Finally a place for INGO libertarians

[hoosierdoc]

It's the question mark of doom

 

[steveh_131]

I know, you hate the Socratic method. Almost as much as you hate liberty

 

[jamil]

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.

See there? That's just the kind of language we're talking about. Maybe, they meant what they said. Maybe they do want self-reliance, in most areas of life. Maybe there are other values that outweigh their desire for self reliance in a few circumstances. There is a wide difference between wanting 75% self reliance and wanting government nannies just like the liberals do. And, even more, there is likely a large disagreement that what you describe as government nannies is actually what they want. Before you can establish that, you need to agree on definitions.

Now, about the mindset, that does need to change to get more freedom. The extent that minds are changed will determine the amount of freedom you get. So can you engineer a strategy that will convince people that 0% of problems can be solved by government? Short of leftist style brainwashing, I seriously doubt that. I'd start trying to whittle down the easier pickings, and then go from there.

And I don't agree that anyone who tries to offer non-government solutions is mocked. I do see people being mocked for making all-or-nothing kind of statements like the bold text above. You're not going to change many minds talking like that. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and say, probably what you're saying, in your mind isn't as offensive as how people would read it.

 

[hoosierdoc]

I know, you hate the Socratic method. Almost as much as you hate liberty

No, I love the Socratic method. I use it daily to show my patients how what they said isn't true, by their own subsequent logical progression

 

[steveh_131]

See there? That's just the kind of language we're talking about. Maybe, they meant what they said. Maybe they do want self-reliance, in most areas of life. Maybe there are other values that outweigh their desire for self reliance in a few circumstances.

Yes, there certainly are other values that outweigh their desire for liberty and self reliance. Security. They're trading their liberty for security.

The only difference is which objects and activities cause them to feel insecure.

Now, about the mindset, that does need to change to get more freedom. The extent that minds are changed will determine the amount of freedom you get. So can you engineer a strategy that will convince people that 0% of problems can be solved by government? Short of leftist style brainwashing, I seriously doubt that. I'd start trying to whittle down the easier pickings, and then go from there.

Both parties are already hard at work trying to convince the other side that their pet activity shouldn't be restricted. That it's just not that bad. There's no shortage of this.

I think there's more value in offering a different perspective every now and then.

And I don't agree that anyone who tries to offer non-government solutions is mocked. I do see people being mocked for making all-or-nothing kind of statements like the bold text above. You're not going to change many minds talking like that. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and say, probably what you're saying, in your mind isn't as offensive as how people would read it.

Why is it so offensive? If someone wants to trade his liberties for a particular government nanny, why not just own it?

 

[cce1302]

I think it's human nature to look at a group of people with whom you disagree (even if it's less about ideology than about how to achieve the ends), and lump them together by the bad traits of a few. But that's dishonest and lazy. It's especially unfortunate when that trait then becomes part of the definition of the group in your own mind: "[Fill-in-the-blank]s are purist ideologues. Him? Oh, I don't really consider him to be a [fill-in-the-blank] because he's not an obnoxious, purist ideologue."

That's why ad hominem is used to identify a logical fallacy.

 

[jamil]

Yes, there certainly are other values that outweigh their desire for liberty and self reliance. Security. They're trading their liberty for security.

The only difference is which objects and activities cause them to feel insecure.



Both parties are already hard at work trying to convince the other side that their pet activity shouldn't be restricted. That it's just not that bad. There's no shortage of this.

I think there's more value in offering a different perspective every now and then.



Why is it so offensive? If someone wants to trade his liberties for a particular government nanny, why not just own it?

The beauty of the Socratic method and its effectiveness is that people understand truth better when they discover it on their own. Asking people pointed questions helps to do that. You're trying to shove what you believe is truth down their throats. If you're trying to convince people that what they want is really of no substantial difference from what liberals want, I don't think that's going to get it done.

