Page 11 of 14 [ 217 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14  Next

0bey1sh1n0b1
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 8 Jul 2013
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 138
Location: DMV Area

05 Jun 2014, 9:23 am

This is directed to the OP since I am a little late in this thread.

Libertarian is a philosophy that government should not get involved with social aspects and that the only job government should have is to keep order and protect individual liberties. For example if I do something to someone else and it prevents them from having their rights then government comes in to correct that action. Same goes for business practices and so on. However we as free people should ideally by our own accord assist those who need help. This is more of a moral principal than anything. Something that most Americans lack these days. However lack thereof it should never be the government?s responsibility to enforce social standards. Those issues should be handled independently at state level only through a democratic process. This view should not make Libertarians seem self-indulged. Libertarians can have a selfless cause and in my opinion have more of a selfless cause than our Republican and Democrat counterparts. You make all Libertarians out to be evil. While there are some selfish Libertarians it is also safe to say that there are selfish Republicans and Democrats. So it is unfair to take the characteristics of a few Libertarians and generalize all Libertarians to be as such. It almost makes you sound like you have your own political agenda and are imposing your own bias views.

Where do you see self this and self that in a Libertarian philosophy?



Smythley
Emu Egg
Emu Egg

User avatar

Joined: 9 Jul 2014
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 7

11 Jul 2014, 5:15 am

Alvin31 wrote:
Ever noticed how libertarians tend to be intellectually rather like latter-day scholastic philosophers, intensely, logic-choppingly, and doctrinairely rationalizing their politico-economic articles of faith the way medieval thinkers used to take their theological rationalizations to the extreme of deductively proving how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? And have you ever noticed how downright obsessive libertarians can be about the concepts of their creed, and about defending their intellectual validity? A penchant to be tenaciously logical and intellectually obsessive, doesn't this sound at least a tad Asperger's-like?!


There a big difference between being asocial and anti-social. The modern libertarianism (or Neo-liberalism), as you pointed out propagates a very anti-social doctrine such as privitisation of the commons and the spreading of misinformation that is designed to pit people against each other. This Neo-liberalism
that you mention is far from rational due to it's constant faith in market monopoly disguised as "free-marketism for all, therefore individual freedom for all". What they fail to mention is, though individual freedom is to a certain extent permitted in the form of civiliberties, economic freedoms are limited only to companies that are counted as individuals by the corporate persons act; an act that has existed for hundred or so years.

But I digress. It is very dangerous to link Aspergers with a socio-political/economic ideology. Aspergers is not a characteristic or a custom made ideology, it is part of our neurology. So, back to the difference between asocial and anti-social, I would largely argue that majority of people with Aspergers are asocial. The definition of asocial is someone who avoids social contacts with others because they cannot and do not feel comfortable around the universal social standards others impose upon one another. The meaning of anti-social is someone or something that actively seeks out to harm others.

Therefore, it is entirely different from the anti-social approach of Free-market libertarianism because it employs powerful divisive instruments that cause harm to a large majority of people. The small plutocratic group that oversees this calls it rational because it is only rational for a company or "global market place" to be in a constant state of growth in profit regardless of the blatantly irrational socio-economic harms this does to the public. All in all, the new libertarianism is focused around privatising the benefits while socialising the costs which are incidentally shared among the public



Awiddershinlife
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jul 2009
Gender: Female
Posts: 403
Location: On the Continental Divide in the Gila Wilderness

16 Jul 2014, 9:58 pm

I am ideally a libertarian. It is logical and everyone gets what they put in, but it cannot control for those who would take advantage of such a political system. Many people would find a way to put their finger on the scale to tip the balance unfairly. It wouldn't work IRL.

The lliberpergerarianism suggestion is falsely based on the belief that autistics don't have empathy. I suppose some don't, but others have too much empathy. I have met autistics who were hard-hearted, but many more who were not. I am the latter, but who has learned that I am not safe with others. I think lliberpergerarianism might apply to a subset of autistics like the ones the OP described.


