Finally a place for INGO libertarians

[jamil]

Interesting point. Keep in mind that libertarianism is focused on limiting government, not limiting individuals.

When we see any kind of conflict, we have been conditioned to assume that the government must be the answer. Should we always think this way?

In reality, busybody neighbors already have methods of controlling the grass length, garbage can size, and outdoor shed capacity of their neighbors. Homeowners associations. Right? This is purely voluntary and contractual. People who want to live in this sort of controlled environment can provide this for themselves using nothing more than the free market and contract law.

Then the rest of us who hate busybody neighbors and HOA's (most of INGO) (except Kirk Freeman) can choose to live outside of HOA's and maintain our autonomy.

This is simply an example of a larger principle: Many of the nanny state issues could be resolved by the free market, if we allowed them to be. You just have to think outside the status quo.

When the power of government comes from the people, a confined government won't stay confined when the people begin to value security more than liberty. That's the pie-in-the-sky version.

The real world version is, some people just suck, and some people who suck are exceptionally good at it. When this great ability merges with charisma, free people don't stand a chance. Generations of following exceptionally sucky people with charisma, ruins a confined government. People who crave power always know how to get more.

Some day, if it lasts long enough, the government of that fledgeling libertarian state will be corrupt, if not already.

 

[ATM]

I'm guessing you were born libertarian then and have never experienced life as a mere mortal.

We're all born libertarian. Perhaps the system simply failed to thoroughly indoctrinate or subjugate me, leaving intact my natural tendency to question authority.

 

[Libertarian01]

We're all born libertarian. Perhaps the system simply failed to thoroughly indoctrinate or subjugate me, leaving intact my natural tendency to question authority.

To All,

This "indoctrination" point is not far from the mark! Some years ago I believe it was John Stossel that did a story comparing governments. In it he looked at Hong Kong, this was before the reintegration with China.

The people of Hong Kong had almost no social safety net. They were reasonably happy with their British Governor who had three (3) primary responsibilities:

#1) Build and maintain roads;
#2) Build and maintain schools for the children;
and last
#3) Throw and attend lots of parties for foreign dignitaries!

That was it. They were cool with him basically making certain people were educated and could get from A to B. Throwing parties for foreigners may have been their concession of a bit of waste that was transparent and they all knew about it.

Stossel also showed how easy it was to set up a business in Hong Kong. EXTREMELY little paperwork! Just go down to the wherever (I forget) fill out a form, and voila! You're in business. With the ease of starting a business people were expected to take care of themselves, thus the small welfare/social net.

What I want to focus on from ATM and this analogy was the social/cultural "common knowledge" of people in Hong Kong. Everyone knew you could go get a job, make a job, start a business - or STARVE! Oh yeah, you could leave too. It seemed that there was a culture in Hong Kong that just accepted poverty and destitution were the alternative to finding work or making work. A bit cold perhaps but everyone was on the same page. Don't ask the Governor for anything, he was educating people who would maintain roads or half-ripped in a party. Nothing else was expected of him.

We have lost some of our cultural indoctrination. We have lost a unified vision of the American dream. We were NEVER as solid as some folks like to think of as "the good old days" but there was an appreciation by every American, whether here for X generation or newly arrived, that no man nor government would stand in your way of making your own way.

As we urbanized and industrialized we created at first pockets of people who truly couldn't keep up with the load of society. Sure, a farmer could build himself an outhouse, but the thousands of tons of created by urban monstrosities like Chicago or Philadelphia or New York City simply could NOT be accomplished on a one-on-one basis. Thus, the hue and cry for a big answer to a big problem - government. As time has progressed those who moved to the city from the country and held their ideals of individualism have died off, leaving only those who know no other way. At first, I am certain their cultural heritage of individualism was strong, but after weeks, monthes, years and generations it became lost or watered down to the point of nothingness.

What we need is indoctrination. Indoctrination espousing virtues of individualism, respect for others, self-reliance, and the courage to stand up for ourselves.

