Re: Random non sequitur posts thread

[Kaijyuu]

Well, they'd be declaring war on us. I don't care about them.

[Slag]

Is it the bay12games IRC?

And I'm still glad I'm missing all that, even if it means I don't get to chill and talk to you.

[Kaijyuu]

Yeah, some of their goons are still hanging around. I told one off.

[Andal]

Not really, it was relatively civil until the guy kept making the same claims ad nauseum instead of actually backing them up with unbiased sources and then claimed "no one else was using stats" when they were. Par for the course for a Libertarian, really.

Also, his first post was inherently confrontational.
Bottom of page 508.

Sorry! I don't think I made it clear that I was talking about political discussion threads in general, not specifically Bay12 ones or that thread in particular. Depending on the forum, political and other such discussions tend to be dominated by one ideology or another.

However, the bolded statement is one of a kind that need to be addressed. (I am sorry, not trying to single you out, but your comment suits my (nefarious) purposes.)

If folks in such threads are so quick to categorize and then dismiss dissenting opinions on the basis of that categorization, then it prevents any serious discussion. Are all Libertarians terrible at backing up their opinion and worship at the Randian altar? Are all Democrats bleeding-heart tree-huggers and out-of-touch ivory-tower academics? Are all Republicans Bible-thumping fanatics and money-grubbing white men with a racist/sexist agenda? Or does anyone who may refer to themselves with a label always agree with every item of that group's ideology? I think you'll find the answer is no, and that discussions of politics or anything else for that matter are enhanced if you leave preconceptions at the door.

Not to mention such comments, which I have seen in quite a few places on bay12, here, and elsewhere online are not only not constructive, but also cause the same defensive, reactionary posts and responses that folks complain about in the first place. Demanding sources/citations/evidence is well and good, but only if everyone posting is held to that high standard, not just those that disagree, and counter-examples are expected instead of dismissal of opinion (Bay12 is relatively consistent and reliable in that regard, though not always). Take the opportunity to educate, and the end result should be far more satisfactory for all parties involved.

And yes, fundamentalists and die-hard believers of any idealogical stripe can be very frustrating to deal with for those that base their world views on logical reasoning and supporting evidence. That should not, however, justify uncivil discourse. That tends to lead to behaviors and statements that are just as emotionally and idealogically fuelled as those that irritated. Be the better person, politely disagree, and move on. If they continue to voice their untenable opinions, leave them stand alone as a testament to their ideological worldview, and let the readers decide their worth.

/soapbox

Sorry for the wall of text. Hope I didn't step on any toes. That's kind of the reason I usually avoid such discussions: I want people to have a favorable impression of me and not hate me forever, and am worried that expressing my opinions will screw that up. Hence why I only talk politics/religion/etc. with folks that are a) close personal friends who I know will forgive my different opinions, or b) complete strangers who bring that shit up when I'm drunk.

[Flying Dice]

To be perfectly frank, every single self-described libertarian I've ever talked to has fit that description. That's part of the reason why "I'm a libertarian" tends to be more than enough for me to drop any hope of reasonable discussion. On the rare occasion that they know their way around an argument, that just means that I have more time to boggle at the sheer moral bankruptcy of their worldview.

I've met Democrats who aren't spineless moderates. I've met Republicans who aren't fundies or bigots. I've met progressives that aren't insanely radical. I've met conservatives that aren't insanely radical. I've met liberals that aren't hypocritical and smug. I've met deeply religious people who aren't bible-thumping conversion machines. I've met atheists who aren't militantly anti-religious. I've met anarchists who aren't blindly destructive. I've met Marxists who aren't constantly ranting about capitalism. I've met rednecks that aren't bigots. I've met urbanite artists that aren't elitists. Etc, etc.


I have never met a libertarian who was not either massively ignorant about the way society functions, wastefully wealthy and looking for a way to justify it, or one of Rand's nasty little followers.

[Andal]

To be perfectly frank, every single self-described libertarian I've ever talked to has fit that description. That's part of the reason why "I'm a libertarian" tends to be more than enough for me to drop any hope of reasonable discussion. On the rare occasion that they know their way around an argument, that just means that I have more time to boggle at the sheer moral bankruptcy of their worldview.

