[RiderKnight]

I think I remember hearing that it comes from kids growing up who hate their dads (just like liberals) but who are a little more level-headed and a little less wishy-washy. No, I don't have a citation. It's only a hypothesis.

[Delta]

http://reason.com/archives/2010/11/02/th...ibertarian

tl;dr- While liberals and conservatives are guided by differing types of emotional responses, libertarians are defined by their relative lack of emotional thinking. Basically they (okay full disclosure: we) view moral issues as cold calculations in a way that others don't.

I don't know where you "remember" the thing about hating their dads from, but it sounds like complete BS.

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

[Kurgan]

Where's BrewDog to answer this?

[Leonard D Neubache]

@HCE

[Comte De St. Germain]

Libertarians just want to get high, lay around, and not pay the government shit. They're better than liberals for that alone. Think it's childish nonetheless but they're relatively harmless.


Political explanations aside for why I don't consider myself one/why it's a childish philosophy, I am very interested in the possibility of recreational nukes......just for hunting....and um recreation and um stuff.

[Leonard D Neubache]

There are two types of libertarians.

Libertarians who wish to be free from government in order to follow the traditional cultural norms of their people...

...and libertarians who have no cultural underpinnings, respect no institution greater than themselves and who are perfectly willing to gamble the fate of the world on their untested and frankly insane ideology.

p.s. You might note which category the founding fathers would fit into.

[puckerman]

I value a society based on voluntary relationships and interactions. I value a society in which government exists to retaliate against those who initiate force and to enforce contracts. If you allow government to initiate force against those who have forced nobody, where do you stop? What is your standard for rules then?

The "cultural underpinnings" do not exist in many places around the world. I don't believe that all humans can establish and maintain a free society. A successful free society is one in which all individuals understand that a healthy society is necessary to pursue one's own self-interest. It is one in which individuals look long term as opposed to short term. Only certain types of individuals can keep a free society free.

I don't believe that libertarians can create a free society for all human beings. Above all, a large percentage of humans are simply too slavish and servile to keep a free society free--people who will "just follow orders." A free society requires individuals who think for themselves, and those people are always a minority.

It will likely happen on another planet. I don't see it happening on Earth anytime soon. There are too many corrupt establishments to allow it to happen, and the people are too slavish and servile to rise up against that corruption.

[Leonard D Neubache]

(08-03-2017 11:34 PM)puckerman Wrote:  

...

It will likely happen on another planet. I don't see it happening on Earth anytime soon. There are too many corrupt establishments to allow it to happen, and the people are too slavish and servile to rise up against that corruption.

They voted for Trump.

Dumbed down, hopped up on pharma-shit, burdened with shitty public education and bombarded with propaganda they still voted for Trump.

Not Ron Paul.

Trump.

Fedora libertarians will never build so much as a functional county because of precisely the arrogance which crept into the end of your post, likely without your even having realised it.

"...too slavish and servile to rise up against that corruption."

Fedora libertarians have accomplished nothing, built nothing and sustained nothing, but in their own mind's eye they are the apex of humanity, cruelly held back from their true potential by all the others "too slavish and servile to rise up against that corruption."

Secret kings, all.

[PuppetMaster]

I am personally closer to libertarian than either conservative or liberal. This is due to my belief in limited government. I truly believe a limited government is best and that there are some situations that the government shouldn't involve themselves in because they almost always make it worse. I also believe the private sector/free market is almost always better.

The government is good in research and development but they are poor at actually providing services for the public. In order to do this successfully, one has to take logistics, manufacturing, data collection, and more into the equation. You can't afford too much bureaucracy in the free market and you need good accounting. Failure to do this leads to your business failing and going the way of the dodo. The government spends way too much money and is prone to complacency as well because they are not taking the same risk as someone in the free market. I'm also always weary of the security in the government as well. They can coerce unlike any other.

A lot of libertarians only care about getting high or "doing whatever you want as long as it does not hurt anyone" Some don't even care about rules. This is foolish because all societies need social contracts and laws that are enforced; government or no government. We are all selfish and so mutual self interest and the reinforcing of social contracts is vital to human relationships and civilization. Our ape ancestors understood this thousands of years ago and that is why they were able to leave the nomadic lifestyles behind and build communities. They compromised and worked together, allowed some to specialize, created laws, grew farms, etc. Many libertarians just cant figure out to really go about the law. Some think all drugs should be legal and that ALL regulations should be removed. No....

