM  
1 votes:
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.
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 03:13:37 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:05:01 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:03:12 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:51:48 PM  
1 votes:
What has this site come to? Am I the only Libertarian left on Fark?
2014-01-26 02:47:02 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:45:23 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 02:39:46 PM  
1 votes:
1.bp.blogspot.com
2014-01-26 02:29:41 PM  
1 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 02:23:17 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:19:15 PM  
1 votes:
Ugh. That was just awful.
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 02:14:47 PM  
1 votes:
i.imgur.com
2014-01-26 02:13:03 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.


Salon is commie propaganda. That is their job. It's what they do.
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.
2014-01-26 02:05:19 PM  
1 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 02:02:13 PM  
1 votes:
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 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 01:57:41 PM  
1 votes:
And then, when he's forty-five, he discovers that compassion is totally overrated as well.
2014-01-26 01:57:11 PM  
1 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 01:54:03 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 01:51:18 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.


Like building roads and public transportation that would help someone get to a food drive.
2014-01-26 01:49:41 PM  
1 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 01:48:13 PM  
1 votes:
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 01:47:37 PM  
1 votes:
I wonder how much of that was influenced by the douchebags migrating from the now evangelical republican party after 2008.
2014-01-26 01:44:00 PM  
1 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 01:42:33 PM  
1 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 01:30:54 PM  
1 votes:
There's no such thing as Libertarians. Just myopic hypocrites.
 
Displayed 52 of 52 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
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