I've met Democrats who aren't spineless moderates. I've met Republicans who aren't fundies or bigots. I've met progressives that aren't insanely radical. I've met conservatives that aren't insanely radical. I've met liberals that aren't hypocritical and smug. I've met deeply religious people who aren't bible-thumping conversion machines. I've met atheists who aren't militantly anti-religious. I've met anarchists who aren't blindly destructive. I've met Marxists who aren't constantly ranting about capitalism. I've met rednecks that aren't bigots. I've met urbanite artists that aren't elitists. Etc, etc.


I have never met a libertarian who was not either massively ignorant about the way society functions, wastefully wealthy and looking for a way to justify it, or one of Rand's nasty little followers.

So your personal anecdotal experience is supportable evidence? Sorry, but I'm going to have to respectfully disagree, and leave it at that.

EDIT: And this is why I usually keep my mouth shut.

[Kaijyuu]

You're such a loudmouth, Andal


No really, ya'll seem respective of each other, so don't worry! Worry once insults start flying instead of arguments.

/popcorn

[Necro910]

I have never met a libertarian who was not either massively ignorant about the way society functions, wastefully wealthy and looking for a way to justify it, or one of Rand's nasty little followers.

I'm not 100% sure I'm a libertarian, as people's definition tends to shift dramatically between person to person. I like less government, so I guess I'm a libertarian? I'm generally right-wing, not left-wing, however, so that leaves me out of some people's definitions. I'm not sure who Rand is, and I'm not rich. I wish I was rich, but I think most people do.

[Slag]

I've never really learned what libertarianism is supposed to be, but all the information I've ever heard about it points to it being a term specifically for people who believe that the concept of self-interest is above literally everything else, and that being mean and selfish is perfectly fine as long as you benefit from it.

[Necro910]

I've never really learned what libertarianism is supposed to be, but all the information I've ever heard about it points to it being a term specifically for people who believe that the concept of self-interest is above literally everything else, and that being mean and selfish is perfectly fine as long as you benefit from it.

Being selfless is good, but being forced to give money to everyone doesn't make you a good person. That just makes you a person that is forced to give money to everyone.

EDIT: Left-wing has leeches, right-wing has backstabbers.

[Slag]

Being forced into anything doesn't make you that kind of a person. Being a dick to others because you think it's your right makes you a douchebag.

[Necro910]

Being forced into anything doesn't make you that kind of a person.

Yup.

Being a dick to others because you think it's your right makes you a douchebag.

There's gonna be douchebags and dicks anyway. At least you can be a dick back and get them fired.

[Loud Whispers]

As often heard from my extremely American conservative friend, for some reason our pacific cousins look at the UK and use "socialist" as a derogatory term, which leaves me about as confused as I suppose a communist in soviet Russia would've found communist being used as an insult puzzling. The main sentiment behind it seems to be "socialist means giving all your labour's fruits to the government to control!" When in truth it's not. You pay for national insurance to get benefits like free healthcare and pensions. It removes profit from things like healthcare.

So tell me pony forum, am I indeed the modern commie bastard, or is America taking a right turn into crazy again?
With regards

~Socialist bastard

[Flying Dice]

@Andal: I realize that anecdotal evidence does not a verified rule make. But if I touch a stove-top ten times in a row, being burned each time, it also doesn't follow that I should ignore past experience and touch it again.


@Necro: Wikipedia on Rand and libertarianism

Short bit re: criticisms


What I've taken away from my own discussions is this:

Libertarians seek to reduce/eliminate the power of government, and believe that in the ensuing power vacuum things will somehow work out and people will all do what is right. No explanation or qualification for why every individual would act in a praiseworthy manner without anything restricting their behavior when people already act in a blameworthy manner while under the rule of law. No explanation of how absolutely anything that can't be built or maintained by more than a handful of people will continue to exist (in other words, the problem of infrastructure and large-scale projects; who maintains the roads and sewers?)

The Tragedy of the Commons is probably the most concise demonstration of one of the central problems of libertarianism.


More in terms of Randian Objectivism, you have Social Darwinism and the general philosophy of unenlightened self-interest.