_________________
~
We sour green apples live our own inscrutable, carefree lives... (Max Frei)
~


Hi_Im_B0B
Pileated woodpecker
Pileated woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2014
Age: 70
Gender: Male
Posts: 193

15 Aug 2014, 2:58 pm

ok, i've not read through this whole thread, so i'm not responding to anyone in particular, just throwing in my 2 cents about the subject.

i always thought that libertarians had some good ideas, but just some. i used to love to watch lyndon larouche's campaign videos - he'd make perfect sense for almost 20 min, then segue into the truly bonkers. i don't think any political philosophy is THE way to go, ideally there should be a synthesis of the best from all.



HDLMatchette
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 15 Dec 2012
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 338
Location: Fuquay-Varina, North Carolina

21 Aug 2015, 1:30 am

i know a libertarian presidential candidate named Cecil Ince who has an autistic son.



AgusCahyo
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

Joined: 1 Jul 2015
Posts: 139

21 Aug 2015, 3:47 am

I like libertarianism and I think I understand why aspies like libertarianism.

Free market is excuse free

That is. If you buy or sell stocks. It doesn't matter if you deliberately win or lose. What matter is whether you win or lose.

If you go to a store, for example. It doesn't matter that the store cannot provide better product at cheaper cost to you or that it can but simply wants higher profit.

So what does that have anything to do with aspies?

Neurotypical are master of making excuses.

What often happen is people do not do their best to do what's productive. Often they have conflict of interests. Often they simply do not intent to run issues.

Recently an indonesian parlement want to buy UPS (uninterruptible power source) at $300k a piece. They claimed they did their best. They claimed it's what's necessary for schools. Obviously they didn't care about kids' well being at all and just want to have kick backs from UPS sellers.

Then we got excuses after excuses. We got stories about how parliament members do not know what UPS is, of how all these are not deliberate, or whatever.

Freemarket doesn't allow such excuses. Any private school frivolously spending $300k for useless doodads will have parents sending their child somewhere else.

An Aspie will tend to like this excuse free system. That's because you can make judgement without having to guess others' intent are.



HDLMatchette
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 15 Dec 2012
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 338
Location: Fuquay-Varina, North Carolina

21 Aug 2015, 2:51 pm

we don't believe in corporate safety nets.



glebel
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jul 2015
Age: 61
Posts: 1,665
Location: Mountains of Southern California

21 Aug 2015, 2:58 pm

Hi_Im_B0B wrote:
ok, i've not read through this whole thread, so i'm not responding to anyone in particular, just throwing in my 2 cents about the subject.

i always thought that libertarians had some good ideas, but just some. i used to love to watch lyndon larouche's campaign videos - he'd make perfect sense for almost 20 min, then segue into the truly bonkers. i don't think any political philosophy is THE way to go, ideally there should be a synthesis of the best from all.

I have had the same impression of the Libertarians over the years. I think the best role they can serve in the political arena is to force the other parties to back off their subtle, and not so subtle, assaults on freedom. But seriously, their overall plank is so ludicrous that it frequently falls into the category of 'laughable'.


_________________
When everyone is losing their heads except you, maybe you don't understand the situation.


HDLMatchette
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 15 Dec 2012
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 338
Location: Fuquay-Varina, North Carolina

21 Aug 2015, 5:18 pm

how do libertarians want to assault freedom?



eleventhirtytwo
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 23 Nov 2011
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 228
Location: Northern Ireland

22 Aug 2015, 11:13 am

I considered myself left-libertarian for a while, which far from out of being self-centred was because I'm not fond of authority figures/don't tend to recognise authority as legitimate. Think I've matured into being a social liberal though, realising just how bad an effect individualism has been having on western culture, and libertarianism's role in that. It's got good points but goes too far.

I should note that being European, my definition of these terms might differ from some of yours though. From a European perspective, everyone in America is right wing.


_________________
22, entrepreneurial and diagnosed with High Functioning Autism, ADHD, OCD and Tourettes. Also have problems with Anxiety, and more recently depression, although I seem to returning to my optimistic self =)


Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,440
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

22 Aug 2015, 11:54 am

I think personal freedom is very important and don't agree with the government telling you how to live(within reason, basically everyone should live how they want so long as it does not impede on anyone elses freedom or harm others so yeah obviously things like rape, murder, assault, mental abuse should be illegal). I also think they have a duty to serve the people, all of the people not specifically the wealthy elite. Also it makes sense for there to be regulations on buisiness in order to prevent them impeding on the over-all well-being of the population, I mean for instance laws against dumping toxic waste into rivers..since that can hurt the water supply people drink and damage the environment/ecosystems people and animals depend on.

