Are libertarians rare? - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

For discussion of moral and ethical issues.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14786508
Well, before I even knew what the actual term was I think I most have always been one deep down, but often I feel frustrated with the rest of the world loves authority, rules and system of control and generally often sides with them. Often I feel pretty left out, I suppose just in regards to the fact that my personality and way of looking at things/opinions fall into this way of seeing things and it reflects on the type of person I am but I find that generally it makes most people angry at me.

It often seems to sort of follow suit long the lines of "no, why can't we think for ourselves, what's wrong with thinking for yourself" then others in reply "BECAUSE, ...BECAUSE, UH, IT'S JUST THE WAY THINGS ARE, WHAT MAKES YoU THINK YOU'RE ANY BETTER" and then often times I am shunned, completely ignored. But I've just never quite had respect for extreme forms of authority, and systems of control, or that very idea. I think we should all be in charge of our own lives, and that mostly people should be able to do whatever they want. Actually, I think that most social interactions, or conflicts I get into usually stem from this. I would consider myself a left leaning libertarian though, I don't agree with the assumption that it's merely "capitalism" or that, well I'm not sure. I 'm not completely against governments or something, but sometimes I could go both ways. Sometimes I imagine what the West used to be like when their was just a sheriff and I think it would be awesome, but kind of too extreme by today's standards, but I think it's good to at least keep the mind set alive.


Also I find this weird, but in my own personal experiences I have noticed that liberals today are more authoritarian then conservatives and while I do not agree with conservatives on a lot of things, they are less strict/controlling and easy going where as liberals are all tight wads. I find this strange as well. I thought liberals was always about "power to the people" anti-authoritarianism and the like.
Last edited by NightShadows on 16 Mar 2017 22:54, edited 1 time in total.
#14786510
Libertarians aren't rare at all. However, consistent libertarians are rare to the point of nonexistence. I have a particular problem with their hypocrisy in the application of NAP. They are just fine with eliminating (for example) the power of the EPA to stop me from dumping lead in the water. Why? Because, in their fantasy world, governments have a monopoly on force. By that standard, anything a private entity does fails to rise to the level of "force". Police are used to protect private commercial interests like banks, and at the same time the sheriff will escort you out of your home if you default your mortgage. Force is everywhere, in every aspect of our lives, at every moment. But to a libertarian, only certain uses of force count.

I'd be ok with libertarians if they were only talking about relations between people. But they are not. They are asking us to give up the core mission of any just government: to protect the mass against the depradations of the powerful.
#14786516
Well yes it's kind of iffy, I suppose when it comes to force, the police should really be the only ones illegally allowed to dispense it. It's just kind of slippery slope when you start allowing physical violence to enforce things, especially considering what is in vogue now politically may not be in the future.

I suppose maybe what I as thinking of goes further beyond politics and more into social, psychological. I've just noticed that in general, there's something with ideas of conformity I find perturbing. It's like there's a level that we are held bondage to the world, and how the world which we perceive is defined by those who rule, and hold positions of power. Laws come and go, but when it comes to our own selves, our individual rights and personhood I have always felt that to a degree these are sacred and that one should be allowed the freedom to express that self. But this is one thing that instead the majority seems to always hide and control. It's as if you can only ever be so free, but never really free. At least not free to be yourself. The self is always in a position of bondage, to be dictated by others and the community. You are never really your self but instead which others define you as by relations to your position in society. I suppose it's sort of how Karl Marx saw the means of production how much hierarchy is involved within our place to it.
Last edited by NightShadows on 16 Mar 2017 23:06, edited 1 time in total.
#14786519
The fact that I'm not entirely sure you meant "legally" there says something about my experience with libertarians. :hmm:

I used to be one, I stopped.
#14786522
mikema63 wrote:The fact that I'm not entirely sure you meant "legally" there says something about my experience with libertarians. :hmm:

I used to be one, I stopped.