Another issue is that some libertarians deride companies that use government assistance. Every single major company in United States history relied on some form of government assistance; be it contracts, grants, regulations, technology sharing, etc. Many of the giants during the gilded age did it. Virtually of the companies that pioneered aircraft, electronics, and military weapons did it in the past and does so today as well. All of the software companies today does it as well. The issue is when a company becomes too dependent on the government to make it difficult for competition. (I'm looking at you Comcast.) So what I'm trying to say is, all major companies and even some minor ones have to "play ball" with the government a bit. If you are impacting society then you will need to lobby and do other things for government support.

I believe human society will move toward a more libertarian world in the near future. It will become more decentralized. There are a lot of technologies "(Artificial intelligence, machine learning, cryptocurrencies, 3D printing, internet of things, etc) that will take a lot of power away from the government.

I could say more but I don't want this to be too long.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

Libertarianism is correct only in certain viewpoints.
Libertarianism was very likely created by the globalists as capitalism on steroids. https://realcurrencies.wordpress.com/201...economics/

Most Libertarians are simply not aware of this and only wish a better system than is prevalent now.

The good thing about them is, that at least you can talk with them and they will gladly let science and live-model-testing decide on whether your system or theirs is better. Try debating with Marxists - they just want you to shut and be dead. And their way or death is only acceptable.

[TooFineAPoint]

Leonard hit on an important point.

There is a vastly different viewpoint between refusing to recognize authority ever, vs conditionally respecting authority (based on merit).

I went from fairly apolitical right-wing conservative, to libertarian, to voluntaryist over the course of one year of reading.

Have the closest relationship with my father out of anyone I know, only eat soy inadvertently when some fast food is cooked in its oil, don't do drugs, and am not an atheist.

The voluntaryists / anarcho-capitalists had the best answers. I read all the social contract books in a row, and then read the US constitution. Was very disappointed at how flawed and easily loopholed that document was.

Started to realize that if the govt was incompetent at providing welfare or healthcare, and that democracy was a sham and a contradiction, then why would the state be any better at providing security and law services?

Read Bastiat's "The Law", and then Block's "Defending The Undefendable", and things started to click into place. Also had to do some hiring and firing at the job, and look into doing my own taxes.

When I got to an article by Hasnas called "The Myth Of The Rule Of Law", the transformation was complete.

Also haven't heard a convincing reason to not hold the non-aggression principle as a primary ethic.

BUT... I did have an epiphany a few years ago that, since people fall into different personality types, there are in fact those that crave authority figures (any figures at all) and the lack of choice, in order to feel secure. That it is stupid to cajole or try to convince people to "believe in freedom" (whatever that shit means), because -- as long as they don't try to throw a yoke over me -- they desire a strong hand of guidance more than anything.

So now, instead of wanting a dissolve of fiat currency or a red-button reset to total anarchy, I would prefer a cantonization of political and cultural units (into smaller ones that can choose piecemeal agreements amongst their neighbors, and provide for US state-style legislative experiments), along with a tech-induced expansion of cartel shattering services like Uber and AirBnB.

Also, Hoppe's "Democracy: The God That Failed" chapter 10 nailed it. Explains that a true voluntary society with merit-based adjudicators of law and order would necessarily have to follow traditionalist/conservative guidelines, and banish socialists and other subversives.

[The Catalyst]

(08-04-2017 03:34 AM)TooFineAPoint Wrote:  

BUT... I did have an epiphany a few years ago that, since people fall into different personality types, there are in fact people that crave authority figures (any figures at all) and the lack of choice, in order to feel secure. That it is stupid to cajole or try to convince people to "believe in freedom" (whatever that shit means), because -- as long as they don't try to throw a yoke over me -- they crave a strong hand of guidance more than anything.

Seems like the best solution would be for statism to be opt-in.

[Australia Sucks]

Zelcorpian I had a look at the link in your post.

William S. Volker lived from 1859 to 1947. Carl Menger
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Menger is often considered to be the father of "Austrian" economics. Which is the school of economics most libertarians support. Carl Menger lived from 1840 to 1921. He published his first book on economics called principles of economics in 1871. In 1871 William S. Volker would have been just 12 years old. William Volker did not start the Libertarian movement (and if you read the whole article it confirms that). He was just an advocate of an idea/concept which already existed for some time.

[Mage]

(08-03-2017 11:23 PM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

There are two types of libertarians.

Libertarians who wish to be free from government in order to follow the traditional cultural norms of their people...

...and libertarians who have no cultural underpinnings, respect no institution greater than themselves and who are perfectly willing to gamble the fate of the world on their untested and frankly insane ideology.

p.s. You might note which category the founding fathers would fit into.

Isn't this what separates conservatives and liberals?

Natural law. A persons disposition towards it determines everything about that person.
Traditionalists (including most conservatives) want freedom to live according to natural law. To practice faith, survive and prosper by their own work, build home as they like, build a family, defend themselves and their family.

