This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
"The Limits Of Reason" - Are Libertarians More Rational Than Others?
Submitted by Nick Gillespie via Reason.com,
Are libertarians are more rational than most people?
"Not at all, not at all, but we're rational enough to realize none of us has all the answers. To paraphrase Dirty Harry, politicians and planners and control freaks gotta know their own limitations."
* * *
»
- 8949 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Id like to say... Thank You Ron Paul.
He is our Morpheus.
Rational thought in government is as common place as unicorns if anyone thinks they are actually trying to help or serve us. They are rationally thinking of ways to enslave us.
Remember when Dirty Harry shoots the fleeing perp in the nads? That is what happens to rational thought in government.
Rule of thumb for planet earth: those who claim adherence to strict rationalism tend to be the least rational of all humans. See: american ‘libertarians.’
Are libertarians are more rational than most people?
And I'm not usually a grammar nazi, but guys you had ONE line to write...
Not sure where you picked that up but as opposed to Obama or Bush or Hollande or Sarkozy or Cameron or Blair, it looks like Shakespeare to me.
So I guess what you're saying is we need moar proofreaders, editors and grammar nazis in the world, from Columbia Journalism School no doubt, to spoon feed the huddled masses.
There's letters seal'd, and my two schoolfellows,
Whom I will trust as I will adders fang'd—
They bear the mandate, they must sweep my way
And marshal me to knavery. Let it work;
For 'tis the sport to have the enginer
Hoist with his own petard, an't shall go hard
But I will delve one yard below their mines
And blow them at the moon.
Be careful what you wish for ;-)
If only the enginer were the only one hoisted.
Not sure where you picked that up but as opposed to Obama or Bush or Hollande or Sarkozy or Cameron or Blair, it looks like Shakespeare to me.
So I guess what you're saying is we need moar proofreaders, editors and grammar nazis in the world, from Columbia Journalism School no doubt, to spoon feed the huddled masses.
No, not what I'm saying. Aiming to make rational decisions is a virtue, believing your personal philosophy makes you 'more rational' suggests the opposite is true to me. Hard to get to the nazis without a mistaken degree of faith in the human capacity for rational decision making.
Man is not a rational animal, he is a rationalizing animal.
Think of morality as a survival adaptation. Liberals and conservatives both use their morality expressed in the form of government to bludgeon others into what they think is the best approach for survival. They are completely wrong.
Government, since its inception, has been nothing other than a killing, stealing, destroying, and enslaving machine, defended only by the emotional need of its purveyors.
Libertarians want an end to that insanity, yet they are demonized for trying to end the savagery that is government.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10000872396390444358804578016291138331904
In his recent book "The Righteous Mind," Dr. Haidt confronted liberal bafflement and made the case that conservatives are motivated by morality just as liberals are, but also by a larger set of moral "tastes"—loyalty, authority and sanctity, in addition to the liberal tastes for compassion and fairness. Studies show that conservatives are more conscientious and sensitive to disgust but less tolerant of change; liberals are more empathic and open to new experiences.
But ideology does not have to be bipolar. It need not fall on a line from conservative to liberal. In a recently published paper, Ravi Iyer from the University of Southern California, together with Dr. Haidt and other researchers at the data-collection platform YourMorals.org, dissect the personalities of those who describe themselves as libertarian.
These are people who often call themselves economically conservative but socially liberal. They like free societies as well as free markets, and they want the government to get out of the bedroom as well as the boardroom. They don't see why, in order to get a small-government president, they have to vote for somebody who is keen on military spending and religion; or to get a tolerant and compassionate society they have to vote for a large and intrusive state.
The study collated the results of 16 personality surveys and experiments completed by nearly 12,000 self-identified libertarians who visited YourMorals.org. The researchers compared the libertarians to tens of thousands of self-identified liberals and conservatives. It was hardly surprising that the team found that libertarians strongly value liberty, especially the "negative liberty" of freedom from interference by others. Given the philosophy of their heroes, from John Locke and John Stuart Mill to Ayn Rand and Ron Paul, it also comes as no surprise that libertarians are also individualistic, stressing the right and the need for people to stand on their own two feet, rather than the duty of others, or government, to care for people.
Perhaps more intriguingly, when libertarians reacted to moral dilemmas and in other tests, they displayed less emotion, less empathy and less disgust than either conservatives or liberals. They appeared to use "cold" calculation to reach utilitarian conclusions about whether (for instance) to save lives by sacrificing fewer lives. They reached correct, rather than intuitive, answers to math and logic problems, and they enjoyed "effortful and thoughtful cognitive tasks" more than others do.