Anyways I am not a libertarian that is for sure...I don't care much for pure capitalism and every man for himself greed mentality. I also think this greed mentality is a good argument for the existence of taxes to fund public services...that said I think the government needs to do a better job of spending tax money and ensuring taxes are not so high as to noticeably burden the middle class or below. But if you're going to have government and a society/community I don't see a real way around having some form of tax to fund public services if you want to keep an infrastructure intact.

For practical definition purposes I am probably more of a socialist.


_________________
We won't go back.


Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,440
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

22 Aug 2015, 12:19 pm

0bey1sh1n0b1 wrote:
This is directed to the OP since I am a little late in this thread.

Libertarian is a philosophy that government should not get involved with social aspects and that the only job government should have is to keep order and protect individual liberties. For example if I do something to someone else and it prevents them from having their rights then government comes in to correct that action. Same goes for business practices and so on. However we as free people should ideally by our own accord assist those who need help. This is more of a moral principal than anything. Something that most Americans lack these days. However lack thereof it should never be the government?s responsibility to enforce social standards. Those issues should be handled independently at state level only through a democratic process. This view should not make Libertarians seem self-indulged. Libertarians can have a selfless cause and in my opinion have more of a selfless cause than our Republican and Democrat counterparts. You make all Libertarians out to be evil. While there are some selfish Libertarians it is also safe to say that there are selfish Republicans and Democrats. So it is unfair to take the characteristics of a few Libertarians and generalize all Libertarians to be as such. It almost makes you sound like you have your own political agenda and are imposing your own bias views.

Where do you see self this and self that in a Libertarian philosophy?


Well see you seem fairly reasonable....a lot of self identified Libertarians don't, then again like with any political leaning I imagine there is variation and different sub-groups within it as well. However I will ask you this in the event that helping those who need help of our own accord, basically chairity I would imagine...fails to actually address poverty then what happens? Would it still be morally wrong for the government to do something to help these people especially say the disabled poor?...more morally wrong than just saying 'oh you're on your own, too bad if you die of starvation'?. I mean I feel in theory ideally enough people would give to charity out of the goodness of their hearts to minimize homelessness, malnutrition, lack of access to any healthcare and such...but if that doesn't happen wouldn't it be more logical than not to have some kind of back up plan to adress the potential issue of lack of adequate charity?

Also though what of the other public services/resources like schools, roads, ambulance, firefighters ect?....can't fund these things with charity. So is the consensus that taxes are fine if they go to anything that's NOT welfare/helping the poor and/or disadvantaged? or am I still getting it wrong?


_________________
We won't go back.


Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,440
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

22 Aug 2015, 12:27 pm

VIDEODROME wrote:
Hmm... I lean toward Libertarianism in regards to the role of the Federal government and related politics on the national level. I share the Libertarian distrust of big government central planning out of Washington D.C..

I think the control of social programs and safety nets technically belongs to the jurisdiction of the States. If the Federal government plays any role in safety nets it should only be a subservient one to the States in regards to supplemental funding. (I do recognize a potential paperwork issue under this thinking when a person moves to another state but I think that can be addressed as easily as State Unemployment Insurance).


Giving control of social programs to the states is something I can agree with...for one less things for the central government to 'control', yet at the same time would still allow for adequate social programs and safety nets. In fact that may even allow for more effective social programs/safety nets than we currently have because each state could use its own revenue to fund a approach more fitting for that particular state....then maybe there could be some kind of federal back up fund for if a state is in dire need of federal assistance...it would be better than the federal bureaucracy being in charge over the states.


_________________
We won't go back.


HDLMatchette
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 15 Dec 2012
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 338
Location: Fuquay-Varina, North Carolina

22 Aug 2015, 12:33 pm

but businesses should be allowed to have unrestricted free competition. i agree the poor need to be helped, but not by the government. the people need to do that on their own.