Well I don't think literally it means no laws, I think it's just generally about maximizing personal liberties and even responsibilities and having the law serve instead of being servile to the law and rule. But I'm even a bit of an anarchist so even though that's extreme and it frightens most people I still would go be okay with that. Well, sort of a minarchist/anarchist. It sort of depends, but at least an anarchist in spirit.
#14786582
NightShadows wrote:Well I don't think literally it means no laws, I think it's just generally about maximizing personal liberties and even responsibilities and having the law serve instead of being servile to the law and rule. But I'm even a bit of an anarchist so even though that's extreme and it frightens most people I still would go be okay with that. Well, sort of a minarchist/anarchist. It sort of depends, but at least an anarchist in spirit.


You don't sound all that much like libertarians that typically post here. Which is a good thing. Perhaps you're a bit closer to left-libertarianism.

'Libertarian socialism (sometimes called social anarchism, left-libertarianism and socialist libertarianism) is a group of anti-authoritarian political philosophies inside the socialist movement that rejects socialism as centralized state ownership and control of the economy, as well as the state itself.'
#14786585
quetzalcoatl wrote:You don't sound all that much like libertarians that typically post here. Which is a good thing. Perhaps you're a bit closer to left-libertarianism.

'Libertarian socialism (sometimes called social anarchism, left-libertarianism and socialist libertarianism) is a group of anti-authoritarian political philosophies inside the socialist movement that rejects socialism as centralized state ownership and control of the economy, as well as the state itself.'

Well yes, yes I do like that philoshopy very much. it's just that I have doubts about this actually working in reality as I have a feeling that would not be too far removed from charity; and as we know obvously the incentive to "share" is really all that naturally occuring or strong with most people...

Plus, how would you start or accomplish such a thing? I have doubts about many revolutions actually achieving such things and going off of how the liberals have been acting lately, it seems like letting them have anymore of their way would result in just more authoritarianism, big government, much like it is now. No personal freedoms, etc, no free speech. Even worse, communism or something. blech.
User avatar
By Dubayoo
#14786609
In real life, libertarians aren't rare. They're just different from what you see in academia.

Academic libertarians carry on about the free market while paying token reference to abortion, gay marriage, drug usage, and gun ownership. They also tend to focus on the NAP a lot while saying socialists don't understand the difference of people's utility preferences.

Real life libertarians focus more on abortion, gay marriage, drug usage, gun ownership, and believe in rugged individualism instead of the NAP. They also rarely if ever talk about the free market. They just treat it as a place they work and think socialists are lazy bums.

It's kind of like the difference between academic and real life socialists. In academia, socialists carry on about moral emotivism and relativism while acting like tough guys because they can give people bad grades for disagreeing...

...but in the real world, socialists have nothing to them. They clamor about equality because they want others to give them something for nothing. The exception is in unions, but union socialists are really fiscally liberal while socially conservative. They might say they're for socially liberal policies, but if you ever work in a union, you realize very quickly that they're all about anti-intellectual folk community common sense when it comes to who gets elected and how people get assigned shifts.
User avatar
By AFAIK
#14786636
I experimented with libertarianism when I first posted here but abandoned it since private property ownership allows highly authoritarian power structures to operate.

Now I'm considering the merits of an authoritarian socialism that seizes the state and an anarchism that risks becoming impotent if it cannot wield state power whilst struggling to dismantle economic and political power structures simultaneously.
User avatar
By MB.
#14786753
In my experience American libertarians are common as the cold and tend to be closet authoritarians. They crow endlessly about power abuses that impact them, but effectively stop caring as soon as the issue is about someone else. They tend to be annoying MBAs who really just don't want to pay taxes. I've actually heard self identifying libertarians claim the state's abolition of slavery and enforcement of that law was a violation of libertarian "ethics"

In America, claiming to be a libertarian is basically a way to say you're a ruthless conservative mammonist without the idiot stigma of identifying as a Republican (although the "what is Aleppo" scandal seems to have removed any doubt), although most so called libertarians ARE Republicans, ie, Ron Paul etc


night Shadow wrote:Also I find this weird, but in my own personal experiences I have noticed that liberals today are more authoritarian then conservatives and while I do not agree with conservatives on a lot of things, they are less strict/controlling and easy going where as liberals are all tight wads. I find this strange as well. I thought liberals was always about "power to the people" anti-authoritarianism and the like.