The researchers found that libertarians had the most "masculine" psychological profile, while liberals had the most feminine, and these results held up even when they examined each gender separately, which "may explain why libertarianism appeals to men more than women."
All Americans value liberty, but libertarians seem to value it more. For social conservatives, liberty is often a means to the end of rolling back the welfare state, with its lax morals and redistributive taxation, so liberty can be infringed in the bedroom. For liberals, liberty is a way to extend rights to groups perceived to be oppressed, so liberty can be infringed in the boardroom. But for libertarians, liberty is an end in itself, trumping all other moral values.
Dr. Iyer's conclusion is that libertarians are a distinct species—psychologically as well as politically.
Your comment (not the article) is conflating libertarianism with anarchy, two completely different political philosophies... particularly when it comes to american libertarianism.
The problem with american libertarianism is that - like the worst strains of liberalism - it requires one to suspend all knowledge of history and reality in order to accept its primary ideals.
Anarchy, hell yeah, government at all levels are parasites and are completely iirrelevantt and only because the greedy fucks drive their relevance into oblivion.
Fuck 'em and feed'em grits.
I don't think he's conflating the two at all.
For example, I've noticed many to the extreme left of me (just to be honest about myself) try to make the case that if an anarchist is true to his ideals he should refuse to vote...that is, not participate in the systems election cycle as they claim its rigged (leave the debate about Diebold aside & concentrate on what that position holds).
What they're really saying is, an anarchist who believes in zero government should not avail themselves of any & all tools to meet his desires, smaller government. Its the stupidest argument I've ever seen and is only meant to use his idealism against him by keeping him from voting against their interests...a larger government. Simply, the act of voting is like a hammer, it can be used to pound a nail in order to build something or break something or used in self defense.
A libertarian accepts the idea of "some" government, which is closer to the idea of anarchy. They also understand some people can't live (for some reason) without it. The libertarian can live with either but is repulsed by the concept (now the reality) of a bloated, out of control nanny-state offered up by Establishment interests, which also happens to be closer to the real fiscal conservatives model.
The progs are mostly left out in the cold, as they continue to believe life should not have any consequences and whatever stupid mistake they make must be made right by a hyper-active, ever more intrusive, Nanny State.
But you to me:
"Hard to get to the nazis without a mistaken degree of faith in the human capacity for rational decision making."
There is no mistaking the nazis were in fact fanatical socialists.
You are on the right track but completely wrong.
Supporting any government at all requires one to suspend all knowledge of history (albeit .gov written) and reality and rely solely on what you innately believe.
Four hundred million deaths due to government in the 20th century - yet the belief in it prevails.
what a well thought comment, Anusocracy
I'll skip the first point about government, except noting that it's hilarious that people from a country who's government is all over the planet are the first to believe that government can be done with
yes. conservatives have more moral dimensions. liberalism as a family of political thought includes libertarianism, btw. A libertarian is an extreme liberal. But this point is of course muddled by the US liberals, who aren't classical liberals, mostly because of the US voting system allowing only two dominant parties that can't be voted out of existence
so what the test is showing is that classical liberals (to which libertarian belong) value liberty above all and feel less about the other moral dimensions of loyalty, authority and sanctity
intriguingly, and imo this shows how little socialism ever touched America, one moral dimension is utterly lacking: equity
that's the one you can see even in little children. the one where they cry and shout "it's not fair!", or "why is she allowed to... and I am not?". Which generates the human demand for equality
a tough one, equality. Where? In front of the law? Most would agree on that... except for perhaps the foreign, the poor, the "wrong ones"? Equality of starting points? Of outcomes?
