Asperger syndrome and Libertarianism idea

Post Reply New Topic

@MP. You need to re-read my first post in this thread on the nature of government. You're building up your entire argument on an anti-social (as opposed to non-social), far-right, anti-moral, and essentially survivalist/bunker mentality-type deck of cards.

This is a tragic world view that is basically the opposite of what democracy and the Enlightenment itself is all about. I reject it. Moreover, the people when offered the opportunity for something better also reject it. It is a base and corrupt impulse that has nothing to do with the ideas of people like Jefferson--the actually autistic revolutionary and thinker who very unambiguously and idealistically laid out his ideas on these things.

Again, on a very basic level--the entire point of democracy itself is this: "The Government" *IS* "The People". Libertarianism is *BASED* on the denial of this fundamental premise.

When this premise does not hold true, it does not mean, "Democracy didn't work, need to reject it and move on to feudalism", ha! It means rather that there is A PROBLEM that is preventing democracy from functioning. That problem would be corruption of that system: Oligarchy, kleptocracy, etc. Something is subverting the expression of the people, and preventing them from the freedom to direct establish their own priorities and establish their own policy. This is exactly why egalitarianism is essential for a functional democracy. Libertarianism despises the idea of egalitarianism--more to the point, the wildest expressions stratification are just fine and dandy as far as libertarianism is concerned. This is such obvious nonsense. How is this not a joke? How is it not obvious that libertarianism/fascism is not compatible with democracy? Of course, it is, in fact, obvious. The idea that someone is on a forum about Aspergers trying to sell far-right neo-feudal politics is absurd on its face. How is it not insulting to people who in many cases actually DEPEND ON GOOD PUBLIC SERVICES, to say that they should instead just be content with a big, fat "screw you" from their society which they contribute to and are a part of? It's insanity. And it's really sad for you that you would be willing to accept this kind of petty and backward worldview and allow it to shape your humanity.

Every system of morality, from Jesus, to Advaita Vedanta, to Democracy and the Enlightenment, suggests that, indeed "We ARE our brother's keeper". Every from of greed, criminal enterprise, tribalism and backwardness maintains the opposite worldview "It's us vs them".

"Us vs them" is an untenable and abusive proposition that is petty, backward and ultimately non-functional. It is not worthy of a great mind, or a great society. It is an idea of the dark ages and petty, squalid, warlike people. I urge you to get rid of it. Live life as the actual free person you seem to so yearn to be by rejecting this kind of mind-controlling nonsense.

Yeah, this is what I meant.

The reason I bring up Barney Frank is that he was the person that came up with revisions to the "Community Reinvestment Act" during the Clinton years which paved the way for forcing banks to loan to people who had no ability to pay. Then, to fix that, Glass Steagal was repealed in 1999 which led to runaway real estate speculation. This then culminated in the collapse of the bubble in 2007-08. Did bush have anything to do with it? Of course he did! He needed to use the "wealth effect" to fool people into believing they had more money when real net income had been on the decline since the death of the gold standard under Nixon.

One of our other issues is that our politicians are laboring under the delusion that they are following the economic ideas of John Maynard Keynes. Sadly, they do follow half of his theory but never quite get around to following the other. He's the originator of the "stimulus spending" idea. In his theory, governments should spend more than they take in during economic downturns while taking in a surplus during the good times in order to pay off the debt and keep the economic sine wave at a net of zero debt. Of course, no politician ever wants to run a surplus and so we have an uncontrollable debt spiral that will soon finish the job of taking down the world's economy.

Tally-ho. I suppose as I am a Libertarian and a person with Aspergers, you can probably wave your hand and claim that I'm merely suffering the delusions that you pointed out in the OP, Alvin. But I do very much and voraciously contend with what you stated in the Original Post. I do not believe that my political beliefs exist because I'm fundamentally self-centred or I have sociopathic qualities -- that insinuation is patently untrue and offensive, I feel. Although that perhaps there may be a correlation between the individualistic attitudes of persons on the spectrum and beliefs that espouse individualism, I do feel you may have tarred all with the same proverbial blush or carried your beliefs to an insanely far-off conclusion that seems more designed to disparage Libertarians than anything.