Alas, such indoctrination will not be nationwide. It will continue to exist in pockets but it will no longer be from California to New York Island, from the red-wood forest to the Gulf Stream waters. Hopefully some of those pockets will grow as others diminish. Hopefully...

Maybe in Liberland?

Regards,

Doug

 

[jamil]

We're all born libertarian. Perhaps the system simply failed to thoroughly indoctrinate or subjugate me, leaving intact my natural tendency to question authority.

No we're most certainly NOT all born libertarian. We are born helpless and dependent. Doug is right. We must become indoctrinated to learn to do for ourselves. It is true that we naturally want to do as we please. But if that's the only attribute libertarians share with newborns then all libertarianism is just a synonym for lawlessness.

But this sidestep into this indoctrination theme doesn't address the original issue. I'm not here for the conquest of debate. I'm not here for a technical win. It's just a discussion of ideas. You don't have to adress the original issue. But I'd appreciate if you did.

ETA: as a reminder, we we discussing the possible motives of people who disagree with you.

 

[Woobie]

I don't know if you're referring to general experience, or specifically to Pudley's post. If the latter, Pudley did say he agrees with libertarianism, but doesn't find you guys all that agreeable. So he's not saying that he disagrees with your philosophy because you're an *******.

If the latter, maybe there is a less sinister message there. Let's look at the two examples you gave: libertarians cost us elections, or libertarians are purists, and won't compromise. First, I disagree that libertarians cost republicans elections. That comes from misjudging the motives of libertarians. It's not like most libertarians are really just rebellious republicans, and that if it weren't for the libertarian candidate, you'd have all voted republican. If libertarians cost republicans elections then it is because republicans don't behave libertarian enough for them to be worthy of voting for. Republicans want gun owners votes, so republicans tend to behave like they want those votes.

The second thing, that libertarians are purists and don't compromise, if that's not really true, and libertarians aren't purists, and they will compromise, show me more than a couple or so libertarians who post like they believe that. Do I need to quote some posts?



Fair enough. That's what I want to do.



It's actually the last part that prompted my post.

I addressed your point concerning the second accusation of libertarians. If you truly see them as purists, perhaps you don't know many, or pay close enough attention to what they say. I'm beginning to believe the latter, based on your post here.

I do agree that human nature will eventually undermine any free society, based upon history. Although we don't have much history to go on for the type of society in the OP, if it were allowed to continue its existence by the surrounding nations. So, what is your ideal government? Monarchies seem to have very good longevity. Perhaps feudalism, or socialism? Maybe a republic, although we know gn goes never last more than a few hundred years, and in the latter half are republic in name only. How would you set up an ideal form of government?

 

[jamil]

I addressed your point concerning the second accusation of libertarians. If you truly see them as purists, perhaps you don't know many, or pay close enough attention to what they say. I'm beginning to believe the latter, based on your post here.

I do agree that human nature will eventually undermine any free society, based upon history. Although we don't have much history to go on for the type of society in the OP, if it were allowed to continue its existence by the surrounding nations. So, what is your ideal government? Monarchies seem to have very good longevity. Perhaps feudalism, or socialism? Maybe a republic, although we know gn goes never last more than a few hundred years, and in the latter half are republic in name only. How would you set up an ideal form of government?

Maybe the fault is mine. Maybe I misunderstand when you guys tell me that I must hate liberty if I don't fully agree with you. Maybe the fault is mine for not having a worldview that can comprehend that kind of absolutist language you guys use, in any other way. Or, maybe you could help me out by stepping out of your worldview for a moment and try to see why I might think that sounds purist to me.

 

[Woobie]

Maybe the fault is mine. Maybe I misunderstand when you guys tell me that I must hate liberty if I don't fully agree with you. Maybe the fault is mine for not having a worldview that can comprehend that kind of absolutist language you guys use, in any other way. Or, maybe you could help me out by stepping out of your worldview for a moment and try to see why I might think that sounds purist to me.

