SS.org Libertarians Unite!
- Thread starter Cadavuh
- Start date
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links like Ebay, Amazon, and others.
This site may earn a commission from merchant links like Ebay, Amazon, and others.
Konfyouzd
Return of the Dread-I
i'm probably opening myself up to all sorts of jokes here... but what's it called when politics don't interest you in the slightest and you'd rather just go w/ the flow???
Konfyouzd
Return of the Dread-I
wow... ok...
wannabguitarist
Contributor
It seems to be working fine in parts of Europe
. The Indian reservations are a very bad example.
Well that's a bit harsh, but there has to be something in politics that interests you. The horrible decisions eventually do affect your life.
Konfyouzd
Return of the Dread-I
Well that's a bit harsh, but there has to be something in politics that interests you. The horrible decisions eventually do affect your life.
it's true. bad decisions that politicians make CAN affect my life. but at the end of the day, the people in charge do what they want regardless of how much i bitch and moan about it. and the thing that turns me off most about politics is the fact that everyone seems to have such strong opinions and nothing good ever seems to come out of political conversations because in most cases the people you're talking to already have their minds made up. furthermore, going back and forth with common folk about your opinions on political matters doesn't seem to get anything done.
for some people it seems like they just like to talk about it to sound smart. others, i'm sure, know what they're talking about. but for the most part the conversations always end up in a heated debate and i just don't care to concern myself w/ something that i know isn't going to end amicably. i'd rather pop in my headphones, chill out and let it be. if things get bad enough where i feel like living conditions have become unbearable i'll deal w/ the situation as needed. i just don't like to listen to mindless speculation. everyone seems to have an opinion and plenty of what seems to be valid support for it. so i'd rather just let things unfold as they will.
Cadavuh
Bounce The ....
- Joined
- May 29, 2008
- Messages
- 1,521
- Reaction score
- 388
E Lucevan Le Stelle
in love with Judas
Hm, that's about the worst example you can possibly think of at the moment... just because James G. Watt said something along those lines back in 1983 doesn't give it any more credibility.
You don't even seem to know what the word "socialism" means.
(hint: just paying people welfare payments and benefits has nothing to do with it)
The state of the Indian reservations is a result of social and cultural problems, lack of education, endemic corruption, and nobody having any fucking desire to change anything. They're ghettos in the worst possible sense, and just because the people are paid enough to eat doesn't mean that there are many real opportunities available or that enough is being done to provide those, or improve matters.
Just chucking a bunch of money in their vague direction as a sop to certain people's consciences isn't anything to do with socialism, and it isn't doing any good either - but "let 'em starve" isn't the right thing to do either, by a long fucking way.
I might be coming across a bit pissed off, but the state of the Indian reservations is plain shameful and isn't something to be chucked about to make a political point without real thought.
Actually the Indian reservations are not far off from the general state of the whole country if you think about it. The country just happens to have a lot of well off people and decently well off people that more than make up for how awful the bottom segment lives. If you've ever been to the poorer areas in the US you'd know what I'm talking about. I know people who fly to islands in the caribbean for a weekend trip and others who live off donations from their friends, it's ridiculous.
Anyway I am not really a libertarian but if I had my way our government would be like an anorexic instead of 1000 pounds like it is now lol.
Anyway I am not really a libertarian but if I had my way our government would be like an anorexic instead of 1000 pounds like it is now lol.
^Interesting comparison, Jeff.
I think saying it's bloated and needs to slim down is not clear enough to most people^Interesting comparison, Jeff.
That comparison is way over the top but the point still stands. I understood it, just thought it was pretty funny.
And yes, I agree with you.
And yes, I agree with you.
Koshchei
Banned
SS.org Socialists Unite?
Here's the schtik: I am a Libertarian to the extent that I don't believe in political parties. I think that geographical regions should be represented by an educated and unbiased member of their community, rather than a party member who puts his political affiliation before the needs of his constituents. This is the same issue I have with way that corporations are structured - the share-holder reaps the rewards while the stake-holder gets screwed.