If the people you're trying to convince don't get your point, it's either their fault or yours. If you're conversing about weigh loss with a fat person, and you tell them that they don't really want to lose weight or they'd stop eating like a ****ing pig, when they tell you to **** off, is it their fault for not getting your point? Or yours? Not a perfect analogy, but hopefully you get the point. There is nothing Socratic about your method. And there is intentionally nothing Socratic about mine.

 

[churchmouse]

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.

I am not speaking to the general Ingo group but those of us having a calm reasoned discussion in this thread.

How so?

The Libertarians I know and have met are not ones to get the message out in a way to effect some change.

So this is about personality, not policy?

In this day and age policy is not what the young and impressionable will consider. We are talking about making a change and change starts with those who will be steering the ship.
When dealing with the current mind set yes, personality will be a requirement.

 

[churchmouse]

In this day and age policy is not what the young and impressionable will consider. We are talking about making a change and change starts with those who will be steering the ship.
When dealing with the current mind set yes, personality will be a requirement.

HHHhhhmmmmm, I screwed that post up.....read between the lines.

 

[steveh_131]

The beauty of the Socratic method and its effectiveness is that people understand truth better when they discover it on their own. Asking people pointed questions helps to do that. You're trying to shove what you believe is truth down their throats. If you're trying to convince people that what they want is really of no substantial difference from what liberals want, I don't think that's going to get it done.

I am famous for using the Socratic method, just not in this thread. I do it all the time.

But we're not discussing policy right now, this is just a '**** on the libertarians' thread. So I'm spitting it back.

If the people you're trying to convince don't get your point, it's either their fault or yours. If you're conversing about weigh loss with a fat person, and you tell them that they don't really want to lose weight or they'd stop eating like a ****ing pig, when they tell you to **** off, is it their fault for not getting your point? Or yours? Not a perfect analogy, but hopefully you get the point. There is nothing Socratic about your method. And there is intentionally nothing Socratic about mine.

I think you misunderstand. Most of the folks I argue with here are lost causes. They're not the ones I am convincing.

I've been told by many onlookers, however, that I make good points and caused them to rethink things on many occasions.

But let's be honest, I mostly do it because I find it interesting at times.

In this day and age policy is not what the young and impressionable will consider. We are talking about making a change and change starts with those who will be steering the ship.
When dealing with the current mind set yes, personality will be a requirement.

You don't agree with libertarian principles hardly at all. Personality wouldn't change that, would it?

 

[churchmouse]

I am famous for using the Socratic method, just not in this thread. I do it all the time.

But we're not discussing policy right now, this is just a '**** on the libertarians' thread. So I'm spitting it back.



I think you misunderstand. Most of the folks I argue with here are lost causes. They're not the ones I am convincing.

I've been told by many onlookers, however, that I make good points and caused them to rethink things on many occasions.

But let's be honest, I mostly do it because I find it interesting at times.



You don't agree with libertarian principles hardly at all. Personality wouldn't change that, would it?

You just proved that you pay no attention to much of anything. You have no real idea who I am.
I never rely on anyone or any Gov. agency for much of anything. I deal with life as it comes to us. I am friends with a lot of LEO and I seldom if ever lean on them for anything.
You push a lot of attitude. That is the issue. Attitude....all or nothing. That is not going to happen. The scales have tipped to far.

These last few pages have been an open an honest discussion of the Libertarian point of view. There have been some good points made. I am not dealing with the first part of the thread just the last few pages.
And yes, I do agree with a lot of the Libertarian mind set. It is just not something that is easily applied in this current political situation. Hell man....Rupert for Governor....who is getting on board with that.

As Jamil stated.....give us a plan. A strategy to effect the change that needs to take place. Slamming at us in the style of our dearly departed Horndlin will not get you anywhere.

 

[MisterChester]

That's certainly something I wonder about. How do Libertarian theorists propose a transition into that type of government? A lot of us here seem to share many facets of libertarianism but few are completely immersed in it and thus isn't taken totally seriously.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

That's certainly something I wonder about. How do Libertarian theorists propose a transition into that type of government? A lot of us here seem to share many facets of libertarianism but few are completely immersed in it and thus isn't taken totally seriously.