Perhaps the simplest summary I could offer is this: Libertarians willingly reap the benefits of society but insist that they are not obliged to shoulder the burdens of it. In other words, they are perfectly okay with driving on public roads, attending public schools, being protected by the police, firefighters, federal military forces, and EMS, are more than willing to use public sewers and take advantage of things like bridges, dams, subsidies, etc.

But they don't want to pay their taxes.

All rhetoric aside, that's the core assumption that tends to bleed through. Libertarian ideology is anything but progressive; it's conservative to the point of regression. Their proposal would perhaps have been viable (though still morally abhorrent) several centuries ago. It is a philosophy of closing off and isolation, of selfishness and inhumanity.

In Hobbes' terminology, they are claiming to desire a return to the State of Nature, undoing every scrap of social progress in human history.

[Necro910]

Hm. Unless we start WW3 and end the world, the libertarian's ideal society isn't going to work. I like it, but it's not possible anymore.

A lot of things like sewers, roads, military, and schools we need and I support. Giving free stuff to every person that has sleeping problems isn't what I'm going for.

Anyways, I have a headache and don't feel like turning this forum into a political debate forum, so I'm gonna leave this debate. Ciao

[Flying Dice]

I'm not trying to debate, just give a somewhat coherent explanation of something which is so intrinsically wrong to my worldview that it gives me head- and heartache just thinking about it.

[Necro910]

I'm not trying to debate, just give a somewhat coherent explanation of something which is so intrinsically wrong to my worldview that it gives me head- and heartache just thinking about it.

[Loud Whispers]

Giving free stuff to every person that has sleeping problems isn't what I'm going for.

Wait why not? That's a serious issue.

[Armok]

WTF? what is this discussion doing here? AAAAAAGUH! GET THESE POLITICS OUT OF MY PONIES!! WAAAAA!

[Loud Whispers]

SOCIALIST PONIES

[Necro910]

SOCIALIST PONIES

[Zangi]

So tell me pony forum, am I indeed the modern commie bastard, or is America taking a right turn into crazy again?
With regards

~Socialist bastard

I probably agree with some 'socialist' things. American politics IS taking a Right turn into crazy town... which became more profound after Obama got elected. I think 9/11 is the start date...

[Flying Dice]

The American Right has been in a downward spiral since the days of Reagan. They stopped being honorable opponents a looong way back.

[Necro910]

The American Right has been in a downward spiral since the days of Reagan. They stopped being honorable opponents a looong way back.

Both parties are shit. Vote for Vermin!

[Andal]

@Flying Dice

(Sorry for the slow reply, I was out)

It sounds like you are opposed to objectivism and anarchy, not necessarily libertarianism. As your first Wikipedia link points out, objectivism and libertarianism are not one and the same and their relationship is decidedly not a completely harmonious one.

Most self-described libertarians that I have had a chance to interact with do not believe that all government needs to be abolished or that personal freedoms take precedence over all common sense and morality. They tend to take a unsurprisingly more moderate stance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

As the above link shows, there are quite a few schools of libertarian thought, and the differences are radical enough that the label "libertarian" can mean wildly different things to different people who self-categorize as such.

Some that I have discussed with believe that a smaller, limited federal (i.e. centralized) government is ideal, with many services being left instead to state and local governments that they view as more responsive, and requiring a less bloated bureaucracy. They insist that government expansion should only occur out of necessity, and believe that any increase in centralized governmental power represents a possible threat to personal freedoms that should not be taken lightly and should be examined carefully. Some of them, while holding a free market as an ideal, will admit that some amount of regulation and consumer protections are needed, albeit with the intent to not unduly hamper the market actions. Quite a number of them fit the American definition, in that they believe themselves "fiscally conservative" and "socially liberal", whatever they define those as.

But that is purely personal anecdotes, and I certainly won't deny that Randian objectivists exist and are a vocal group. However, I personally hold that I should not judge on the basis of the self-applied labels, but instead that I owe it to the person I am talking with to actually figure out what that label means to them, i.e., what their actual views on a variety of issues are.

As an aside, I hope you can meet a non-wingnut libertarian some day. They do exist, and can make for good debate/discussion.

TL;DR:
It's fine to not touch the oven once you've been burnt, but you need to make sure it isn't a dishwasher first.

[Sponsored content]