in the rest of the world, it's socialists that champion equality, liberals that champion liberty and conservatives that champion fraternity (i.e. loyalty, authority and sanctity)
from the point of view of the rest of the world, US Dems are a liberal-socialist party and US Reps are a liberal-conservative party... in theory and ideology, while US libertarians are a fringe of both. Yet still clearly belonging to the "family" of classic liberal thought, centered on liberty
but of course all this ideology has nothing to do with the fact that the US is approaching more and more the ideal of Plutocracy. The Rule of Money. Independently if you want to call it a corruption or the ideal state, it's one dollar, one voice. Or should I write one dollar, one vote. Anyway, spend enough, and the laws will be written your way. The Essence of Plutocracy
and this is where I have to laugh, then it's US libertarians that have the least problems with Plutocracy. And so scoff at the thing when it does not work their way, and dream of anarchy instead
and US Libertarians, when they dream of anarchy, they take the trappings of regulated capitalism with them in their dreams. Peaceful dreams, because they believe that making the government (with it's monopoly on violence) go away makes violence go away, too. Nice dreams, but dreams, nevertheless. Remember, you can't have capitalism or even private ownership of material or immaterial possession without courts (of law, equity and redress). And courts can't function without... some kind of enforcement. The State is built in the very concept of "private"
Like light and darkness, the concepts of private and public need each other in order to exist. You can't have the one without the other
Or, as they would have said in the 18th Century: no private wealth without a commonwealth
and this is where I have to laugh, then it's US libertarians that have the least problems with Plutocracy.
and that's where I have to laugh, because aint no libertarian i ever heard of supports the one dollar one vote concept (as is the practice in the US.)
libertarians scoff at the concept of a corporation having "votes," since each of its employees has a vote - just as obamacare was scoffed at, with the fascist idea of businesses getting behind an idea of the government's just so long as the hit they were going to take on it was covered by taxpayers. (and that isnt even mentioning the illegality of its passage and judicial, executive rewritings.)
"no libertarian i ever heard..." - this is a defense I read often here. there seems always to be a hidden cache of "the correct libertarians", somewhere. trot them out, then. are you one?
Are we alive after all this satire? So many words, and so little to say Ghordius.
You just can't help conflating libertarians and anarchists, because that's really all you've got, isn't it, to criticise? That libertarians don't want as much government as you want, and government is good, so libertarians are bad anarchists?
You may want to define each of your so-called "moral dimensions" before launching into the convoluted gibberish you are spouting.
"You just can't help conflating libertarians and anarchists" lol. read a bit what many post here, and you'll find out that it isn't me conflating them
I don't need to define better - which would mean a longer comment, wouldn'it? this just after you complained I used too many words - because they are already well defined
how do you know how much government I want, btw?
Rational thought in government is as common place as unicorns
indeed..... which then follows that.....
"The limits of reason" - are the libertarians more rational than others?
well the short answer to that is YES
having said that..... this does not mean AT ALL that such ... 'more reasonable' people will EVER hold any significant position of power because the basic premise that a libertarian holds is that EACH INDIVIDUAL IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR ACTIONS....
THEREFORE.....
being a libertarian (see above) and be capable of governing and more to the point... convince people to vote for you based on the LIES that campaign promises are..... bare NO RELATIONSHIP to what the facts are.... why ? well.. because human nature is basically .... contrary to rational thought..... proof? remember the 80%/20% rule? 80 % are basically lazy slackers 20% producers.....
so, in short..... libertarians *while overall smart and indeed RATIONAL.... their ods in government is a non-starter
another case in point.....
rationality and religion... -lol
position: god exists and it is omnipotent.
fact: WHERE IS THE DAMNED PROOF GOD EXIST ? A = (religious pople answer) = FAITH
-LOL
FAITH = the illogical belief in the ocurrence of the improbable... (and not worth knowing) -lmao
as for his (or is it hers ? or worse.. could it be an IT ? -lol) "omnipotence" LOL ! given the state of the world....
god is either a despicable sadistic bastard... or he is a grandisoe omni-IMPOTENT..... who needs some serioious dose of omni-VIAGRA !!!!!
Ron Paul hasn't said anything John Locke didn't already say 300 years ago.......
How could we evolve without Cut and Paste?
That was originally said by Sir Issac Newton, just to show how great ideas transcend generations
"You cannot believe everything you read on the internet."
—Abraham Lincoln
That was like a self referential paradox, wrapped in an anachronism, and stuffed into a stove pipe hat. Mind = Blown. Thankyou.
All due respect to Lincoln but Ron Paul is a Rosicrucian and Isaac Newton was a Prieure de Sion.
HA HA HA HA
Gotta watch those log cabin republicans.
Actually, it was Lord Anu (please don't kill us) who said it first.
Pretty much the same as on the shoulders of giants right?
True, but he was the only one in congress that thought what Locke said was worth repeating.
I'll certainly give him credit for that....
Too bad nobody else will. He's basically been exiled. Damned shame, too. He was about the last voice standing against the tide.