Get rid of the welfare state. If taxpayers are not subsidizing your lifestyle or your corporate decisions, there would be far less argument for nannies to have a say in how you conduct your affairs.

 

[steveh_131]

You just proved that you pay no attention to much of anything. You have no real idea who I am.
I never rely on anyone or any Gov. agency for much of anything. I deal with life as it comes to us. I am friends with a lot of LEO and I seldom if ever lean on them for anything.
You push a lot of attitude. That is the issue. Attitude....all or nothing. That is not going to happen. The scales have tipped to far.

I apologize if I am mistaken. I thought you even favored the drug war.

Maybe we have more in common than I thought.

These last few pages have been an open an honest discussion of the Libertarian point of view. There have been some good points made. I am not dealing with the first part of the thread just the last few pages.

True, for the last few pages at least.

As Jamil stated.....give us a plan. A strategy to effect the change that needs to take place. Slamming at us in the style of our dearly departed Horndlin will not get you anywhere.

That's certainly something I wonder about. How do Libertarian theorists propose a transition into that type of government? A lot of us here seem to share many facets of libertarianism but few are completely immersed in it and thus isn't taken totally seriously.

To steal a line from jamil, it's not that binary! It can be accomplished a step at a time. Libertarianism isn't really a 'type' of government that needs to replace what we have now. It's more of a philosophy. The more we incorporate that philosophy into our policy decisions, the better off we'll be.

I know I harp on the drug war a lot, but it's a simple first step. One that even the democrat opponents would get behind. Get rid of prohibition (one drug at a time, if necessary) and watch the world fail to come to an end. Maybe if people see the government actually shrink for the first time in their lives, it would be perceived as a more attainable goal.

 

[steveh_131]

Get rid of the welfare state. If taxpayers are not subsidizing your lifestyle or your corporate decisions, there would be far less argument for nannies to have a say in how you conduct your affairs.

This is a good first step to direct towards liberals. Even if it's small cuts to one program at a time.

 

[Woobie]

That's certainly something I wonder about. How do Libertarian theorists propose a transition into that type of government? A lot of us here seem to share many facets of libertarianism but few are completely immersed in it and thus isn't taken totally seriously.

Ill bite. My idea of a plan doesn't sound terribly different from a republican stump speech, with the exception that we do what we say. Here goes:

Amend the constitution to get rid of the income tax and change the tax code to something "fair." Whether that is the Fair Tax, Flat Tax, National Sales Tax, etc. doesn't matter as long as it is one and only one tax, and is exceedingly simple. No deductions, exemptions, anything except "everyone will pay x% of y"

Amend the constitution to remove the interstate commerce clause, thereby neutering at least half of the alphabet soup.

Gradually defund, possibly over a 15 year period, all social welfare programs.

Ammend the constitution to impose term limits on all elected officials. Such limits will encompass not just time in a particular office, but total years served at a particular level of government, i.e. Federal, state, etc.

Constitutionally restrict the the amount of legal interpretation available to the executive branch.

Remove higher level governments' ability to influence lower levels by providing or witholding funding.

Enact similar (when applicable) reforms at the state level.

Fund elections out of the general fund, equally distributed to to a maximum of 3 candidates, 50% of vote required, runoff is necessary. No other campaign contributions authorized. (Yeah, I know, that's not very libertarian).

Thats all for now, but if we could start there, maybe we'll discuss the rest as we progress.

Feel free to rip it apart, I'm open to criticism. Just don't let it be said I wasn't wiling to put some ideas out there. I know it's not mind blowing stuff, but I'm talking about actually doing this stuff, not campaigning on it, then doing what the other guy would have done after you're elected.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

This is a good first step to direct towards liberals. Even if it's small cuts to one program at a time.

Which helps to illustrate the futility or at least the feeling of futility. Liberals never want to end any programs except for those that benefit their political enemies. Way too many republicans lack the political will to attempt what they say they're for during their election campaigns. And what we wind up with is those small government republicans working around the fringes--we may get what they call "reform" but it is usually limited to measures such as attempting to put conditions on folks accepting their checks (drug testing welfare recipients as an example).

