let's have a POLITIK DISCUSHIN

[rossmum]

every time i accidentally encounter libertarians on the internet, i become more and more convinced that their ideology is the most idiotic, dysfunctional, socially irresponsible load of buzzwords and quackery i have ever heard in my entire life, fuelled by a complete disregard for anybody but themselves and an utter lack of knowledge of how economics actually work - let alone human psychology, social anthropology, or any other of the myriad factors that impact our lives daily.

i guess it's the kind of ideology you could reasonably expect to flourish in a self-centred consumerist society where most people will believe they're gifted with the intangible, nebulous abstraction of "freedom" simply because they're told they are even as their rights are eroded, but oh well. so far the bulk of self-described libertarians i've encountered tend to be unashamed nationalists, and there is an exceedingly bizarre fetishisation not only of "freedom" but also of the us constitution, and indeed particular points in that document's development. between a few different people you may get five or six variations on the demarcation line where the constitution goes from an almost biblical script to a sullied and impure damsel in distress.

most of the more outspoken kinds seem to be from particularly antisocial backgrounds - self-diagnosed asperger's abounds, and most of those who don't claim that are just loners or have issues dealing with other people. there's a tendency to see themselves as superior beings on account of a perceived rationality, though this attribute is less an ability to make unclouded, objective judgement and more a simple lack of any ability to consider the social aspects of an issue. the weirdest part is when this is applied to others too in models like the "rational actor" view, which assumes all humans are independent "actors" who will make decisions based entirely on "rational self-interest". unsurprisingly, when this theory was incorporated into us counterinsurgency doctrine, it turned out to be a load of incredibly shallow garbage which fails to account for the majority of what actually motivates any given person.

when asked what is going wrong in our society, there are a few variations on responses that i've seen. the first is simply to begin comparing literally everything that isn't 100% free market no-government fairy magic to slavery and/or nazism. this is the most easily explained, because these kinds of responses are little different to what you get if you ask some idiot fashion-statement communist what is wrong with the world. idiots who don't even understand the ideologies they follow will try and cast aspersions everywhere else before risking an embarrassing demonstration of their cluelessness.

another variation, and a far more interesting one, is what you actually get from the ones who are willing to go past the first step. not only is big government slavery, but it restricts choice and therefore freedom. no man should be subject to governance by an outside body, and should be able to choose for himself what he wants in his life. he should be able to choose his path, where he obtains material, and who he associates with. the government doesn't let this happen because of all those pesky laws they impose, particularly in the corporate sphere.

when asked what happens to people too poor to actually have those opportunities for choice (and there will always be some), i've never seen any response other than BOOTSTRAPS or "that's what charity is for and they are more efficient at support than the government" (this is complete bullshit and immediately apparent as such to anybody who has ever actually left their middle class white suburban neighbourhood). when asked how they think the businesses they want more freedom for will be prevented from simply taking over the reigns from government more overtly than they already do, i haven't actually gotten a straight answer. usually they just change the subject or throw some bullshit irrelevant quote at me, because i guess using smoke and mirrors to cover over massive gaping holes in your core theory is the sign of a robust and sustainable ideology.

at its core, i have found nothing to convince me that libertarianism (which steals its name from an early liberal socialist movement, to boot) is anything other than socially irresponsible and generally self-centred people with authority issues trying to justify themselves. it is difficult to go more than five minutes attempting to converse with one before they resort to single-line responses citing latin debating terms (with a total lack of self-awareness, as they turn around and commit the same logical fallacies they are accusing of) or begin slinging around contextless quotes, proverbs, or general buzzwords without actually attempting to explain or justify such.

anyone feel like attempting to persuade me otherwise? i'm bored.

[TeeKup]

It's not like anyone actually listens or uses the Constitution anymore, it's more or less become a scapegoat or point of reference when politicians cry foul when no one wants to support their bullshit policies. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, I wish people respected it more. As for me, I try to remain as moderate as possible. I don't converse well with any side of the political map.

[Warsaw]

All I want are business, religion, and government to be mutually exclusive operations. Businesses are not people, they have no Constitutional rights. The people that run them do, but they are not allowed to have a say as a company. Similarly, you shouldn't be able to tax a company because you can't tax what doesn't have representation. You tax the individuals who make money on the company and you collect a sales tax from the purchaser (technically, a sales tax is on the seller, but the seller in turn just jacks the price up and collects it from the buyer, so we might as well cut to the chase here and make it a vending tax). Basically, you tax transactions. Standing ownership of funds or property is non-taxable and I think doing so is in violation of the spirit of "life, liberty, and property."

