[Daktoria]

No, that's not libertinism. Libertinism is repudiating personal responsibility. In that sense, it is antithetical to libertarianism. We may allow people not to think for themselves but they should bear the responsibility for not doing so. Libertarians demand that people be responsible and accountable for their actions or lack of actions. If individuals bear responsibility for their actions it encourages prudent decision making.

S-R, you're treating me like an idiot, and I really don't like it.

When people don't think for themselves, other people can get damaged, and other people can't necessarily hold people responsible.

Prudence is learned at the cost of OTHER people's experience.

[Soixante-Retard]

S-R, you're treating me like an idiot, and I really don't like it.

No I'm not. I'm treating you as someone who is misrepresenting libertinism and libertarianism. You're not giving a fair account of either.

When people don't think for themselves, other people can get damaged, and other people can't necessarily hold people responsible.

We certainly can. What is the legal system if not a place to facilitate individuals' grievances and give them the opportunity of recourse? Tell me, in a Conservative society with "philosopher kings" will people suddenly be able to think for themselves? No, get real. What we can do is encourage people to think for themselves. How? Demand from them that they are responsible for their actions - not somebody else. It certainly encourages prudent decision making. What the conservatives of Kirk's ilk want, it appears, is a free pass on responsibility for their wise overseers but demand it from everybody else. The libertarians demand it from everybody regardless of who or what they are.

When people don't think for themselves and aren't accountable for their decisions would you be surprised if people were hurt? I wouldn't.

[Daktoria]

The legal system means nothing when it's loaded with people who don't think for themselves.

You can encourage people to think all you want. That doesn't mean they'll do so. Heck, they might not do so just to tease you.

[Soixante-Retard]

The legal system means nothing when it's loaded with people who don't think for themselves.

Don't beg the question Dak.

You can encourage people to think all you want. That doesn't mean they'll do so. Heck, they might not do so just to tease you.

Yes, so how do we encourage people to think for themselves? Make it costly for them. Make individuals aware that they can be held responsible for their actions.

When you reduced the cost of individual responsibility do you expect more or less reckless behavior? More of course. When individuals bear responsibility for their actions do you expect more or less recklessness? Less.

[Daktoria]

When you reduced the cost of individual responsibility do you expect more or less reckless behavior? More of course. When individuals bear responsibility for their actions do you expect more or less recklessness? Less.

This only applies when people are thinking.

Some people LIVE FOR DRAMA.

[Soixante-Retard]

This only applies when people are thinking.

Have you read anything that I have written? Are people who are not "thinking" for themselves suddenly assumed away with omniscient overseers? No. We want to encourage people to think for themselves in people who are currently "thinking" and people who have yet to "think" for themselves. How? By individuals reaping the rewards and bearing the costs for their actions - regardless if they are consciously thinking or not.

Some people LIVE FOR DRAMA.

That may be the case but are they allowed to be libertines impervious to recourse if they infringe other individuals' rights? Of course not.

[Daktoria]

You're being an elitist.

Kirk criticized Mill because Mill was a utilitarian, and you're proving his point here.

Can people be libertines while infringing others' rights? YES. It's not right, but it can STILL happen in the working and lower middle classes where people literally CANNOT AFFORD RECOURSE.

[Wolfman]

So, I'm going to ignore the Libertarian vs. Pseudo-Libertarian shit fight, and go back to the topic at hand.

I largely agree with the OP, except on a few points.

Firstly, I would say that Democracy, while largely illusional, is probably necessary for a functional government at this point. While we tend towards hierarchical societies (which then pervades all aspects of our society, including the political, economic and military realms) and in our political systems we tend to have oligarchies, that does not remove Democracy. The early British Labor Party being an example which comes to mind, it removed the entrenched mentality as it relates to labor rights and social policies. FDR's policies during the Great Depression, Teddy Roosevelt's positions in the turn of the century, Abraham Lincoln's policies in his time, Eisenhower's policies, etc. Democracy during the normal times is no better or worse then any other system. But, during the bad times, the discussion inherit in Democracy allows for the removing of entrenched and nonfunctional ideas of governance allowing progress to happen lineally (one country simply progressing ever forward), instead of what seemed to happen before, where there was a cycle of a country rising and collapsing in a global problem, never to return.