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Ill bite. My idea of a plan doesn't sound terribly different from a republican stump speech, with the exception that we do what we say. Here goes:

Amend the constitution to get rid of the income tax and change the tax code to something "fair." Whether that is the Fair Tax, Flat Tax, National Sales Tax, etc. doesn't matter as long as it is one and only one tax, and is exceedingly simple. No deductions, exemptions, anything except "everyone will pay x% of y"

Amend the constitution to remove the interstate commerce clause, thereby neutering at least half of the alphabet soup.

Gradually defund, possibly over a 15 year period, all social welfare programs.

Ammend the constitution to impose term limits on all elected officials. Such limits will encompass not just time in a particular office, but total years served at a particular level of government, i.e. Federal, state, etc.

Constitutionally restrict the the amount of legal interpretation available to the executive branch.

Remove higher level governments' ability to influence lower levels by providing or witholding funding.

Enact similar (when applicable) reforms at the state level.

Fund elections out of the general fund, equally distributed to to a maximum of 3 candidates, 50% of vote required, runoff is necessary. No other campaign contributions authorized. (Yeah, I know, that's not very libertarian).

Thats all for now, but if we could start there, maybe we'll discuss the rest as we progress.

Feel free to rip it apart, I'm open to criticism. Just don't let it be said I wasn't wiling to put some ideas out there. I know it's not mind blowing stuff, but I'm talking about actually doing this stuff, not campaigning on it, then doing what the other guy would have done after you're elected.

No libertarian will accomplish any of this. When the other side is approximately half the electorate and is aided by pop culture, academia, sympathetic media, you'll have no better success than the republicans have had that libertarians love to look down upon.

When you're fought at every move, vilified on every tv show, movie, magazine, etc., in the current environment what makes you think your party will any better success?

 

[churchmouse]

I apologize if I am mistaken. I thought you even favored the drug war.

Maybe we have more in common than I thought.



True, for the last few pages at least.





To steal a line from jamil, it's not that binary! It can be accomplished a step at a time. Libertarianism isn't really a 'type' of government that needs to replace what we have now. It's more of a philosophy. The more we incorporate that philosophy into our policy decisions, the better off we'll be.

I know I harp on the drug war a lot, but it's a simple first step. One that even the democrat opponents would get behind. Get rid of prohibition (one drug at a time, if necessary) and watch the world fail to come to an end. Maybe if people see the government actually shrink for the first time in their lives, it would be perceived as a more attainable goal.

As to the drug war......I do not think it is needed at its current levels.
If you live around a meth/krack head you will get tired of it very quickly when your property is stolen to maintain their life style. That is my issue with the drug culture. What do you do??
These people wreck havoc on there surroundings.

Yes, we do have a lot in common I just think the way we discuss it causes the issues. You are very strong in your beliefs. This is what I was referring to in how hard it is to get on board.
Personality, although not all important, does have its uses.

Smaller less intrusive Gov...........check
Secure the boarders, maintain the infra-structure which is multi-faceted and leave me the hell alone.

Next point, the Feds are one of the largest employer in the world. What do we do with all those people we cut loose when all those useless agency's are closed/eliminated.

 

[Woobie]

No libertarian will accomplish any of this. When the other side is approximately half the electorate and is aided by pop culture, academia, sympathetic media, you'll have no better success than the republicans have had that libertarians love to look down upon.

When you're fought at every move, vilified on every tv show, movie, magazine, etc., in the current environment what makes you think your party will any better success?

First of all, it's not my party. I don't have a party, unless my wife and I have friends over. Second of all, no republican will accomplish it either, because a very small minority of republicans want to. Or do you think Mitch McConnell and John McCain are on board with term limits and removal of the Interstate Commerce Clause? We are indeed back to culture, and nothing changes without changing that. Maybe we should have free civics and civil rights classes hosted in our communities. The ones at most high schools are useless, and are funded by, you guessed it, the monster that has a self-preserving interest to indoctrinate a new generation.