Quote: (01-11-2017 02:46 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:
For example, a gay couple walk down the street in matching bikini thongs.
Wearing three thongs...Two on the hoof, one up the crack.
How resurgent libertarianism sprung from a lack of masculinity.
Wearing three thongs...Two on the hoof, one up the crack.
Quote: (01-10-2017 09:43 PM)Highpool Wrote:
It's usually wise to ignore shrill, paranoid parents who want to dictate laws and customs for millions of people based on what they think is best for their kid.
They epitomize the mindset of "I don't give a shit about anyone other than me and mine."
This isn't a defense of libertarianism. Just saying, be careful who you get your idea of "order" from.
The occasional set of shitty parents is not a rebuke against patriarchy. It's a rebuke against shitty parenting.
Traditional parents understand that by raising children in the time proven methods of their forefathers that they are helping to avoid casting the fortunes of their society onto the historical roulette table.
The public will judge a man by what he lifts, but those close to him will judge him by what he carries.
Quote: (01-11-2017 11:54 PM)Different T Wrote:
Quote:Quote:
it only appeals to a small and declining portion of the population who are able to follow a series somewhat complex arguements that build on each other.
So you think Libertarianism is technically "correct," it's just too complex for most; AKA people are too stupid for it?
So instead of shilling for a losing strategy of moral superiority you're shilling for a losing strategy of intellectual superiority?
Losing is losing.
Quote:Quote:
Quote:Quote:
It would be like approaching a girl with a cost benefit report on why you should bang her vs the guy who's running A+ game. Even if you're right, you lose every time.
The PUA analogy seems pretty accurate since you seem to equate politics to who gets to have the ONS (win an election, rinse and repeat) with the drunk girl.
There is this thing called "frame." You are in theirs.
Tell us your plan to remove yourself and others of like mind from the "frame" of democracy.
The public will judge a man by what he lifts, but those close to him will judge him by what he carries.
Quote: (01-12-2017 04:27 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:
So instead of shilling for a losing strategy of moral superiority you're shilling for a losing strategy of intellectual superiority?
What? Libertarianism is rejected because it is incoherent and based on bad assumptions and falsity, not because it is too complex. Your response is not understandable...
Quote:Quote:
Tell us your plan to remove yourself and others of like mind from the "frame" of democracy.
You want to be involved in democratic politics after realizing some stuff about how liberalism/libertarianism is actually utilized, fine. Do you even want "out" of such a newly empowering frame?
That's the part where these things mostly fall apart. You seem to still believe all the Classical Liberalism shit, but are just trying to be "conservative" about it past some date probably in like the 1930's New Deal era.
Quote: (01-11-2017 11:54 PM)Different T Wrote:
Quote:Quote:
it only appeals to a small and declining portion of the population who are able to follow a series somewhat complex arguements that build on each other.
So you think Libertarianism is technically "correct," it's just too complex for most; AKA people are too stupid for it?
Quote:Quote:
It would be like approaching a girl with a cost benefit report on why you should bang her vs the guy who's running A+ game. Even if you're right, you lose every time.
The PUA analogy seems pretty accurate since you seem to equate politics to who gets to have the ONS (win an election, rinse and repeat) with the drunk girl.
There is this thing called "frame." You are in theirs.
"correct" has nothing to do with it. Libertarianism is just another system of organization not a religion but it's probably the most efficient. And any advanced system of organization sure does seem to require a baseline level of intelligence but it also has to be persuasive.
Also the entire discussion has been about frame, what's your point?
Quote: (01-12-2017 10:54 AM)goodburger Wrote:
"correct" has nothing to do with it. Libertarianism is just another system of organization not a religion but it's probably the most efficient. And any advanced system of organization sure does seem to require a baseline level of intelligence but it also has to be persuasive.
You do believe it is accurate, based on valid assumptions, and a coherent system that maps onto human existence; AKA "correct?" Why will you not call it "correct?"
You think a "system of organization" has the ability to be "persuasive?" Persuasion seems like a human characteristic, not the characteristic of an object and especially not an abstract concept. Maybe you mean libertarianism is "appealing" to certain types? If you've studied game, you ought to understand that "appealing to" and actually possessing/delivering are not the same things. So what does your "most efficient advanced system of organization" actually deliver?