This may have ground, and I was fine with this concept. Some people with Aspergers do tend to analyse situations on an individual level, and tend to be obsessed with the micro rather than the macro. That individualism may translate to that which is linked to libertarianism.



This is where I find the argument becomes more of an attack against libertarianism. Self-ownership means that every man owns himself; that's hardly revolutionary, I'd say that's more of an axiom that almost everyone holds true. The idea of one owning themselves and the consequent fruits of their labour isn't something that I find those on the spectrum being more or less drawn to.



Now this is downright libel, I feel. Libertarianism doesn't in of itself glorify the free market. You're confusing libertarian ideas with philosophies such as that of Ayn Rand (now there is something I'll happily say snares those on the spectrum very easily). There is a great deal of ideological variation in libertarianism; the idea of the free market being omnipotent and omnibenevolent isn't universally embraced by all those who call themselves libertarian. It is true that libertarians, by definition, strive for a free market; but this is not for necessarily Darwinian reasons. This may be to protect from what they perceive as a large and intrusive state, to ensure that people can do whatever they wish without interference, or because they feel that everyone may collectively benefit from what they believe are the long-term positives of a free market. Insinuating the free market inherently means that it is "every man for himself" is not correct. And as I said, the principle and glorification of self-interest is not something that is inherent in libertarianism; that's the sort of stuff Objectivism and the like holds.

Libertarianism isn't a single ideology; like how we know Anarchism or Socialism isn't. People have different motivations regarding their libertarian ideas, and they differ on how many ideas should be applied, and they also may have completely different ideas for a libertarian society. Libertarianism can be applied to any set of ideas that hold that the state should be smaller and the market should be more open.



That's because a lot of libertarianism inherently concerns the divide and relationship between man, the state, and society. Just because people in the libertarian camp advocate the gold standard doesn't mean they have a gold fetish. And going back to ideological diversity, not all libertarians hold the self-interest idea to be absolute, those are ideologies like Objectivism and such that glorify that, not libertarianism. You don't even have empirical evidence to back up the idea that libertarians use the word "self" more in discourse, which of my anecdotal evidence is not true.



I'll accept your proposition that libertarians use the word "self" more for the sake of argument. And what does that mean? How does using the word "self" (in a political idea that deals with man, society, and state) mean that a person only thinks about themselves as being alone? I don't see how using more of the word self means that a person is more likely to be selfish.



It is.



I can't speak for those individuals (as all individuals are different), but I do not believe libertarianism inherently rationalises or validates such ideas. It's an idea regarding the size of the state and how a nation should be ran, and it believes that a smaller state is a better one; that's mainly all there is to it.



This is on the verge of making me angry, actually. I do not yearn to make everyone into an antisocial drone who simply lives to produce and compete. Regarding what you stated about libertarianism in there, I've already went over it in above responses. There's little else I can do, other than say you're just jumping to unfair conclusions regarding the practices. Libertarians have different motives and reasons behind their beliefs, and that's all there is to say.



Yeah, you're just continuing on your train of thought here. Nothing I can say that I haven't sai-...



This was the point where your agenda began to slip out. You clearly have preconceptions regarding libertarian thought and ideas, you holding them as inhumane and selfish. This disturbs me, as this seems more of a political polemic than a speculation regarding motives now; and a worrying insinuation that autistic people are more likely to be inhumane and selfish.



More clear political bias here, chap.



This argument first claims libertarianism will always cause suffering, and then goes on that despite this knowledge, people on the spectrum won't care or ignore it because they lack empathy. And now everyone who's a libertarian is a cold, uncaring so-and-so. Great job, you called someone who you disagree with politically a bad person! The pinnacle of argument!



Prove it. I certainly think of these things; it's vital to me there's a net benefit to my ideas, and that seems to be the belief that other libertarians both in the past and present have espoused. Libertarian philosophy is a broad field; you've got people from Bastiat to Hayek in this equation, and they all had different ideas. Libertarian philosophy often takes these things into consideration, I find; and I would press you to withdraw something so snide and inaccurate.