No offense, but you sound like you're an edgy kid about to evolve into a fedora gentlemen.
#14788780
MB. wrote:In my experience American libertarians are common as the cold and tend to be closet authoritarians. They crow endlessly about power abuses that impact them, but effectively stop caring as soon as the issue is about someone else. They tend to be annoying MBAs who really just don't want to pay taxes. I've actually heard self identifying libertarians claim the state's abolition of slavery and enforcement of that law was a violation of libertarian "ethics"

In America, claiming to be a libertarian is basically a way to say you're a ruthless conservative mammonist without the idiot stigma of identifying as a Republican (although the "what is Aleppo" scandal seems to have removed any doubt), although most so called libertarians ARE Republicans, ie, Ron Paul etc




No offense, but you sound like you're an edgy kid about to evolve into a fedora gentlemen.



Well being a libertarian in the American conservative is an actual thing, and there's a pretty good case for that being so, even if perhaps it's not really apparent or obvious, lol. When you think about it, in a sense it is close to "anarchism" in some instances, though hoarding land for yourself kind of invalidates this and is a little hypocritical. I suppose it depends on what perspective you're coming from, but is putting faith in business that different then states? I still don't really see any reason to trust or believe that the state could easily be something to willingly oblige by or trust. The current situation is a failing of not only the state but also big business; though it's hard to say which one comes first.

I don't know why this "edge fedora wearing" hipster term has become such a pet insult, but no I don't think it's anyone attempts to put on such an act like that. I guess not adhering to major power structures makes one a "try-hard" instead of a "good little solider" just tow the line, be a "good little soldier" don't rock boat too much, etc.
#14799636
American libertarianism is an animal almost completely unrelated to the libertarian philosophy. Note that the American libertarian party is over 99% conservative while the ideology is supposed to be indifferent to conservatism/libertarianism. There are lots of liberal libertarians in the U.S.A., but they are almost totally unrepresented by the libertarian party, (a lot affiliate themselves with the green party). But the libertarian party and all their think tanks are essentially owned and operated by corporations who just want to dismantle government oversight, regulation, and authority over themselves. Note that well over half the output of their think tanks are anti-government while either promoting "capitalism" (IE. corporatism) or remain silent on the issue of corporate control over people's lives. American organized libertarianism is not libertarian at all - it's corporatism trying to dismantle the government to favor themselves.

With that said; let's eliminate their works when considering the libertarian ideology. I believe that anarchy is the best possible form of government. There's nothing inherently wrong with anarchy. The problem is us. We're not moral or ethical enough to handle the liberties anarchy provides. The individual can - but not the aggregate of society. At some point, you will always get people who do wrong; who harm others; who become violent for no good reasons. And that's the point where libertarianism begins to break down. Suddenly, we need some authority to keep criminals in line. And then we need another authority to keep the authority from abuse. And, sure enough, we end up with an authoritarian state to police the authorities who police the criminals. And it's all because some people are simply not moral or ethical enough to live without harming others.

And so we're stuck with authoritarians abusing power while other power abusing authoritarians police them. We just keep adding power abusing layers of authority like a layer cake because we can't solve the original problem. Libertarianism allows people get away with abusing each other. Authoritarianism appoints people who do the abusing. And it's all our own fault.

So how about moderation? Moderation is like saying "let's establish a 'happy medium' between the abuses of authority and the abuses of criminals". Not only is that an entirely arbitrary tolerance, (so everyone will have a different opinion on where to draw the line), but now your citizens have to deal with a certain level of abuse from BOTH the criminals AND the authorities. Maybe a little more abuse from here is a bit more tolerable than more abuse from there.... but it's all still abuse we have to tolerate, all because some people can't handle liberty.

Face it, until we figure out how to live in total social isolation - so that we can make contact only when we want to make contact and never have to rely on one another for anything - we're screwed. We can't live in anarchy and all other forms of government just layer successive levels of abusive authoritarianism on us.
Israel-Palestinian War 2023

@JohnRawls No. Your perception of it is not. I g[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

I'd be totally happy for us to send ground troop i[…]

Any of you going to buy the Trump bible he's promo[…]

There were formidable defense lines in the Donbas[…]