I am Ron Paul........
not reason, please. And, no, Id say anarchists are the most rational. Libertarians tend to believe that, despite all evidence to the contrary throughout history, it is possible to hae a govt that doesnt trample on peoples liberty, or steal from them
You want to split the church, still, yet, again?
Libertarians can already hold our conventions in a phone booth.
do phone boothes still exist?
Check ebay.
It's a journey, dude. One cannot just dismiss all the lies we have been force fed at once.
We have to dismantle them, one or two at at time.
An in the end, we'll all be anarchists.
yep. Whats the difference between a libertarian and an anarchist? about 6 months....
"it is possible to have a government that does not trample on peoples liberty, or steal from them" Yes, I agree. But your sentence has no anarchic bone in it. Anarchy is about having no government at all, not only a little of it
The Librarians I know seem pretty book smart........
Guy walks into a library and asks the librarian where the self-hepl books are.
She tells him that'd be defeating the purpose
Budumpa!
Then what happened.....?
"self-hepl books"
Is that a Yiddish book?
Book smart and butt ugly. Where'd the "sexy librarian" thing come from? All the librarians at my library are fat, at least 60, and they always look pissed off.
My mom used to watch old musicals when I was growing up, and Marian the librarian from The Music Man is probably what first made me notice girls. Young Shirley Jones was hot as hell.
They mostly do couch casting on YouPorn from what I can tell
Best comments I have ever heard from Nick. Maybe there is hope.
Does he shower in that black leather jacket? I don't think anyone would recognize him without it.
Wow talk about a self-congratulating sucking your own dicks article for everyone.
Be glad it wasn't... "The Limits of Faith".
No.
In general their views are right (get the government out of our lives) but they are clueless when it comes to human nature. Book-smart but lack wisdom (implementation).
Well I for one am at the extreme limits of my reasonability.
Sign me up when libertarians motto is "leave me the phuck alone".
It's basically all bullshit after that.
http://www.libertarianporcupine.org/history/
name one thing a porcupine says, as a symbol, that isn't "leave us alone"
jon, I uparrowed you. One small faction has it right.
I'm not asking for a miracle; I'd settle for a Consitutional Government; one that actually operated the way the Consitution specifies, and within its limits. Well, maybe I am asking for a miracle. What am I trying to say ? The original Consitutional Federal Government was pretty Libertarian. There. That's what I'm trying to say.
As long as you weren't black, native-american, mexican, spanish, french, a catholic, a protestant, jewish, chinese, japanese, etc, etc, etc... at various times in US history. Depending on who was in the way of people accruing boatloads of money/power at any given moment. And at the present moment, that appears to be everybody who doesn't have a Gulfstream.
sat800: "I'm not asking for a miracle; I'd settle for a Consitutional Government; one that actually operated the way the Consitution specifies, and within its limits."
"Washington state deputy sheriff explaining that armored vehicles are needed by police departments to confront "Constitutionalists" with firearms."
"Thalen said the shocking admission indicates that law-abiding gun owners who support the Constitution are under surveillance by local authorities and it solidifies concerns by many that conservatives are being targeted by law enforcement agencies".
http://www.examiner.com/article/wash-deputy-sheriff-armored-vehicles-nee...
Will that MRAP fit up your ass? Sideways maybe? With a teeny bit of lube?
:)
Just kidding.....
As I recall there was an experiment in constitutional government. Started in 1788 and lasted until - well not very long. Some say the experiment ended in 1913. Others say it ended circa 1865. So, seems we need to do a bit better next time around.
Yes. The next constitution will be carved in stone. Literally...
What is rational about trying to do something for 200 years and failing and still trying to do the same friggin thing?
You can argue it would be cool, the best end result, but rational? I think not.
It has had its enemies in high places from its very conception. Monarchists & oligarchs who believe the people are too "stupid" to govern themselves...ala Jon-Boy-Gruber.
I'm more along the lines of TJ, just give them ALL THE INFORMATION and they'll always come to the correct decision. There is a large difference between ignorance & stupidity, you can't fix stupid ;-)
Me too, except I'm not as worried whether they make the correct decision as long as they bear their own responsibility for that decision.
You mean you don't like someone else to make decisions for you against your will and better judgement under threat of fine, imprisonment or death, and then having to suffer the consequences of their greed, ignorance, and malice? Strange.......
Problem is the word Libertarian has been hijacked by Tea Bagger authoritarian types who call themselves libertarians, then do their best to impose their religious beliefs on everyone else once they get a little power. The language has been muddled as Orwell predicted.