Liberals want freedom from natural law. To whore, ignore consequences of laziness, hypergamy, flakiness, sodomy, poor diet and so on.

Natural law is the key. Persons disposition towards it determines his political beliefs. Either you want to observe Nature's rules, looking at and learning from all previous generations that survived, prospered and procreated successfully to the degree they observed this law or you hope for technological revolution and social engineering - the so called "progress" to liberate you from ever being responsible before natural law again.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

(08-04-2017 03:47 AM)Australia Sucks Wrote:  

Zelcorpian I had a look at the link in your post.

William S. Volker lived from 1859 to 1947. Carl Menger
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Menger is often considered to be the father of "Austrian" economics. Which is the school of economics most libertarians support. Carl Menger lived from 1840 to 1921. He published his first book on economics called principles of economics in 1871. In 1871 William S. Volker would have been just 12 years old. William Volker did not start the Libertarian movement (and if you read the whole article it confirms that). He was just an advocate of an idea/concept which already existed for some time.

The globalists seldom start movements - they take over, twist and then promote it.

[Australia Sucks]

We can all sit around and debate exactly what the best system of governance is, but I think almost everyone on Rooshv can agree that we have too much government and government that is too powerful.

I think we all agree the current state of affairs is woeful and we need less government and less nanny state intervention. Now the exact type of governance (or anarchy)/system and philosophy can be debated but we are generally all united in our hatred of big nanny state government. Let us not forget that.

[Leonard D Neubache]

(08-04-2017 03:54 AM)Mage Wrote:  

...
Isn't this what separates conservatives and liberals?

Natural law. A persons disposition towards it determines everything about that person.
Traditionalists (including most conservatives) want freedom to live according to natural law. To practice faith, survive and prosper by their own work, build home as they like, build a family, defend themselves and their family.

Liberals want freedom from natural law. To whore, ignore consequences of laziness, hypergamy, flakiness, sodomy, poor diet and so on.

Natural law is the key. Persons disposition towards it determines his political beliefs. Either you want to observe Nature's rules, looking at and learning from all previous generations that survived, prospered and procreated successfully to the degree they observed this law or you hope for technological revolution and social engineering - the so called "progress" to liberate you from ever being responsible before natural law again.

Not necessarily. Some conservatives want freedom to live traditionally in the manner of their ancestors while others seek the authority to force others to live in the manner of those ancestors or in any case either group could seek the authority to forcibly exclude anyone that refuses to abide by their way of life.

Likewise progressives might be libertarian in demanding their right to live in whatever retarded way they like, or they might be totalitarian in their demand that everyone live by their retarded laws, or in any case either group could seek the authority to forcibly exclude anyone that refuses to "respect their rights" or "conform to progressive law."

The reality is that libertarianism in either case is impotent in the face of an organised group that refuses to abide by the libertarian's "unwritten law of no laws".

[John Michael Kane]

Basically, libertarians are Sigma white males with high IQ but low to zero EQ. They project their own understanding on to the world as they see it to be, not how it is. That is why they are perpetually in the dark. Their Sigma obliviousness to social cues make them uncharismatic and dense from the social standpoint (which is what politics is all about), even if some of their ideas might have merit from a wonk standpoint. Generalization? Absolutely. But upon meeting more libs, I can't say that they've disproven my observations.

[Leonard D Neubache]

^Sigmas? I thought they were the guys that got laid despite not conforming to social hierarchies.

I'm not sure that more than a handful of prog libertarians have ever seen a vagina and the conservative libertarians are textbook beta 6 ways from Sunday School.

[John Michael Kane]

Well, there's no doubt more than a handful of Omega libs as well. Bottom line is, the movement attracts men that repulse women in general. Hence, with women voters, they'll never get anywhere and continue to be irrelevant. Trump knows you have to charm the pants off women if you want to win bigly. That's something the average lib doesn't or can't understand.

[puckerman]

(08-04-2017 02:24 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

(08-03-2017 11:34 PM)puckerman Wrote:  

...

It will likely happen on another planet. I don't see it happening on Earth anytime soon. There are too many corrupt establishments to allow it to happen, and the people are too slavish and servile to rise up against that corruption.

They voted for Trump.

Dumbed down, hopped up on pharma-shit, burdened with shitty public education and bombarded with propaganda they still voted for Trump.

Not Ron Paul.

Trump.

Fedora libertarians will never build so much as a functional county because of precisely the arrogance which crept into the end of your post, likely without your even having realised it.

"...too slavish and servile to rise up against that corruption."

I will admit that I know very little about Australian politics or Australian libertarians. What is your experience or connection to American politics and American libertarians? You can learn some things about American politics by reading articles on web sites. A lot of my comments are based on experience from working on campaigns, knocking on doors for candidates, and going to events.

