Finally a place for INGO libertarians

[jamil]

It hurts to find out I'm obnoxious. :sadface:

I don't recall you ever being obnoxious. And as I said before, libertarians aren't obnoxious because they're libertarians. It's my theory that *******s are *******s because they're *******s, and not because they adhere to a particular ideology or creed. Of course I may be projecting. I was an ******* before I believed what I believe.

I'm proud to be obnoxious and recognized for my efforts! You don't get this way in just 50 years without a lot of work.

I think we need to find something to unite Libertarians, libertarians, classical liberals, conservatarians, genuine conservatives, and regular people.

We do all have a common enemy (the real socialist-statists/progressives) and regardless of the difference in the minutiae of their respective socio-political worldviews, they always seem to band together to get things done. They seem to bond over common themes of spending someone else's money, emotion over reason, envy, instigating class warfare, wealth dispersal for other people, elimination of personal responsibility and accountability, perpetuating genuine racism while branding all who disagree with their agenda "racists," ends always justifying the means regardless of the costs, and the eradication of the individual.

I've been bitten by the commie rep system. I really wish that were possible. I wish that we could unite on a few core principles, and table the rest. But I'm told basically that if I'm not 100% for liberty, I'm 100% against. Not a whole lotta overlap on that venn diagram.

I think it would behoove many of us to focus on the things that we have in common.

I'm willing. But is anyone else?
|
|
V

Notice the maligned promised "utopia" is only promised by the anti-libertarian crowd...

I'm probably the one who first brought that term into this thread. I described my use and purpose for invoking that term. And you use it that way?

Well, first of all, in a true free market society, I doubt you'll have enough poor to vote in those types of politicians anyway. I'm always amused at this argument that you have to use force to preserve a free society. I understand you've always lived in a society like that (America) and that's all you understand, but that's really just being purposefully unimaginative in order to malign what you don't understand. The Catholic Church killed a lot of round earth types too.

Please tell me which true free market society you've spent YOUR years living in. I'd like to hear all about it.

There has never been a real scalable, sustainable libertarian society. Why is that? Early America was closer to that than it is now by a long shot, but even that was a far cry from the logical conclusion of a free society. Why did America become less free?

If you haven't lived it, it is at best a theory. Some of the most logical theories fail utterly when they meet reality. Human nature does not naturally pursue logic. It does not naturally pursue liberty. The most natural human pursuit is self.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

There has never been a real scalable, sustainable libertarian society. Why is that? Early America was closer to that than it is now by a long shot, but even that was a far cry from the logical conclusion of a free society. Why did America become less free?

If you haven't lived it, it is at best a theory. Some of the most logical theories fail utterly when they meet reality. Human nature does not naturally pursue logic. It does not naturally pursue liberty. The most natural human pursuit is self.

America was never intended to be a sustainable libertarian society. It was intended to be a union of states whom agreed to comply to certain provisions of the US Constitution but other those certain parameters, they were supposed to strike out on their own and figure out what worked best for the people that called them home. If Indiana wanted to be some sort of libertarian utopia, fine. If Illinois wanted to be a socialist, wealth redistributing paradise, that should be fine too.

Unfortunately, when the people in New York, California, and such ruin their states, in persuit of their version of utopia, they flee and insist on trying to recreate what failed previously in their new homes.

 

[cce1302]

 

[D-Ric902]

 

[BogWalker]

I thought it was pretty funny.

 

[SirRealism]

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."

 

[Woobie]

I don't recall you ever being obnoxious. And as I said before, libertarians aren't obnoxious because they're libertarians. It's my theory that *******s are *******s because they're *******s, and not because they adhere to a particular ideology or creed. Of course I may be projecting. I was an ******* before I believed what I believe.



I've been bitten by the commie rep system. I really wish that were possible. I wish that we could unite on a few core principles, and table the rest. But I'm told basically that if I'm not 100% for liberty, I'm 100% against. Not a whole lotta overlap on that venn diagram.



I'm willing. But is anyone else?
|
|
V

I'm probably the one who first brought that term into this thread. I described my use and purpose for invoking that term. And you use it that way?




Please tell me which true free market society you've spent YOUR years living in. I'd like to hear all about it.

There has never been a real scalable, sustainable libertarian society. Why is that? Early America was closer to that than it is now by a long shot, but even that was a far cry from the logical conclusion of a free society. Why did America become less free?

If you haven't lived it, it is at best a theory. Some of the most logical theories fail utterly when they meet reality. Human nature does not naturally pursue logic. It does not naturally pursue liberty. The most natural human pursuit is self.