Basically, governments should set the rules and regulations for businesses to follow within their borders but they ought to otherwise be left alone. Likewise, governments should not allow businesses (or any special interest group, actually) to influence decision-making.

[TVTyrant]

I don't see the problem

Anyone who hasn't figured out that libertarians are retarded yet, is probably a libertarian

[Dwood]

I'm going to ask some open-ended questions, that I think there are some questions to ask, here. I've lived in Hawaii, Florida, Wisconsin, Oklahoma, and Texas. I've lived in everything from the far rural to the teeming metropolis's in my life-time.

Bod, in another thread, suggested not responding to these in Real-Time, and I ask that you read this post to make sure you understand what I'm trying to say, instead of hastily reading and responding...

I think our real questions have to deal with personal autonomy.



Typically we think of the bottom one, when we think of politics, when in reality it's the first one.

Personally, I look as government as merely a regulator, an entity to protect its citizens, uphold reasonable laws, which impose restrictions on people so we can be a productive society. I look at companies in the same way. I think lately we've looked at government as the "Savior" of the poor and the needy, kind of like the robin hoods of the world.

This will be kept short, b/c I'll probably trip on my words.

Questions to ask ourselves:
One question to ask ourselves: is government really the answer to our problems?
Are companies REALLY evil? Is there really a disconnect with the gvt. and the companies?
If Gvt runs businesses, based on 'need' then who will there be to be rich?
---> My answer is gvt and other licensed individuals that are friends to the current group in power.

I've found this to be true:
Government, as it gets bigger, doesn't necessarily get better. Typically, the more power one group or another has, the more likely it will be abused one way or another. ESPECIALLY in the stifling of those with differing opinions.

That's not to say there should be no voice for those who are poor- gvt. should do everything it can without infringing on other citizens' rights and freedoms to promote people to learn, work, and move up in life, so they can be productive.

From what i've seen: humans are not naturally industrial without incentive or some kind of moral behavior. If you want a great read, read "The Five Thousand Year Leap- http://www.amazon.com/The-Five-Thous.../dp/0981559662

It's really Christian, but it discusses some of the reasons why life in America has been so awesome.

Companies are like governments with very focused goals. Their money comes from the consumer, who buys their product. More companies making products, means more options for consumers. Companies try to cater to customers to make more money.

Government seems to get bigger, so that the established group in power can stay in power- this usually requires the help of BOTH citizens and companies. Also, I agree with TeeKup. They haven't viewed the constitution as a legally-binding document with a set meaning for quite some time.

My opinion:

If you don't like your situation, it is up to you to take action and change it. Even if that means accepting the existence of a higher power, whatever it takes to make you a better person. I don't believe we are stuck in the situations we are in. It's all how we act with the tools we're given.

For example: If you're frustrated about the number of people who don't have food on their tables or whatever, find the nearest Food Pantry or some charity and volunteer there. It's irresponsible to think that government is the one to go to to fix those problems.

IMHO the bigger gvt gets, the smaller personal income/wealth gets- the less likely we are to WANT to work to succeed.

Basically what warsaw said.

[Warsaw]

Democracies are actually awful governments. They muddy ideas and are slow to execute. Far more people are able to leech off of a democratic system than an authoritarian one. The ideal form of government would involve a single ruler with a just set of morals who actively seeks the truth in all matters and doles out orders accordingly. The philosopher king. Unfortunately, when that person dies, you aren't guaranteed to get another individual of equal character and integrity to replace him. That's where tyrants show up.

There's also that little problem humans have with power corrupting and absolute power corrupting absolutely.

Instead, the best we've been able to do as a species is start small as authoritarian powers, evolve into republics, degenerate, and then get bulldozed by a newer and spritelier authoritarian powers. The Republics turn into mob-rule, and their increasing inability to make informed decisions and act on them causes them to get swallowed up by a competing force. Legend of the Galactic Heroes is an excellent demonstration of the effect; it happened to the Greeks, it happened to Carthage, it happened to Rome, and it's happening to the USA (and its allies) right now. Nobody has yet broken the cycle.

[Bodzilla]

Have you been reading /pol/ rossmum

[rossmum]

I'm going to ask some open-ended questions, that I think there are some questions to ask, here. I've lived in Hawaii, Florida, Wisconsin, Oklahoma, and Texas. I've lived in everything from the far rural to the teeming metropolis's in my life-time.

Bod, in another thread, suggested not responding to these in Real-Time, and I ask that you read this post to make sure you understand what I'm trying to say, instead of hastily reading and responding...

I think our real questions have to deal with personal autonomy.