I.E., Ayn Rand. That's the only libertarian philosopher I've ever seen who specifically pushes for people to be emotionless automatons. And a lot of her adherents and herself are thought of as nutjobs by the libertarian community (said Randroids typically being 14 year old Chic Hipsters).



This implies that all libertarians hold the same "key" social concepts. Which they don't.



This is only true if your entire train of logic that culminates in "all libertarians are self-centred" is true. Which isn't; there's far more to libertarian ideas than justifying some sort of ultimately selfish traits. Hencefar, you've just done this:

-People with Aspergers tend to lack empathy
-Libertarianism is a political philosophy that doesn't care about people
-As people with Aspergers lack empathy, they don't care about libertarianism harming people
-Hence all libertarian ideas are a way to conceal the fact that libertarians only care about themselves

Anyone who buys this train of logic is either trying to troll or is indulging in a very malevolent delusion. This entire argument revolves around your perception of libertarianism, and doesn't even discuss the ideas your condemn; libertarians being selfish is an axiom to your thinking, it seems.



Oh, that's what libertarianism is about? I've seen the light, hallelujah!! In all seriousness, this just confirms what I said above; this is based upon your own beliefs about what libertarianism is. I've never seen anyone say all the "losers should die" and there is a surplus population that needs to be gotten rid of. As far as I'm aware, that's your own invention.



Condescension. Yey.



I care about others, y'know. Due to my condition, yes, I do lack the capacity to know what they want, what they're thinking, or what they care about. I can't pick these up through means that the overwhelming majority do. But I do want to help people; I want to have friends, to have people to care about and to be cared for, and I do want to make sure that there are others better off while I'm with them. It's painful to me to find myself impaired in interpersonal reactions, and I find it hard to communicate or understand what others are saying; but because I lack that social empathy and I have difficulties with integrating in groups doesn't mean I'm some sort of savage sociopath who merely cares about himself. I think almost everyone can agree that being on the spectrum is not fun and hampers them in their relationships, but just because they lack the capacity to be empathetic doesn't mean they lack the capacity to care. You're confusing two very different things; and it's very upsetting to be told that my very painful impairment means I'm some sort of monster.

Libertarianism is only "politicized Aspergers" in your head, buddy. There's no evidence for your claims, other than insulting and putting down people who believe in it.



You're insinuating all libertarians have the same methodology, and the same belief in the absolute brilliance of logic. That's not true; you're just painting every libertarian with your own preconception, again. I would dare you to find proof of that assertion, rather than continue espousing this playground-like gossip and comparisons.

I've been deeply offended by this. You've stereotyped libertarians and people with aspergers in this post, and you've tried to advance your political beliefs by claiming that libertarianism is inherently bad in this post. You have insulted and demeaned the logic of the ideology, and you have also tried to tar it's proponents. You've done everything opposite of presenting a civilized argument, and insulted me very deeply. I would like you to apologise. This entire post is incorrect and is filled with horrid and snide insinuations regarding both people on the spectrum and libertarians, and all it has for it's basis are a set of unverifiable claims.

This is presumptuous and extremely hurtful. I hope others will come to the same conclusion.

You might be an exception to what is the rule. If the majority of Libertarians aren't Rand worshiping, gold-bar nuzzling, antisocial nuts who's buying all of those copies of Atlas Shrugged?

The intellectually curious? Just because someone reads Rand doesn't mean they agree with her rather extreme philosophy of Objectivism. I would love to read it sometime, but I know from researching the book that there will be points of extreme disagreement between me and her. I am a Christian while she is the most diehard atheist you can imagine. Yet both of us fit under the larger umbrella of Libertarianism.

Is it because I believe the poor should suffer? No. However, I do not see them as the responsibility of the state either. I see them as MY responsibility and the responsibility of all moral and ethical people living within a given society. I just do not wish to force people, by threat of violence against their person, to pay for their care.