I never claimed I had lived in a society other than the U.S., although I have been to others. My point is that some people lack the imagination to conceive of anything than what they've always lived in. But then some people choose to disagree with an entire concept because a small segment of that concept is disagreeable to them. So rather than fixing the bath water, the baby gets thrown out with it.

 

[dusty88]

I'm proud to be obnoxious and recognized for my efforts! You don't get this way in just 50 years without a lot of work.

I think we need to find something to unite Libertarians, libertarians, classical liberals, conservatarians, genuine conservatives, and regular people.

We do all have a common enemy (the real socialist-statists/progressives) and regardless of the difference in the minutiae of their respective socio-political worldviews, they always seem to band together to get things done. They seem to bond over common themes of spending someone else's money, emotion over reason, envy, instigating class warfare, wealth dispersal for other people, elimination of personal responsibility and accountability, perpetuating genuine racism while branding all who disagree with their agenda "racists," ends always justifying the means regardless of the costs, and the eradication of the individual.

There is no room for compromise if you want to keep a small government that preserves liberty. Not because it would be so bad to have itty-bitty compromises. The obvious reality as has been demonstrated and predicted is that growth of government encourages more growth of government.

So-called "conservatives" of the past 50 years have spoken of limited government, but in reality they just advocate a different type of government growth. They will tell you how upset they are about your money being taken and redistributed. In reality they "need" that liberal side in order to keep the "conservative" advocates outraged and voting for the right-wing party.

Every growth of government is like adding to breeding stock. Sorry, but there are two ways to cut the ugly herd: voluntarily or until it biologically uses enough resources that it dies off from its own actions. Of course, it will take a lot of others with it before it falters. (ETA: my references to growth, breeding stock, die-off, etc are all an analogy of the effect of how a tyrannical government destroys the human resources of its population)

 

[Blackhawk2001]

My current theory is that "libertarianism" can only be attained (or perhaps "approached") when there is enough elbow room that your neighbor's back yard doesn't abut your own. And where, if you don't like your neighbors' attitudes, you can pick up stakes and move out to where you _have_ no neighbors. Having folks live side-by-side and expecting them not to get in one another's faces is sort of going against the history of human nature.

 

[dusty88]

My current theory is that "libertarianism" can only be attained (or perhaps "approached") when there is enough elbow room that your neighbor's back yard doesn't abut your own. And where, if you don't like your neighbors' attitudes, you can pick up stakes and move out to where you _have_ no neighbors. Having folks live side-by-side and expecting them not to get in one another's faces is sort of going against the history of human nature.

To the contrary, it's government's job to preserve liberty (ie swing your fist on your own property, not your neighbor's). Libertarianism is not the same as anarchy (although anarchists have some valid points of their own)

 

[jamil]

I never claimed I had lived in a society other than the U.S., although I have been to others. My point is that some people lack the imagination to conceive of anything than what they've always lived in. But then some people choose to disagree with an entire concept because a small segment of that concept is disagreeable to them. So rather than fixing the bath water, the baby gets thrown out with it.

I quoted you, but the following isn't just to you.

I agree that some people's imaginations fail to show them how things might be different. But why imagine all kinds of reasons why people disagree with you? You guys do tend to imagine some things within YOUR own world view. It's not just others who do that. "But our ideology is sound. It's logical. Why don't people see that? Why do people give us grief? The fault must be with them. Must be they're envious. Must be they have no imagination. Must be they're Republicrat slaves. Must be they're statists. Must be they hate liberty." WTF? I don't hate liberty. I sure the hell want more than I have now.

Maybe failure of imagination isn't just with your opposition. Maybe people don't actually disagree with the entire concept. Maybe they disagree with just a little bit. Maybe they actually want to keep the baby, and get rid of, not even all the bath water, but just filter out some bull****. Maybe there are reasons why people disagree with you other than it's their fault for not comprehending libertarianism. Is that even possible?

Pudley suggested that he pretty much agrees with libertarianism. He just thinks libertarians tend to act like *******s (my word, not his). Others have agreed with that. What if they're telling the truth? What if most of their experience with libertarians are with the *******s? Rather than imagining the fault is with non-libertarians, what if some of it isn't?

Most likely the fault is with both sides because both sides are human. Libertarianism doesn't excuse you (rhetorically you) from the faults of humanity. Humans can be arrogant, condescending, faultfinding. Humans tend to project morality, causing us to misjudge motives. We **** and moan about what we can't change, and we blame people who don't agree with us, as if them not agreeing with us is the problem. And we let our egos prevent us from admitting any of that might be true. We do that, you do that.