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,440
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

22 Aug 2015, 12:50 pm

Alvin31 wrote:
Above is not my argument.but in my opinion Socialist countries are not for Aspies because in these countries e.g China,India. individualism behavior is not acceptable, and the society there are very hate toward individualism and other kind of loner behaviors.there can be no freedom for being alone, socially withdrawal from the other peoples or society are disregard and accursed :)

Capitalism is the symbol of greedy and selfishness, it's make a large gap between the rich and the poor especially in some Socialist countries.In socialist and third world country especially in their metropolitan big city you can see there a dystopic condition where the rich collecting their money and staying in their comfortable elegant mansion being a social hermit with their semi Autistic nature. while the poor living in the ghetto where the neighbor infested by Socialist proletars who are very hate Libertarians and have a low toleration toward social eccentricity.Much of them are factory industrial workers, construction workers, thugs, street mechanics, beggars, and other low class jobs who love socializing and blaming individualist peoples like you.

What happen if a Asperger live in there ?
Peoples with Asperger are Libertarians.if you are loner and tend to do anything by yourself (self this, self that, formyself) you must change your bad selfish behavior immediately and follow the right social norm.because if you live there with Asperger syndome your neighborhood will accurse and extrude you together in the name of socialism.you will ended up being a underground outsider hiding from place to place try to survive, if you are jobless you'll be live in the ghetto ...but if you rich, perhaps you can try to live in the mansion or luxury penthouse.

Socialism peoples are very conservative and they are not accept or tolerate anykind of eccentricity.some of them are spiritualist, some other are irreligious


What you are referring to is authoritarian systems where obedience is very important that have socialist style economic system. This is not the only face of 'socialism', I more or less identify as socialist yet I sure as hell don't support authoritarianism. It is very possible to have a combined system of socialism and heavy emphasis in protecting individual rights/freedoms....as opposed to a system of combined socialism and authoritarianism.

Also a lot of these 'socialist' 3rd world countries fail at being socialist...the masses of poor whilst you have a few wealthy individuals in charge who champion 'socialism' as their platform is clear evidence of this since the idea is resources/goods are distributed in such away everyone has access to them and should minimize the vast chasm between the poorest and wealthiest citizens.

Also I have aspergers and am not a libertarian, so obviously not everyone with aspergers is a libertarian. Not to mention doesn't even seem you have a very good understanding of what socialism means jobless, ghetto? Socialism has safety nets so you don't have jobless people in the ghetto, in fact there shouldn't even be a ghetto because the taxes should be going into the infrastructure to prevent these kinds of things...but its ok most people have no idea what socialism is.

And in what ways would an aspergers person fare better in a libertarian/capitalistic society...every man for himself society? I mean just take a look at difficulties we have in our already rather capitalistic society there are lots of social norms and norms of behavior that are expected if you want friends, any social life or even to make something of yourself since you need social connectections or at least to present yourself in a normal(not autistic) charismatic way to find any job and continue this to keep it. People seen as outside the norm are often ostracized and cast out...many of the homeless have neurological/mental conditions. Also given that many of us do have some rather disabling symptoms as well as many of us having multiple co-morbid conditions...not sure how a every man for himself mentality would work in our favor. I mean how is that going to help say a low functioning autistic individual with epilepsy for instance if the basic mentality is be self sufficient or Natural Selection!

Disabled people wanting a system in which if they where in trouble due to their disability they could very easily be left to die if no one decides to help out of the kindness of their heart and the government is barred from mandating any kind of program to help or use any tax money on such a venture...I certainly don't understand it, is it some kind of self loathing thing that goes on like thinking you're unworthy of life so therefore supporting a system that would agree?


_________________
We won't go back.


Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,440
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

22 Aug 2015, 12:57 pm

HDLMatchette wrote:
but businesses should be allowed to have unrestricted free competition. i agree the poor need to be helped, but not by the government. the people need to do that on their own.


Well I disagree, unrestriced free competition....means un-restricted which would mean there can be now laws/policies to prevent them harming the community. So I say free competition so long as its not hurting the community.

Also its a nice ideal that people would come together and provide adequate help to the poor and thus there wouldn't even be need for the government to have any involvement. But back down in reality the masses aren't so kind hearted, so what would you propose when this Charity only system fails?

Do you think the government(who I believe should serve the citizens) would be justified in standing by and doing nothing if we had american citizens essentially dying in the streets because there's not enough charity help? Or do you think it makes more sense to at least have a potentially government backed back up plan to address poverty in this event?


_________________
We won't go back.