Typically we think of the bottom one, when we think of politics, when in reality it's the first one.

the neat thing is combining these two into a two-axis plane, which is actually not all that new and has been done before

Personally, I look as government as merely a regulator, an entity to protect its citizens, uphold reasonable laws, which impose restrictions on people so we can be a productive society. I look at companies in the same way. I think lately we've looked at government as the "Savior" of the poor and the needy, kind of like the robin hoods of the world.

few bones to pick here.

firstly, i agree on government - it is there to look out for its citizens and maintain some semblance of functional society. what i don't understand is why you look at companies like that (unless you mean companies are regulated in the same way, not companies are regulators too, which i strongly disagree with).

following on from that i am not so certain that it's as simple as "lately". views on government responsibility or lack thereof differ from state to state and country to country, as well as by time period. prior to the second world war, almost no funding or research was devoted to social programs, and it was expected that charity could cover for the "needy poor" and balls to everyone else. it was only around the 1960s-1970s that commonwealth nations began seeing social welfare as a responsibility of the government, a whole-society support system that would hopefully prevent people from falling into that safety net in the first place. the united states, of course, lags behind awfully in any social issue that can be named offhand and so still has this horrible stigmatised view of welfare and a rather dismal barebones system that is too gimped to actually perform its task.

now we're moving away from this view again, thanks largely to the ever-worsening rightward list of western nations. non-government organisations are expected to do all the legwork with minimal oversight and funding from the government, and having seen this at the street level i can tell you that it's not even close to good enough. there are still government systems in place to cover some basics, but a lot of the more specialised services are now ngo-run and badly funded. this is all done in the name of economic "rationalism" (i hate that word now, because it's become a byword for "not spending money on anything that won't immediately double your investment, bugger the longterm payoff") and is exactly the kind of shit libertarians are calling for.

we never really tried the government system, we had a brief flirtation with it and then threw it by the wayside because a bunch of questionable ideology caught the ignorant masses by storm and swept everyone up in its charismatic surge.

One question to ask ourselves: is government really the answer to our problems?

this is a complex question, not least because my own pet ideology is not achieved until there is no longer a need for state or government. on the other hand, anyone who thinks we can jump from rationalist free market capitalism and the privatisation of nearly all basic services to endstate communism is a retard. i believe government is a far better solution than the current strategy of expecting ngos to pick up the slack, and infinitely better than kneecapping government in favour of corporate control even more than we already have. at the end of the day, if the government goes bad, it's easy enough to figure out who needs to be spoken to about it and a corrupt government can be toppled, by force if necessary. it's a lot harder to do anything about some massive global conglomerate presided over by scores of faceless directors spread across the planet and with enough money and influence to protect themselves anyway.

Are companies REALLY evil? Is there really a disconnect with the gvt. and the companies?

the goal of a company is profit, pure and simple. some might bullshit on about having philanthropic ideals and a few may even follow through on those claims once in a while, but the company exists to make as much profit as possible and then split that between its employees and shareholders. everything else is subordinate - social responsibility, innovation, even the rights of its own workers. they are inherently untrustworthy and it should surprise nobody when huge companies with more money than god still cause horrific damage to their communities all in the name of saving a handful of bills.

government currently is not much different, with there being two reasons for this: politicians are allowed to take kickbacks from companies and are lobbied constantly, and also they have national interests in mind - so instead of throwing employees under the bus for profit, they are throwing their own people or weaker countries under the bus for profit, which is then spent buying or taking more influence. this is a problem that will persist as long as lobbyists are allowed to be a thing or politicians are not immediately shit upon from the grandest of heights for allowing any personal interest to interfere with policy, no matter how minor. it will also continue to be a thing as long as countries exist, because nationalism is cancer.

If Gvt runs businesses, based on 'need' then who will there be to be rich?

why is there a perceived need of rich? if you split the same amount of wealth equally, it will still be fed back into an economy. the individual transactions may not be so large, but there will be more of them.

I've found this to be true:
Government, as it gets bigger, doesn't necessarily get better. Typically, the more power one group or another has, the more likely it will be abused one way or another. ESPECIALLY in the stifling of those with differing opinions.

and this is the primary reason people need to be dragged kicking and screaming from their couches in the middle of big brother season five million, six hundred and forty-three thousand, two hundred and seven and instead given a thorough understanding of why it is in their best interest to care why and how government and the economy works, and what the ramifications are of allowing them to become corrupted.

That's not to say there should be no voice for those who are poor- gvt. should do everything it can without infringing on other citizens' rights and freedoms to promote people to learn, work, and move up in life, so they can be productive.

a hell of a lot of very rich people are just that because they, in some way or another, infringed on the rights or freedoms of others. it's why we have unions. why does any one person need that much wealth? there is no need. human rights cover absolute basics, like the right to work, the right to proper nutrition, the right to safety from torture, and the right to safety from unjust incarceration. nowhere on any list of rights i have ever seen or heard of is the right to have hella bank and six swimming pools in your motor vehicle.

most rich people are neither productive nor particularly shining examples of hard work. a few will bootstraps themselves up, but by and large wealth is created by luck, coincidence, or inheritance - none of which take any particular effort, let alone intelligence.