Sad but true.
"Problem is the word Libertarian has been hijacked by Tea Bagger authoritarian types who call themselves libertarians..."
(Checking my nads, yep, still intact)
Are you saying the left and atheists have some monopoly on ethics & morals, even to the point of using a homosexual term, as a slander against them?
How does that even logically work? ;-)
Oh...I get it, since I don't ascribe to the right's version of thinking, I must be a lefty who wouldn't dare use a term that might be considered non-PC. Nice try, and seems to have worked on a few weaker minds as the up votes indicate. No wonder the Tea Party (happy now?) was so easily duped by the douche bags who took it over.
Where did I say the left and atheists have a monopoly on morals and ethics? I said that those who came along espousing freedom in the latest version of the libertarian movement ended up being religious authoritarian dicks. Check your own logic there brain trust.
i hear ya, man. That movement got co-opted big time. I liked what they said at first, but if you listen to most of them, its just the same tired republican bullshit. Especially the older TP people "obama care is socialism, we don't want your commiecare" "obama is spending too much money, he will bankrupt us" but then when you talk about how to balance the budget its "hands off my medicare" and "I EARNED my social security, we paid for that". Then, try telling them that the patron saint of conservatism, ronald reagan, spent more money on as a % than any other president in history... always fun.
Where do you see those statements? That the left-wing/atheists are more ethical/moral?
I’m extreme left-wing myself (libertarian anarchist/socialist) – and agnostic at best/worst (atheist leaning). But I’ve never argued that I’m more ethical/moral – I have very different views on ethics/moral than most right-wingers. But that’s a different topic.
Hayduke: "Problem is the word Libertarian has been hijacked by Tea Bagger authoritarian types who call themselves libertarians."
"Teabagger" authoritarian types = Statist Republicans.
Problem is you're an idiot if you can not differentiate what the Tea Party movement (grass roots) was all about.
The "teabaggers" as you now choose to call them, Tea Party were apolitical, not democrats and not republicans. They were not left wing and not right wing. 10 points if you can do a 3 second web search and find out what their motto was.
They were fucking hijacked by statist republicans to siphon off votes. The statist republicans have the mentally deficient Evangelicals in their pockets too.
You might want to look into the beginnings of the modern day Tea Party movement before you make a bigger a-hole out of yourself. And No Rick Santelli had absolutely nothing to do with it.
Ya beat me to it.
A little emotional about it I see. So, what you are saying is that even though they were well meaning, freedom-loving folks they were taken over by ambitious dicks who used them for their own power and greed? What does that say about the ability of the so-called true libertarians to achieve their goals in reality if the scum always rises to the top?
How ironic that I have heard this same argument from socialist who claim the Soviet Union and China were taken over by power hungry leaders and were not true socialism, communism, etc... This scenario seems to happen over and over again regardless of initial intentions.
Looking at the historic record it seems that humans aren't quite capable of creating the social-economic Utopias envisioned by theorists and ideologues on either the right or left. Thus far it seems that power seeking assholes find one way or another to herd the weaker minds behind them leading to yet another authoritarian/statist situation.
While I lean anarchistic in my own views, I find all the talk and bluster rather tiring since I have concluded that humans in a general sense are incapable of existing in such a system. If you've got any historic precedent of a thriving, non-statist, non-authoritarian large population living above the tribal level I would be quite happy to learn about it as my own research over the past three decades has come up short.
Down votes, but no comments or examples. As expected.
Now see, there you go again.
People can call themselves Libertarian or Conservative all they want.
When you see them saying, and more importantly, DOING things like.......
Slashing and burning,
Hacking and cutting,
Starving the fucking Beast.....
Then you will finally have met one.
You didn't see me, you can't prove it and I deny it all ;-)
+1.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbpBAdocivw - Noam Chomsky explains it well.
How can you be rational when you would trust a government to not abuse its power? The Roman system elected two simultaneous serving consuls for one year terms and then replaced them after one year. To be rational is to understand the nature of power corrupting and not fantasizing about a good ruler, who could be trusted for long. Libertarians hope that they could trust in some system of rules,aka laws, which would constrain governmental power. Others believe that a "good" ruler would come from their own political party. The delusion is trust. The solution is no trust and very temporary power.
Wasn't it Josey Wales, not Dirty Harry, that said "A man's got to know his limitations" ?
No, it was Dirty Harry.
No, Josey said "Dyin ain't much of a livin, boy." But kinda the same, the bounty hunter didn't know his limitations pulling a gun on Josey.