Right now the threat of violence is why people pay for these services, not because of their own free will. After all, if you refuse to pay the government the money it wishes to steal from you now, you will find yourself being arrested. Resist, and the government goons will use violence against your person to imprison you for not doing it's bidding. Sorry, but this is not the way a polite society should function. Government does have it's place but it has way overstepped it's bounds and is doing things it has no business doing.

That's the mentality that I dislike about Libertarians. The government "steals" money from you because they expect you to pay taxes. Feel free to stop paying them and stay off of every government built road from now on.

As far as I'm concerned the majority of Libertarians exhibit a sense of entitlement as strong as or even greater than the people they tend to look down upon.

And how exactly would you stop paying taxes? Doing so means the property you rent from the government will be taken from you and you will be left homeless. (Remember kids: If you must pay someone to keep possession of something, you don't own it, you just rent it.) Plus, I did not say that there is no purpose for government. In fact, I said that there are things that governments are needed for, like roads, bridges and defense of national borders. Social services though are not necessary, at least not to the level we have them today.

Now this does not mean I have 100% drunk the Libertarian Kool Aid. There is a place for government to offer assistance to the disabled who would otherwise die because of their inability to care for themselves. This would include people who are autistic and not self-sustaining and it is something the states could provide for their citizens instead of the Federal government. Likewise, any state that wishes to do so would be free to provide whatever services their voters wish to pay for. Thus, if you wanted to live somewhere that provided lots of services then you could pay the corresponding taxes. If you did not, then you could live in a state that values the freedom of the individual over the needs of the collective.

Well said, haidouk.

While I would agree that libertarian is fundamentally anti-democratic, I disagree with your supporting statements.

The basic democratic idea is that the *majority* of the people are the government. The libertarian perspective is about empowerment of the individual, which would be more consistent with the statement that "the people are the government." In a democracy, the majority can (and does) suppress the freedoms of the minority.

The current libertarian political mindset is definitely anti-government, but that's more a cultural condition than a libertarian philosophy. To say that libertarians support oligarchy or kleptocracy is inconsistent with saying that they are anti-government. If the government has little to no substantive economic power, then it can't really be exploited for any significant benefit to a select few.

This is a good summery of how Libertarianism relates to the Democratic and Republican parties.

I hate when people assume Libertarians are just hardcore Republicans. Libertarians hate social conservatives.

The biggest issue I have with the so-called liberals is that the only thing they seem to care about giving you liberty with is your sex life. Everything else they want the government to somehow regulate or force you to live their way. For example, they want very strict emissions, crash worthiness and fuel economy standards on cars that limit what you can drive. I want the liberty to drive whatever I feel like so long as it has the proper lights and working brakes and suspension. I should be able to import new cars for personal use from China, Russia, India or Pakistan if I so choose. To me, the fact that I can't just demonstrates how over-regulated the US is at the hands of both of these political parties. I also think that ordinary people should be permitted to own full machine guns and other automatic weapons if they want them.

I do side with social conservatives on a few things though like eliminating abortion on demand since I see it as per-meditated murder. On other things I may agree with their moral viewpoint but do not think it is something the government needs to get involved in, like gay marriage and marijuana use. I reserve the right to tell someone they are wrong but see no reason why I need to use a government to force others to live as I do.

No one even really needs to attack this statement.

If Libertarians were actually like this I could be ok with them. However, most I've seen are not.

With Ron Paul and the tea party stuff, we've seen a lot of people introduced to libertarian ideas. Probably most of the people you refer to as libertarians are really disgruntled republicans. They conveniently ignore the "liberal" views of libertarianism but they like the "libertarian" title and the focus on freedom. I think you would find most party libertarians are a bit more in line with that chart.

The original Tea Party was fairly libertarian. The people I knew in it supported the things you see in the chart.

Then slowly, the moral conservatives moved in, and tried to co-op the Tea Party Label.

Asking someone who claims to be a libertarian about prostitution is the quickest smell test.

A moral conservative hiding as a libertarian will be opposed.

A true libertarian will say "The government has no right deciding what consenting adults can do with their bodies."