 

[jamil]

My current theory is that "libertarianism" can only be attained (or perhaps "approached") when there is enough elbow room that your neighbor's back yard doesn't abut your own. And where, if you don't like your neighbors' attitudes, you can pick up stakes and move out to where you _have_ no neighbors. Having folks live side-by-side and expecting them not to get in one another's faces is sort of going against the history of human nature.

Libertarianism can only be attained in a large population when just about everyone stops caring too much what other people do. That just ain't gonna happen. Libertarianism is a wonderful concept. Live and let live. But it has never existed in a scalable form for a reason. I think it's psychologically impossible for enough people not to give a **** what other people do.

 

[jamil]

There is no room for compromise if you want to keep a small government that preserves liberty. Not because it would be so bad to have itty-bitty compromises. The obvious reality as has been demonstrated and predicted is that growth of government encourages more growth of government.

So-called "conservatives" of the past 50 years have spoken of limited government, but in reality they just advocate a different type of government growth. They will tell you how upset they are about your money being taken and redistributed. In reality they "need" that liberal side in order to keep the "conservative" advocates outraged and voting for the right-wing party.

Every growth of government is like adding to breeding stock. Sorry, but there are two ways to cut the ugly herd: voluntarily or until it biologically uses enough resources that it dies off from its own actions. Of course, it will take a lot of others with it before it falters.

I'll just say it this way. Maybe your worldview is not as accurate as you think it is.

 

[Woobie]

I quoted you, but the following isn't just to you.

I agree that some people's imaginations fail to show them how things might be different. But why imagine all kinds of reasons why people disagree with you? You guys do tend to imagine some things within YOUR own world view. It's not just others who do that. "But our ideology is sound. It's logical. Why don't people see that? Why do people give us grief? The fault must be with them. Must be they're envious. Must be they have no imagination. Must be they're Republicrat slaves. Must be they're statists. Must be they hate liberty." WTF? I don't hate liberty. I sure the hell want more than I have now.

Maybe failure of imagination isn't just with your opposition. Maybe people don't actually disagree with the entire concept. Maybe they disagree with just a little bit. Maybe they actually want to keep the baby, and get rid of, not even all the bath water, but just filter out some bull****. Maybe there are reasons why people disagree with you other than it's their fault for not comprehending libertarianism. Is that even possible?

Pudley suggested that he pretty much agrees with libertarianism. He just thinks libertarians tend to act like *******s (my word, not his). Others have agreed with that. What if they're telling the truth? What if most of their experience with libertarians are with the *******s? Rather than imagining the fault is with non-libertarians, what if some of it isn't?

Most likely the fault is with both sides because both sides are human. Libertarianism doesn't excuse you (rhetorically you) from the faults of humanity. Humans can be arrogant, condescending, faultfinding. Humans tend to project morality, causing us to misjudge motives. We **** and moan about what we can't change, and we blame people who don't agree with us, as if them not agreeing with us is the problem. And we let our egos prevent us from admitting any of that might be true. We do that, you do that.

I think you and I are in agreement about this.

I don't like it when people disagree with a philosophy, and their main point is that they don't like the people who hold that philosophy. I disagree with fascism, not because Hitler was a horrible person, and he certainly was,but because it's a bad philosophy. I disagree with just about everything democrats stand for, but I know some great folks who are democrats. I disagree with a lot of what elected republicans do. I tend to agree with a lot of what they ​say. Most of my family and friends are republicans. But these discussions on INGO invariably go one of two ways: libertarians cost us elections, or libertarians are purists and won't compromise. Neither of which are really true. Libertarians, meanwhile, often reenforce the latter view by doing their own name calling, or being snarky, or not eloquently explaining their true philosophies. I admit to having been guilty of such, from time to time.

 

[dusty88]

Libertarianism can only be attained in a large population when just about everyone stops caring too much what other people do. That just ain't gonna happen. Libertarianism is a wonderful concept. Live and let live. But it has never existed in a scalable form for a reason. I think it's psychologically impossible for enough people not to give a **** what other people do.

I think that's pretty much true. I don't think some nearly perfectly-designed libertarian country is going to pop up somewhere tomorrow. The point (for me) is to whenever possible support repealing the interference of government, even if it harms me somewhat personally in the short term.

I can at the same time see the point of those who want to take the concept purely in its current context. I would, however, then ask them to consider whether
1) the goal they support could be obtained by repealing a prior government mandate, rather than adding a new one and
2) will the new mandate/fix that they support possibly cause another unintended consequence that makes things even worse.