I know there are a few that use that "hate liberty" language sincerely. But that has become an INGOism that most use tongue-in-cheek. Purple, as it were. Yours is not the only form of sarcasm. But now we're back to the purist thing. I asked, quite sincerely, for your ideal form of government. You responded by impugning libertarians, not the actual philosophy. If you're trying to win on technical points, you're not doing a very good job. If you're trying to enlighten me, and I truly want to understand these issues more deeply, then try putting together a cogent argument for or against a particular philosophy.

 

[jamil]

I know there are a few that use that "hate liberty" language sincerely. But that has become an INGOism that most use tongue-in-cheek. Purple, as it were. Yours is not the only form of sarcasm. But now we're back to the purist thing. I asked, quite sincerely, for your ideal form of government. You responded by impugning libertarians, not the actual philosophy. If you're trying to win on technical points, you're not doing a very good job. If you're trying to enlighten me, and I truly want to understand these issues more deeply, then try putting together a cogent argument for or against a particular philosophy.

I was going to get to that part later, because I'm getting ready to head into the office, and I want to give it the appropriate attention. But I'll just give the short answer.

I think there is no ideal goverment but the least worst is probably a constitutional republic where the role of government and its checks and balances are better defined than ours is. Maybe it would last another century longer. Basically I want a government that I don't notice unless someone is attacking us, or someone is harming another citizen. Or, periodically when I need to pay my taxes. Or a road or government building needs built. But I understand that is not going to happen because "people". (Paraprasing a wise person)

by the way, I responded to the first part of your post which was about purists. And I understand the INGOism. I am not new here. I am not referring to those kinds of tongue-in-cheek comments.

 

[Woobie]

I respect that viewpoint. If this country is not too far gone, and it can be returned to any semblance of a Liberty loving nation, then your ideal is an admirable one to shoot for. As a libertarian, not a Libertarian, I could really get on board with something like that. But we've got a long way to go, if it's possible any more.

 

[churchmouse]

I respect that viewpoint. If this country is not too far gone, and it can be returned to any semblance of a Liberty loving nation, then your ideal is an admirable one to shoot for. As a libertarian, not a Libertarian, I could really get on board with something like that. But we've got a long way to go, if it's possible any more.

The Lazy is to far ingrained in way to many people.
In my eyes there is no chance to instill these things back into the soft and weak.

 

[Woobie]

The Lazy is to far ingrained in way to many people.
In my eyes there is no chance to instill these things back into the soft and weak.

Im afraid you might be right. What do you think the road forward is? I don't want my kids to grow up in a worse America than I did. I like to leave things in better shape than I found them.

 

[churchmouse]

Im afraid you might be right. What do you think the road forward is? I don't want my kids to grow up in a worse America than I did. I like to leave things in better shape than I found them.

We have done our best to raise our kids to work hard and be self sufficient. To a point we have been successful.
The problems we encountered were there friends. There were times we felt like the world was sliding away from us. I think we were right in that assumption.
The generations behind us are loosing their skills. No motivation to research and find answers. Not all of course but enough to slow us down. The motivation to do extra to achieve more is just not there in so many of them.
I reference this point as these are the folks who are taking the reins now. Condo style living is the norm. Folks are stacked in like cord wood. They live in hives. The way they view the world is far removed from what we see.

Is there a path still open to effect any change???

I really do not see one. I am a square peg in a round peg world.

 

[MisterChester]

Im afraid you might be right. What do you think the road forward is? I don't want my kids to grow up in a worse America than I did. I like to leave things in better shape than I found them.

They will probably grow up in a worse America, so would your grandkids, maybe. I've almost resigned to this. Best you can do is make their lives easier as best as you can. They'll never know true American prosperity that our parents knew. The only hope I see is that when the current generation of politicians die off and a younger one takes its place things might get better. It might do us some good when politicians would have a clue what it feels like to grow up in current America. Crippling school debt, low paying jobs, insane healthcare expenses, the list just goes on and on.

 

[Woobie]

I enjoy these discussions, and I like to think we can do some rebuilding toward a free society. But in the likely event that doesn't happen, we can't just hang out heads. So we live our lives essentially the same way you have described. The kids learn about personal responsibility, the property is slowly getting resiliency integrated into it, we develop friendships and relationships, and live our lives. If I can help bring about more liberty in my country, great. But if not, we'll do the best we can to not get dragged down.