I make no apologies whatsoever for my comment about people being slavish and servile. I see it with Americans every time I go to the airport. They dutifully take off their shoes and just do whatever they are told. I don't think Americans would have behaved like this 150 years ago. I also see it when I saw a "patriotic American" cheering on the latest military adventure.

The worst mistake we made here in America was establishing a public-school system. If we had not done that, I don't think we would have a lot of these other problems.

I also don't see why it's a problem that I call people slavish and servile. Isn't this board all about not behaving in a slavish and servile manner?

Libertarians also see what conservatives do when they do get control of things. In some of the conservative school districts here in the US, for example, conservative school districts spend $60 million or $70 million on football stadiums. From 2001 to 2007, we had a Congress controlled by conservatives and a President who was conservative--federal spending increased like it never had before. Conservatives write lots of pretty articles and make lots of pretty speeches about opposing the welfare state--they rarely DO anything though. The last time the federal government in America was rolled back was in the 1920's when Harding and Coolidge were President.

Quote:

Secret kings, all.

Have you forgotten that the owner of this forum has a web site called "Return of Kings"?

[Different T]

Quote:

There is a vastly different viewpoint between refusing to recognize authority ever, vs conditionally respecting authority (based on merit).

What's the difference?

[heavy]

This is a pointless discussion unless we know which beliefs OP is questioning. You're talking about millions of people, a lot of nuance, on a lot of different topics.

[Leonard D Neubache]

(08-04-2017 07:43 AM)puckerman Wrote:  

...
I will admit that I know very little about Australian politics or Australian libertarians. What is your experience or connection to American politics and American libertarians?

I make no apologies whatsoever for my comment about people being slavish and servile. I see it with Americans every time I go to the airport. They dutifully take off their shoes and just do whatever they are told. I don't think Americans would have behaved like this 150 years ago.

The worst mistake we made here was establishing a public-school system. If we had not done that, I don't think we would have any of these problems.

I also don't see why it's a problem that I call people slavish and servile. Isn't this board all about not behaving in a slavish and servile manner?

Libertarians also see what conservatives do when they do get control of things. In some of the conservative school districts here in the US, for example, conservative school districts spend $60 million or $70 million on football stadiums. From 2001 to 2007, we had a Congress controlled by conservatives and a President who was conservative--federal spending increased like it never had before. Conservatives write lots of pretty articles and make lots of pretty speeches about opposing the welfare state--they rarely DO anything though. The last time the federal government in America was rolled back was in the 1920's when Harding and Coolidge were President.

Quote:

Secret kings, all.

Have you forgotten that the owner of this forum has a web site called "Return of Kings"?

From bottom to top.

I was referring the to Gamma trait of believing themselves to be secret kings. The website is not called "return of the secret kings" for a reason.

I agree that the boomer 'conservatives' are largely impotent, geriatric faggots who fall far to the left by any historical definition. This is changing rapidly as they die out and zillenials/millenials rail against 'the system' and the assholes that sold out their future. The rise of the alt-right and the election of Trump is testament to this.

Now of course I have to ask you, when you go to the airport do you refuse to take off your shoes like all the other slaves? Or do you fall in line, but do it wearing a rebellious frown, the absence of which on others leads you to believe that you're the only one secretly raging against this injustice?

"American's wouldn't have put up with this 10/20/40/80/160 years ago!" Sorry, but they have and they did. This is another Libertarian trope. Romanticise about how things were totally different "back in the olden days" and then hold the modern world to the standard of a total fantasy. We see this in an older Libertarianism thread where the Wild West was held to be some sort of Libertarian utopia that produced unparalleled economic activity and built the greatest nation on earth. Sure, crime was rampant, you could be killed for a dollar, industrialist tycoons built their railways over the corpses of their workers, celestial miners were killed by the thousands, Indians moreso, immigrants were exploited mercilessly, slavery was abundant, racism drove literal violence, theft and dispossession of land rightly owned and in general a contract was only ever worth the number of guns you could bring to bear to enforce it.

But ignoring all that, Libertarianism for the win!

As for Australian libertarians, they're sad wankers. All five of them. There used to be six but I grew up. We're a colony and a prison colony at that. The mentality dogs us to this day. That said, not many of our police stations have APCs in the carpool, and our utterly tyrannical government not only taxes less than the American one (taking into account debt against future generations) but provides us with nominally low cost health care while balancing the federal budget from time to time.

A lack of libertarianism is not your problem. Social order is actually pretty neat. Your problem is (((this))). Get rid of (((that))) influence and you would be so prosperous and happy that you wouldn't give a shit about paying your taxes.