In the current times, I also think there are very real concerns about the financial stability of this country and thus it may become relevant to position yourself in a state and locality that will be more likely to tilt towards libertarianism if the central government is unable to maintain full control. IOW, I don't think I have illusions about changing society to my viewpoint. But I'd at least like to maximize the chance of being able to separate my family from some of the worst of it.

 

[dusty88]

I'll just say it this way. Maybe your worldview is not as accurate as you think it is.

That which you quoted was not a "worldview". It's a description of the history of how cultures have always rotated through forms of government, revolutions, dictatorships, etc

It's also why I agree with you that we can't likely form and keep a libertarian society. One little bit of growth breeds reactions that grow government further. That however, doesn't mean there aren't worthy standards to slow that growth and stay in a more libertarian-like phase for as long as possible.

ETA: you could leave out the "dictatorship" phase and compare it to the Tytler cycle. Either way, cultures tend to take their republican, democratic, or similar freedoms and turn them back into a state of bondage or dictatorship, until another failure or revolution occurs. The Constitution was written to be amended and avoid that cycle, but well... perhaps if they had written it TOO well it would have been too forceful of a mandate on its own?

 

[Libertarian01]

Don't know if I'm playing "Devil's Advocate" or just making a life observation: I doubt that even a place like that envisioned by the folks in the OP would be like "singing to the choir" all the time. Freedom of thought brings with it all sorts of nuance, wouldn't you agree? If anything, disputes about where my nose begins and where your fist ends would be lively enough in that sort of society. And really: "First World problems" as opposed to real life-threatening problems between folks.

Blackhawk,

I just knew I should have used purple in a spot or two, or maybe the whole thing.

My bad!

 

[jamil]

I think you and I are in agreement about this.

I don't like it when people disagree with a philosophy, and their main point is that they don't like the people who hold that philosophy. I disagree with fascism, not because Hitler was a horrible person, and he certainly was,but because it's a bad philosophy. I disagree with just about everything democrats stand for, but I know some great folks who are democrats. I disagree with a lot of what elected republicans do. I tend to agree with a lot of what they ​say. Most of my family and friends are republicans. But these discussions on INGO invariably go one of two ways: libertarians cost us elections, or libertarians are purists and won't compromise. Neither of which are really true. Libertarians, meanwhile, often reenforce the latter view by doing their own name calling, or being snarky, or not eloquently explaining their true philosophies. I admit to having been guilty of such, from time to time.

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?

I think that's pretty much true. I don't think some nearly perfectly-designed libertarian country is going to pop up somewhere tomorrow. The point (for me) is to whenever possible support repealing the interference of government, even if it harms me somewhat personally in the short term.

I can at the same time see the point of those who want to take the concept purely in its current context. I would, however, then ask them to consider whether
1) the goal they support could be obtained by repealing a prior government mandate, rather than adding a new one and
2) will the new mandate/fix that they support possibly cause another unintended consequence that makes things even worse.

In the current times, I also think there are very real concerns about the financial stability of this country and thus it may become relevant to position yourself in a state and locality that will be more likely to tilt towards libertarianism if the central government is unable to maintain full control. IOW, I don't think I have illusions about changing society to my viewpoint. But I'd at least like to maximize the chance of being able to separate my family from some of the worst of it.

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

That which you quoted was not a "worldview". It's a description of the history of how cultures have always rotated through forms of government, revolutions, dictatorships, etc

It's also why I agree with you that we can't likely form and keep a libertarian society. One little bit of growth breeds reactions that grow government further. That however, doesn't mean there aren't worthy standards to slow that growth and stay in a more libertarian-like phase for as long as possible.

ETA: you could leave out the "dictatorship" phase and compare it to the Tytler cycle. Either way, cultures tend to take their republican, democratic, or similar freedoms and turn them back into a state of bondage or dictatorship, until another failure or revolution occurs. The Constitution was written to be amended and avoid that cycle, but well... perhaps if they had written it TOO well it would have been too forceful of a mandate on its own?

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

 

[steveh_131]

My current theory is that "libertarianism" can only be attained (or perhaps "approached") when there is enough elbow room that your neighbor's back yard doesn't abut your own. And where, if you don't like your neighbors' attitudes, you can pick up stakes and move out to where you _have_ no neighbors. Having folks live side-by-side and expecting them not to get in one another's faces is sort of going against the history of human nature.

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.

 

[dusty88]

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

hmmm..... looking back at that I wonder if I left a very unclear analogy. the "breeding" I was talking about was in reference to the beast of government and its effects on a society, using an analogy to a biological population that takes too many resources from its environment. I think maybe I should fix that.