I am a libertarian to the extent that I recognize that self-determination is possible only under certain circumstances and in very limited ways, and that under all others, the responsibilities associated with being a member of a society, such as paying taxes to keep the sewage out of the drinking water or ensuring that the elderly aren't out dying on the streets, supersede individual wants.
My libertarianism ends when I start hearing about the total abolition of the state. I do not agree with the argument that the individual is the natural ontological primary of human civilization. I do not agree with the argument that deregulation and unchecked ambition masquerading as "maximizing potential for self-ownership" with blatant disregard for the well-being of your fellow man are the way to foster healthy civilizations. Humans are pack animals and we function communally - we both own and are owned by our societies. We evolved this way, and are at our strongest this way.
Pure libertarianism strips the human experience of its context. It's like building a model of the human psyche on an individual-by-individual basis, without ever once looking at the interaction between individuals and how it shapes them. My argument is that this interaction gives both meaning and a strategy for survival to a weak and hairless ape-descendant who would otherwise be easy prey for a more aggressive species, either like wolves, who have figured out the devastating effectiveness of working communally (and that some wolves have to suck it up and do the unpleasant work to bring down the prey or nobody eats), or like tigers, who don't need to.
As to the whole "government is bloated" spiel, there's nothing particularly libertarian about wanting your tax dollars to be spent transparently and effectively. I'd say that everybody wants that.
Carrion
Et tu, Brute?
"I do not agree with the argument that the individual is the natural ontological primary of human civilization."
Anarchism simply seeks to apply the axiom of non-aggression to the government.
I don't know where you are getting the idea that without government, there can't be society. If society = government, then your statement 'We evolved this way, and are at our strongest this way" is certainly false.
"My argument is that this interaction gives both meaning and a strategy for survival to a weak and hairless ape-descendant who would otherwise be easy prey for a more aggressive species, either like wolves, who have figured out the devastating effectiveness of working communally (and that some wolves have to suck it up and do the unpleasant work to bring down the prey or nobody eats), or like tigers, who don't need to."
Ok, but this doesn't mean we need a government.
Anarchism simply seeks to apply the axiom of non-aggression to the government.
I don't know where you are getting the idea that without government, there can't be society. If society = government, then your statement 'We evolved this way, and are at our strongest this way" is certainly false.
"My argument is that this interaction gives both meaning and a strategy for survival to a weak and hairless ape-descendant who would otherwise be easy prey for a more aggressive species, either like wolves, who have figured out the devastating effectiveness of working communally (and that some wolves have to suck it up and do the unpleasant work to bring down the prey or nobody eats), or like tigers, who don't need to."
Ok, but this doesn't mean we need a government.
1 part libertarian, 3 parts anarcho-capitalist, 6 parts violently apathetic - on ice, with a dash of bitters.
Jeff
Jeff
Koshchei
Banned
The "axiom of non-aggression" is a guiding principle for idiots who, in a very human way, ignore human nature:
- It is illogical to oppose action that would result in a better outcome than if no action had been taken.
- Responsibility for initiating "aggression". Who started it? Where did it begin? At what point do we accept the world's political boundaries as pristine and "unstolen"?
And yes, it does mean that we need government. You see, societies have legislative bodies that allocate resources towards preventing actual aggression (different from "aggression") against citizens, overseeing projects outside the scope of the individual (such as highways), as well as making sure that when you flush the toilet, the poo goes down and the drinking water doesn't turn brown. We call these things governments, whether they're big or small, municipal or national, responsible for collecting money from residents to pay private armies in lieu of taxes (the irony of this always gets me), or ensuring that the educational curriculum includes things like math and evolution so that the children don't end up as stupid as their parents who are ok with being serfs under the military rule of the people they think they're paying to protect them.
Way to actually explain its deficiencies instead of just calling it a 'guiding principle for idiots' and throwing out red herrings. When you're done babbling about 'better outcome' while failing to provide any decent metric for how good an outcome is, assuming that anarchism is all that concerned with political boundaries (how did you *not* see the contradiction there?), and that government is the only body capable of public services (and not just one that was founded on a monopoly on warfare and taxation, only recently having such things tacked on as an afterthought), let me know.
Jeff
Jeff
Arminius
Well-Known Member