 

[miguel]

Welcome to Liberland, the tiny patch of woodland claiming to be the world's newest country - Telegraph

I thought you meant jail.

 

[churchmouse]

I enjoy these discussions, and I like to think we can do some rebuilding toward a free society. But in the likely event that doesn't happen, we can't just hang out heads. So we live our lives essentially the same way you have described. The kids learn about personal responsibility, the property is slowly getting resiliency integrated into it, we develop friendships and relationships, and live our lives. If I can help bring about more liberty in my country, great. But if not, we'll do the best we can to not get dragged down.

We have not given up inside our circle of influence. We spend as much time as possible with our kids (daughter lives next door) and grand kids. We have a mind set to make the world a better place by being a part of it. Beyond that we hold no illusions. In a world of career politicians and bureaucrat's there is little hope of any real change until the electorate stops pulling party levers and thinking they have done there part.

 

[Woobie]

We have not given up inside our circle of influence. We spend as much time as possible with our kids (daughter lives next door) and grand kids. We have a mind set to make the world a better place by being a part of it. Beyond that we hold no illusions. In a world of career politicians and bureaucrat's there is little hope of any real change until the electorate stops pulling party levers and thinking they have done there part.

QFT

 

[steveh_131]

We have done our best to raise our kids to work hard and be self sufficient. To a point we have been successful.
The problems we encountered were there friends. There were times we felt like the world was sliding away from us. I think we were right in that assumption.
The generations behind us are loosing their skills. No motivation to research and find answers. Not all of course but enough to slow us down. The motivation to do extra to achieve more is just not there in so many of them.
I reference this point as these are the folks who are taking the reins now. Condo style living is the norm. Folks are stacked in like cord wood. They live in hives. The way they view the world is far removed from what we see.

Is there a path still open to effect any change???

I think there is, but not by continuing on the same path we're on. The mindset has to change. People have to stop looking to the government to solve every problem.

It could start here on INGO, but anyone who tries to offer non-government solutions is mocked. Poor people? Charity. Bad neighbors? Homeowner's associations and civil courts. Drug addicts? Starvation. Food safety? Privatize it. Reckless behavior? Stiffer penalties for damaging people or property.

Most of you guys don't want self-reliance. You want government nannies just like the liberals do. Your nannies just have different jobs.

 

[churchmouse]

I think there is, but not by continuing on the same path we're on. The mindset has to change. People have to stop looking to the government to solve every problem.

It could start here on INGO, but anyone who tries to offer non-government solutions is mocked. Poor people? Charity. Bad neighbors? Homeowner's associations and civil courts. Drug addicts? Starvation. Food safety? Privatize it. Reckless behavior? Stiffer penalties for damaging people or property.

Most of you guys don't want self-reliance. You want government nannies just like the liberals do. Your nannies just have different jobs.

Have you actually read the posts in this page.
We want self reliance. We strive for it.
Yes, the mind set has to change and the last 20 posts have been about making that change.
I am well along my lifes path. I am no longer a front line individual. I see where we are going and it makes me very sad.
I am also a realist. I see this lazy hand out mind set ingrained in the very people who are taking over right now. They vote.

I am actually a border line Libertarian. I just do not see embracing it full time as a win. The core of that mindset do not embrace getting others on board....well, Libertarian 01 does and he does it in a way as not to alienate but so many are just harsh. There will not be a major swing to that mindset as long as the cushy safety net is available.

Until the electorate see's that term limits exist right now we will continue to slide.

I do agree that Gov. is not the answer......on about everything.

 

[steveh_131]

Have you actually read the posts in this page.
We want self reliance. We strive for it.

I disagree. Folks here want the government nannies to protect them from people who like to get high, people who let their grass get high... hell, most even support some forms of gun control.

The core of that mindset do not embrace getting others on board

How so?

....well, Libertarian 01 does and he does it in a way as not to alienate but so many are just harsh.

So this is about personality, not policy?