Helluva lesson to learn at the end of his life ;-)
"Now remember, when things look bad, and it looks like you ain't gonna make it, then you gotta get mean, I mean plumb mad dog mean, cause if you lose your head and you give up, then you neither win nor live, and that's just the way it is."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yid-CW-O9Qw
Libertarians are like Socrates. They're the wisest individuals because they're the only ones honest enough to admit they are ignorant about running other people's lives.
Most Libertarians do not know the difference between a True Conservative and the republican party.
Too bad they have never seen one.
But please stop confusing the two. It hurts the rare, desperately endangered ones feelings.
http://therightscoop.com/mark-levin-to-the-gop-i-am-one-inch-away-from-l...
This guy knows the difference, and the fucking idiots in power today are not conservatives.
a true conservative is equally suspicious of both (classical) liberalism (including libertarianism) and socialism
for him the first are too centered on liberty and often misuse liberty to the expenses of all the other moral dimensions, and the second are too centered on equality
he often agrees with liberals about economy freedoms and with socialists about authority (so police and military)
nevertheless, his position is often "no change, thanks", or "change back to the old times, please". Having more moral dimensions makes for a more difficult way of taking decisions, with an emphasis on shifting those difficult decisions to a leader, and following that leader through difficulties and murkyness
democrat republican wig anarchist liberal libertarian I liken all of them to just mere "gangs" now a true "political system" I believe should work like a sports team as follows the teams (the citizens of varying majority groups ) they take the feild (the issues at hand) they begin the game (the debating process and voting) the game ends (majority rule) the teams ALL go home stadium (government) closed until next said "game" the custodians (limited government) maintain the stadium between games. All "games" played using the founding game rules (whatever constitution of the land sets the basic game rules) for fucks sake I explain constitutional gov and law to kids and they get it in less than 5 minutes.... takes "adults" their whole damned lives and still can't get a handle on how simple the shit is ...and yes it's simple stop making the whole fucking thing into a mind fuck... ya know a government of the people by the people for the people?????? DUH
the only problem is getting the dumb ass people to throw out the government against the people that the dumb fuking people put there there ya have it a simple explanation to a complicated problem...the people are the problem they're their own worst enemy
sub MOA: "majority rule"
Fuck that shit. Just leave me alone, ok? I will partake in what ever I chose to partake in and not partake in what ever I chose not too.
ok the majority wants no war and they voted no whats the argument ... did you some how just throw out the whole "constitutional" belief ... or ignore that part... fucking anarchists keep believing that fiction. the founding "fathers" knew this much some type of government was and is needed and the best they came up with was what you have in the form of constitution and bill of rights once again " of the people by the people for the people" that means the system goes by the majority rule or the majority cocensous what ever you want to call it the collective good blah blah If anyone believes there should be no "law" oe accountability amongst citizens you then are a fool.. ie I believe its just fine and dandy for my dog to shit on your porch or lawn because my dog has free will so fuck your property and you.... now thats just a trivial problem and I can tell you it will lead to chaos in minutes I've seen it happen and we already have fucking dog laws in most every damn town. evrey "anarchist" i've ever met adopts that shit because they got screwed hard by the illegitimate fucking laws we have and some adopted it for breaking legitimate laws either way it's a feel good for hurt feelings not a viable or reallity based solution... never was never will be works great in movies and books .
an anarchist society even if it did take root would be plundered over night by some fascist bully in minutes ... hell even nomadic tribes have some form of law and basic gov model.
Very true. Anarchy leads to Despotism.
Well, you can go play with your anarchy and despotism over there, ok?
I'll be over here minding my own business.
"I believe its just fine and dandy for my dog to shit on your porch or lawn because my dog has free will so fuck your property and you.... now thats just a trivial problem and I can tell you it will lead to chaos in minutes I've seen it happen and we already have fucking dog laws in most every damn town. "
Funny that.
I had that problem. I took the dog shit and added water, pureed it in a blender outside my back door , took the slop and poured it in the cowl vents of my neighbors Volvo wagon.
That dog never shit in my yard again. The dog owner got a fucking clue really fast.
I did that all without "dog laws" and any government intervention.
Problem solved. (It was a teaching moment).
"ok the majority wants no war and they voted no whats the argument ... did you some how just throw out the whole "constitutional" belief ..."
Well we can agree on something then. I don't want war. But apparently you believe that I want government "mob rule" to compell me to pay for war. So I disagree with you.
