What Makes People Become Libertarians?
Oodain
Veteran
Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,
AldousH wrote:
Stupidity.
Leaning to the left means that part of the brain is missing.
Leaning to the left means that part of the brain is missing.
holy crap
that is one of the most misinformed posts i have seen.
you actually assume you know eveything about the subject, to be able to make such a comment.
_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//
the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.
ruveyn wrote:
AldousH wrote:
Stupidity.
Leaning to the left means that part of the brain is missing.
Leaning to the left means that part of the brain is missing.
Libertarian thought is not particularly left wing. It is a distrust of government authority and a loathing of government tyranny.
ruveyn
Libertarian thought in the U.S. is typified by the wearing of tin foil hats, a paranoid fear of black helicopters, a tendency to believe all anti-government conspiracy theories, the worship of the U.S. Constitution, and the butt-kissing of the "Founding Fathers".
ruveyn wrote:
Libertarian thought is not particularly left wing. It is a distrust of government authority and a loathing of government tyranny.
ruveyn
ruveyn
Well, really the basic root is a desire for individual liberty. Just a lot of libertarians see government as the threat to individual liberty. The idea of merging right-libertarianism and the traditional left-wing isn't an impossible idea, or one not thought of, but rather for a period of time "liberaltarianism" was a topic among a few right-wing libertarian thinkers.
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Well, really the basic root is a desire for individual liberty. Just a lot of libertarians see government as the threat to individual liberty. The idea of merging right-libertarianism and the traditional left-wing isn't an impossible idea, or one not thought of, but rather for a period of time "liberaltarianism" was a topic among a few right-wing libertarian thinkers.
Right wingers are generally very pro-state. Libertarians have been anti-statist in their sentiments. They see government, not as a good thing, but at best a necessary evil required to keep a modicum of peace and order in the society.
ruveyn
ruveyn wrote:
Right wingers are generally very pro-state. Libertarians have been anti-statist in their sentiments. They see government, not as a good thing, but at best a necessary evil required to keep a modicum of peace and order in the society.
ruveyn
ruveyn
Your statements on the right are contestible.
Libertarians generally agree with you, but that's not the root of their ideology. The liberaltarian synthesis idea in many ways kind of opposes what you suggest libertarianism is.
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Libertarians generally agree with you, but that's not the root of their ideology. The liberaltarian synthesis idea in many ways kind of opposes what you suggest libertarianism is.
What do you say the root is?
I have been hanging around libertarians since the 1970's (40 years) so I think I know what I am talking about.
ruveyn
ruveyn wrote:
What do you say the root is?
I have been hanging around libertarians since the 1970's (40 years) so I think I know what I am talking about.
ruveyn
I have been hanging around libertarians since the 1970's (40 years) so I think I know what I am talking about.
ruveyn
Well.... ok, you are probably right on populist libertarianism, but the issue is that I am thinking more about the ideology, and as I stated, the real ideological line is individual rights.
I mean, one can reject populist opposition to the government and still be a libertarian. It is difficult to see a person really being very libertarian if they don't have some notion of rights.
That being said, my background is mostly reading up on the ideology and different perspectives about that. This is why I brought up the modern liberaltarians.
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
What do you say the root is?
I have been hanging around libertarians since the 1970's (40 years) so I think I know what I am talking about.
ruveyn
I have been hanging around libertarians since the 1970's (40 years) so I think I know what I am talking about.
ruveyn
Well.... ok, you are probably right on populist libertarianism, but the issue is that I am thinking more about the ideology, and as I stated, the real ideological line is individual rights.
I mean, one can reject populist opposition to the government and still be a libertarian. It is difficult to see a person really being very libertarian if they don't have some notion of rights.
That being said, my background is mostly reading up on the ideology and different perspectives about that. This is why I brought up the modern liberaltarians.