From what i've seen: humans are not naturally industrial without incentive or some kind of moral behavior. If you want a great read, read "The Five Thousand Year Leap- http://www.amazon.com/The-Five-Thous.../dp/0981559662

this is an attitude i hear repeated a lot and i actually believe it to be false. idleness is born of despondency more than any innate laziness or lack of suitable incentive. many people, if left with nothing constructive to do, will sink into self-destructive behaviour and even experience severe depression. i've been there myself a few times, and i know a lot of other people who have too - people who would kill for a job, but are not qualified or fail some arbitrary criteria set by employers to try and find workers who are easier to exploit. fast food joints do this all the time, they'll turn away and lay off workers in their early twenties just to hire a pimply teenager for half the wage.

It's really Christian, but it discusses some of the reasons why life in America has been so awesome.

obviously i do not live in the us, but i have spent time there and i do try and keep up with what's happening. i can say quite definitively that i would not consider life in the united states to be particularly awesome for anybody not born into blissful ignorance and/or an upper-middle family.

Companies are like governments with very focused goals. Their money comes from the consumer, who buys their product. More companies making products, means more options for consumers. Companies try to cater to customers to make more money.

right, as i said, they care about profit and nothing else. they will pander to consumers exactly as much as they need to get that profit, but will cut every corner possible to maximise it.

If you don't like your situation, it is up to you to take action and change it. Even if that means accepting the existence of a higher power, whatever it takes to make you a better person. I don't believe we are stuck in the situations we are in. It's all how we act with the tools we're given.

i don't think you understand my problem. the existence of "a higher power" (not the fairy stories kind, the greedy earthly kind) is the root cause of all of this bullshit. accepting that it is a thing and it will continue to be a thing is the best way to not change a goddamn thing, as evidenced by sellout left-wing parties the world over who do little more than introduce half-assed, underfunded social programs that get canned after a few decades without solving any of the real issues.

For example: If you're frustrated about the number of people who don't have food on their tables or whatever, find the nearest Food Pantry or some charity and volunteer there. It's irresponsible to think that government is the one to go to to fix those problems.

it is not irresponsible at all. the government is capable of harnessing all the resources of an entire nation and every person in that nation. unless said nation is literally nothing but salt flats, this is not an impossible ask. it may not be profitable or easy, but if done properly instead of by half-measures, it can be sustainable and far superior to the idiotic lopsided feudal hangovers we have now.

oh also i do volunteer with charity, and am studying the field of social work. it is kind of why i am so angry about this, i get to see the results on a regular basis and then come home to see some talentless hack being lusted over by millions of aimless drones on tv.

IMHO the bigger gvt gets, the smaller personal income/wealth gets- the less likely we are to WANT to work to succeed.

large monetary incentives are actually detrimental to work - this has been proven multiple times. the best incentive is to remove money from a worker's mind, which you will do quite happily when the basics they need are provided for and they are educated from a young age to be frugal with their finances. if you've ever been through a poor part of town on garbage day you'll probably have seen the mountains of plasma tvs being thrown out because some poor gullible fucker thinks buying a bigger, newer tv will make their life better, like the advertisements tell them.

personal income and wealth cease to be relevant in a society where the difference is paying off the services each citizen needs.

Have you been reading /pol/ rossmum

4chan is garbage and i have no will to ever read any part of it

[Dwood]

You know, Ross, I think we'll have to agree to disagree. It's not that I can't argue and cite my sources, I just don't have the energy to reply to all of your post. I can find a large amount of evidence that goes in the opposite direction of the things you stated. I might reply in a week or two, but I'll suffice it for now with this question:

From what you've described, and from how I can make it out, you despise both communism as well as democracy/capitalism- is it possible to preserve life, liberty and freedom to pursue happiness while also forcing people to give up property?

[rossmum]

you would have to go through many long transitional stages, but the most drastic improvement would likely come from the first few stages which are also some of the easiest to implement.

"freedom" is a really abstract concept and i hate when people sling the word around without clarification. freedom from what? how far does it extend? should hate speech be legal? should telling someone the routine of somebody you know they despise, and then how to make a carbomb, be considered acceptable? should someone be able to use deceitful half-truths and confusing language to swindle somebody with poorer education into blowing their life savings on some useless trinket (alternative medicine bullshit being a huge one here)?