I live in a rural county with dog laws. If they come and harass your livestock you can shoot the dog and toss the carcass back to the owner, with the bag of shit attached of course.
.
I don't know what the fuck I am and refuse to define myself merely by one political ideology. I do know I respect and support Dr.Paul more than any other living politician simply because when he opens his mouth, sane ideas come out - which is an unbelievably refreshing change from the rest of the DC crazies I have to endure on a daily basis. Dennis Kucinich from the "opposition" is another Washington politician I can listen to without getting an aneurysm. The fact that they are both retired tells me we're quite doomed.
Aristotle defined man as a political animal, so be it. The trouble with politics is, it is run by (ie controlled by) animals related to pond scum.
Maybe this will help you work out "what the fuck you are".
http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz/quiz.php#
Took that quiz before: Libertarian obviously. I even belong to a club that flouts its libertarian credentials, but I still refuse to define myself by one political ideology. Part of being one is accepting the imperfection of its credo and rejecting the imposition of organizations. Bleeding heart liberal when it comes to poverty, a right wing hard case when it comes to crime. Why should I narrow my options?
The basic Libertarian philosophy is to live and let live. I don't see why you can't believe in freedom and any other thing you want to believe in. Isn't that the definition of freedom?
Small L or captial L? This is our problem as to why we can beat these other fuckers. We can't seem to get along with each other because I do not know any libertarian who can't manage to pick a fight another libertarian. Or strength is our weakness. The frustrating part of this is that I been to some liberatrain event and then get started fighting with each other. Everyone is well read and there points that can be brought up but I have seen in devolve. It usually ends up with , "I've read than you have" so I know more. Really? It does turn childish. Really intelligent people in most cases. But it always like some issue and it work out. I even suggested once that "Hey it is obvious that everyone here very informed about a certain subject. I had to give up because you a literary deabt about Alice in Wonderland. I have done that shit too here on ZH.
We don't want part of a group and you can it here on ZH. It is a never ending search for an alpha male. That is why there are so few females on ZH. It is not their game. One of the best things you can do is go over to HuffPo and like Fox new and then read the comment. Once you read their then you will how good ZH actually is. Those people are morons. You will see it rigth away. I have be an idiot to get elected? Who said I wasnted to be elected? You can see doing the same thing because I will question everything. And then whatever I question you about you will question me and a huge debate will occur and in the meantime some asshole either R or D will get elected while we are having an intellectual debate. Just go look at HuffPo and tell me that we are smarter them. Fucking eh we are.
The way is that we have stop fighting with each other. Yes, we all hold fields of expertise which we very good at. One fricking ZHer has more brain power tha allf HuffPo. We would need a leader and that might be an issue because we are born the way we were and could be an issue. About any one of us could lead but we are all born leaders so that is not easy. Something to think about at least. Just go look at HuffPo and read some comments. We can always talk about it again.
I guess that even those of us who proudly claim to be libertarian are not 100% "pure" and will still find one or two issues where our views are not very libertarian. For many people, this might be where their own family or kids are involved and the notion of live and let live carries too much risk. Or believing that free markets need to have some regulation because so many people operating in them cannot be trusted.
And of course, being a libertarian carries the responsibility of not living one's life in ways that unreasonably and adversely affect other people.
Yhc you are one of the best blogger we have around on ZH. You know damned good an well what you believe and your posts indicate this. Yes, I am only step away from the White Trash Bed and Breakfast but I never I was the kind of guy who goes in fancy resturants with woman who is not his wife. I don't that shit. I am of a real estate deal to my Mom's estate and have some trouble over the last 48 hours. I received an offhanded compliment out of the deal so in I was told "I don't know anyone who reads more than you do". That is the second time in the last six months. Yes, I do read a lot but that does mean I am smart.
YHC, you are a good blogger so keep that in mind. I like reading what you post. Many people like your writing. I have own issues but I want to taken on other folks. One day I will talk about it but you might like Alan Grayson and how he attacks the bankers if you like Ron Paul. I am not saying the guy is perfect but Grayson hits the bankers pretty hard and you might enjoy it.
Peace.
Thanks mate. You've always been very generous with me and I appreciate you being so honest and forthright in your posts. I saw a video of Grayson at a Fed Reserve review hearing and I think you're absolutely right about him.
I am very far from perfect and I hope you will be equally forthright in your opinions if I ever post anything you dislike. Decency and honesty is always appreciated in whatever form it takes. All the best to you.