The main enemy of human rights is government. Governments no matter how well they start out always evolve into tyranny.
ruveyn
The interesting thing about the social-psychological research on libertarianism is that it validates some of the criticisms of libertarianism as well. When a left-winger slurs libertarians as "emotionally stunted," they're referring to the decidedly libertarian preference for systemizing over empathizing, for reason/logic over emotion.
NeantHumain wrote:
The interesting thing about the social-psychological research on libertarianism is that it validates some of the criticisms of libertarianism as well. When a left-winger slurs libertarians as "emotionally stunted," they're referring to the decidedly libertarian preference for systemizing over empathizing, for reason/logic over emotion.
Two cheers for being emotionally stunted.
ruveyn
ruveyn wrote:
The main enemy of human rights is government. Governments no matter how well they start out always evolve into tyranny.
ruveyn
ruveyn
Even if this is true, it is not true that government is the only possible enemy. Private discrimination also can reduce an individual's effective freedom to act, and this is a problem compatible with the market, even if undermined by the market in the long-run.
NeantHumain wrote:
The interesting thing about the social-psychological research on libertarianism is that it validates some of the criticisms of libertarianism as well. When a left-winger slurs libertarians as "emotionally stunted," they're referring to the decidedly libertarian preference for systemizing over empathizing, for reason/logic over emotion.
it is funny because a real Asperger MUST prefer systemizing over empathizing and reason/logic over emotion
my opinion,give or take, most left-wing asperger are FAKE ASPERGER(Neurotypical who use AS to justify real life fails) or are left-wing in order to collect welfare checks
LibertarianAS wrote:
NeantHumain wrote:
The interesting thing about the social-psychological research on libertarianism is that it validates some of the criticisms of libertarianism as well. When a left-winger slurs libertarians as "emotionally stunted," they're referring to the decidedly libertarian preference for systemizing over empathizing, for reason/logic over emotion.
it is funny because a real Asperger MUST prefer systemizing over empathizing and reason/logic over emotion
my opinion,give or take, most left-wing asperger are FAKE ASPERGER(Neurotypical who use AS to justify real life fails) or are left-wing in order to collect welfare checks
You are a wilful idiot. And, no, a "real Aspie" doesn't have to prefer systemizing over empathizing, they only have to be better at systemizing. And, the whole "low on empathy" facet of Asperger's may be misleading, as studies that differentiate between "cognitive empathy" and "affective empathy" demostrate no difference in levels of affective empathy between aspies and non-aspies.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16906462
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Even if this is true, it is not true that government is the only possible enemy. Private discrimination also can reduce an individual's effective freedom to act, and this is a problem compatible with the market, even if undermined by the market in the long-run.
If there is any such thing as a basic human right, it is the right to associate or not associate with other folks according to one's choice. THEREFORE discrimination, in the sense of refusal to associate with others for any reason whatsoever is an exercise of a basic human right. In short, "discrimination" in the sense of not associating is not only permissible, it ought to be legal. If I own a business I have a right to hire or not hire on any basis whatsoever. I have a right to sell or not sell to a potential customer on any basis whatsoever. Who I associate with or not associate with is my choice or ought to be.
Having said that, personally I think discrimination based on superficial characteristics such as skin color, hair color shape of nose or other superficial physical characteristic is silly and stupid. That is my opinion on the matter. However I do not have the right to impose my standards of association on others nor do they have the right to impose their standards of association on me.
Racial discrimination should not be prohibited by law when practiced by individuals, but should be prohibited when practiced by governments which are supported by tax loot stolen from everyone.
ruveyn
Similar Topics | |
---|---|
Trying Harder Makes it Worse |
14 May 2024, 6:55 am |
Neurological Condition That Makes Other Faces Appear Demonic |
09 Apr 2024, 7:24 pm |
My partner ogles other women & it makes me feel unattractive |
19 May 2024, 11:56 am |
When people say ‘here if you need to talk about it’ |
05 May 2024, 12:10 pm |