I'm also generally critical of people who want to replace Democracy. Like it or not, the political systems of Fascism, Socialism, and the Ancient Regime have not held up well over the last hundred years or so. I think in order for any ideology that wants to replace Democracy to be taken seriously, it would need to have a well thought out, preferably tested, alternative.

Broadly speaking, I would say that Liberalism is defined by discussion. There is discussion in the economy (Capitalism), there is discussion in social realms (liberalism v conservatism), and the governmental realms (Democracy).

Maybe it's me, but I also tend to see Liberalism as an ideal as opposed to an actual ideology, same with Communism and Anarchism. I have to say, it would be very nice if we could, as a species all get along and work together and help each other because it was the right thing to do, not because someone was telling them to.

[Soixante-Retard]

You're being an elitist.

Dak, address my arguments. Don't weasel out of them by throwing words like "elitist" at me to detract from and substitute for your lack of argument.

Can people be libertines while infringing others' rights? YES.

Did I say people cannot be libertines while infringing others' rights? No. I said: can they be allowed to be libertines while infringing others' rights? That is, can libertines who infringe on others' rights be "impervious to recourse". The answer is that we demand they are not - they have infringed on others' rights. Read my previous post again, you'll understand that I didn't say people cannot be libertines while infringing others' rights. I said they ought not to be allowed to be impervious to recourse if they do.

[Daktoria]

Did I say people cannot be libertines while infringing others' rights? No. I said: can they be allowed to be libertines while infringing others' rights? That is, can libertines who infringe on others' rights be "impervious to recourse". The answer is that we demand they are not - they have infringed others' rights. Read my previous post again, you'll understand that I didn't say people cannot be libertines while infringing others' rights. I said they ought not to be allowed to be impervious to recourse if they do.

That's coercion.

You're forcing people to assume the risk of infringement without recourse.

It's the same as a government forcing you to assume the risk of successfully investing in a social program through taxes.

[Soixante-Retard]

You're forcing people to assume the risk of infringement without recourse.

No I'm not. What I am saying is that people whose rights have been infringed are perfectly within their rights to demand recourse from the people who have aggressed against them. An officer always asks, "do you want to press charges" offering the person who has been infringed upon the opportunity of recourse not "we're going to press charges on your behalf, whether you like it or not because we know better" - that would be coercive.

[Someneck]

You eggheads are all trying to impress each other with your advanced education and you end up sounding like a bunch of clever students vying with each other to use the longest words

In order to maintain an erection, it is necessary not to think about it too much, but simply follow one's instincts.

Here is some reality - let's see who is real Tory

My mother was always a Conservative. She was a part time tea lady at an engineering works. The bosses treated her like dirt but she called them 'Mr Tim" etc and tugged her forelock if she had one, and almost curtsied to them while they paid her peanuts. She was a turkey voting for thanksgiving. It's a world wide phenomenon that the cannon fodder vote for their oppressors.

In the opening post, this relationship was set out in that Conservatives really do believe in "Might is Right' and it's hard luck for those who don't have it. People who haven't got health insurance or inadequate health insurance, SHOULD lose everything - hard luck

Countries which have oil deserve to be invaded if they haven't got the bomb - hard luck

Liberals like me have always made the mistake that simply publicizing this appalling creed will turn off the populace, but in fact, the filthy unwashed at the bottom of society can be bought off with a penny off cigs or we will let you keep your guns

Because 80% of people are nice but stupid, Conservatism is with us forever. It is a self maintaining philosophy in that once a Conservative is in power, he will suppress votes and cut education in order to keep the ignorant in ignorance

Its a good game played slowly

Perhaps the Op will find his conscience and move to being a liberal, but if he has "found himself" and he is sure that he is as black-hearted as he describes, then he will remain a Conservative

Basically I summarize Conservatism as cold, uncaring, demeaning, selfish etc etc and at least the Conservatives on this thread seem not only to admit that, but revel in it, and that is the only positive aspect to the whole nasty business