It's not a question of who's more rational, but what parameter you're trying to optimize. Libertarianism falls flat because most voters don't want freedom, we want free stuff for us paid for by them. The politician's goal therefore is to define us and them such that us has more votes.
In their everyday lives, most people are libertarians. Most people, at least in their everyday lives, don't steal, murder, kidnap or enslave others. It is only when they get into a voting booth that most people do these terrible things - or vote for someone else to do the dirty work.
No. Libertarians are LESS rational than others...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbuDPO2LSX4
I don't mess with the Hedge and I don't often give vote. In fact this might be first one I have given in 2014 but I think you earned it. I always try to find something that I can learn from other posters and I often do. But what you posted with you is assinine. Did you watch that tool that you linked to before you posted that garbage? Maybe come back another day and tell us why you hate libertarians. Tell us what you stand for then.
The guy in the video is no less a goofball than the majority of posters on ZH. Let’s take a look at just TWO Libertarian idea that were put into practice-
Bank (and previous S&L) deregulation – unmitigated disasters. Of course, Libertarians will attribute these failures to the creation of the FDIC and government insured deposits. You see, FDIC insurance creates a moral hazard and stops the natural self-regulation of the market. Small time depositors need to share the bank’s investment risks as they did during the Great Depression. A “rational” mind would see the correctness of this position.
Financial market deregulation- self-explanatory. The SEC (created during the Great Depression and a success for many, many years but now a captive of special interests) is unnecessary. After all, why should financial firms (or ANY firm as is now the case) not be allowed to freely trade an unlimited number of derivative contracts without the need for prudent reserves? Why should financial “advisors” be held to a fiduciary relationship with their customers? Why should the government be involved in limiting the size of any financial organization? You see, the market will sort everything out in the end… no need for government to get involved.
Libertarians are dupes. One only needs to see who funds (for example) the Cato Institute or the Manhattan Institute.
Unfortunately, a lot of poor slobs believe this stuff and we now see the consequences.
Libertarians that believed in Ron Paul or still espouse him as some sort of hope for change are more irrational than any Democrap and Republicon combined
Only in their assumption there was any chance whatsoever the predators-that-be would permit him to have any chance to win office... and their assumption he could do anything if he did win.
But libertarians are just as wrong as democrats and republicans on the fundamental issue. They ALL accept the notion that certain humans have some kind of legitimate basis to obligate, control and enslave other humans.
They ALL believe that when a couple dozen dorks smeared ink on a piece of paper in the late 1700s that something popped into existence (the USA).
They ALL believe that somehow, by some unexplained magic that a couple dozen dorks smearing ink on paper can in some magically legitimate manner control, obligate and enslave hundreds of millions to billions of other human beings (non-signators), even across centuries and millennia.
Well, those beliefs are utterly and totally insane, and ANY even marginally sane and honest human being has to shrug and acknowledge this.
So the real point is... virtually all humans are utterly, totally, completely insane in the most fundamental way possible - they cannot distinguish what exists from what does not exist, what is real from what is not real, what is from what is not.
The entire planet of humans is terminally insane. Carve the headstone for mankind, because his time is running out fast. No need to pick on libertarians, they're making the same mistake as everyone else. Hell, even most anarchists are insane, because they also believe these nonsensical fictions are real... but merely prefer not to support them. The only sane folks on the planet are those who actually understand the difference between real and fiction, understand that "government", "authority", "nation", "law" and endless other terms are fictions and refer-to nothing at all.
predators-DBA-governments
predators-DBA-corporations
predators-DBA-authorities
predators-DBA-nations
predators-DBA-laws
The predators are real, their actions and abuses are real, their victims (prey) are real... but those fictions? They're just made up nonsense designed to fake insane human beings to accept being prey so the human predators can suck them dry with great ease. Which they are doing in spades.
American ’right-wing’ libertarianism is an oxymoron. The term in US is – like most of American ideological paradigms – infested with corporate propaganda. The term has been emptied of its original meaning and is now more a form of excuse for vulgar capitalism (basically what US already got).
Noam Chomsky gets it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbpBAdocivw.
How government works:
This is sheer genius. The creator captured the very essence of government.
And driving the contraption with a hit and miss engine was absolutely brilliant!
Lots of huffing, puffing, sputtering, smoke and clatter while totally dependent upon inertia.
Rube Goldberg would be impressed. This should be in the Smithsonian.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=XTAULdznHug#t=0