Quote: (01-12-2017 10:54 AM)goodburger Wrote:
Also the entire discussion has been about frame, what's your point?
You are in theirs. Earlier you compared the Left to a guy running A+ game. Ie, you want the right wing to start adopting some of the tactics of the left wing. In case you didn't know, that is also what the left wing wants. So instead of just putting a single foot in the gravy, why aren't you jumping on the train?
Quote: (01-12-2017 11:12 AM)Different T Wrote:
Quote: (01-12-2017 10:54 AM)goodburger Wrote:
"correct" has nothing to do with it. Libertarianism is just another system of organization not a religion but it's probably the most efficient. And any advanced system of organization sure does seem to require a baseline level of intelligence but it also has to be persuasive.
You do believe it is accurate, based on valid assumptions, and a coherent system that maps onto human existence; AKA "correct?" Why will you not call it "correct?"
You think a "system of organization" has the ability to be "persuasive?" Persuasion seems like a human characteristic, not the characteristic of an object and especially not an abstract concept. Maybe you mean libertarianism is "appealing" to certain types? If you've studied game, you ought to understand that "appealing to" and actually possessing/delivering are not the same things. So what does your "most efficient advanced system of organization" actually deliver?
Quote: (01-12-2017 10:54 AM)goodburger Wrote:
Also the entire discussion has been about frame, what's your point?
You are in theirs. Earlier you compared the Left to a guy running A+ game. Ie, you want the right wing to start adopting some of the tactics of the left wing. In case you didn't know, that is also what the left wing wants. So instead of just putting a single foot in the gravy, why aren't you jumping on the train?
It still isn't correct, it's an ideology, the core assumptions for almost all ideologies are irrational and probably false. The minutia of libertarianism is rediculous, see the NAP, IP or Rothbard on children. But I can still look at it and realize that it is the most efficient system that syncs up extremely well with human wants/motivations vs scarcity and will likely lead to the most progress in the future.
Systems of organization/idealogies are formed on ideas and ideas can be extremely persuasive, it's human programming. And depending on how they sync up with human nature they can be self propetuating, that's why Marxism is amazing, the idea almost becomes an entity.
Im using Libertarianism and conservatism interchangeably and they aren't the same but in general the "delivery" is to those who recognize that delayal of gradification now could lead to a better future. It's the basis of all savings and wealth, most people don't inately have that discipline and others just don't value it. Put another way, if social programs in the US were eliminated tomorrow life immediately gets worse for half the population, most likely never reach the same standard of living. Maybe their kids do but the real payoff would be to their descendants farther down the line.
As far as frame I'm a game novice, but the whole point was the Rubicon has been crossed there is no going back.
The idea that government should dictate our bedroom laws, ordain business winners and losers, and dictate which select members of society will be citizens and treated as such, and consigning the rest to a stateless stasis within the confines of the society, has caused a many great civil wars in the past in many parts of the world. And rightfully so.
Libertarianism and Classical Liberalism are not perfect answer. But neither is autocracy. Minimal intervention is still the ideal over full state control.
Just as unfettered liberalism in government has caused massive deficits and short sighted policy making, unfettered ethnic nationalism (which is the type of nationalism popular here) has tented to cause brutal civil wars that generally fail to solve the ailments of its hosts.
The founding fathers of most western republics are in many ways being vindicated today over again. They were more libertarian than authoritarian. The societies they created are more successful due to this, not in spite of it.
History is littered with the alternative. Autocratic regimes; who keep re-emerging, yet time after time are consigned to our collective historical dustbins.
Here's a list of dead Autocratic regimes that saw themselves as paragons of civilization, just as many idealistic nationalists do today. Of course they all collapsed. Some have re-emerged, many never learned their lesson and will probably repeat their mistakes:
Romanov Imperial Russia
Apartheid South Africa
Qin Dynasty Imperial China
Haile Salassie's Imperial Ethiopia
Estado-Novo regimes of the Latin World
Thus I'll re-iterate, the state has no business directly picking winners or losers in society, especially a heterogeneous one. Winners and losers will emerge organically over time.
Trying to force a square peg in a round hole will only turn the place into Afghanistan in short order.
Libertarianism and Classical Liberalism are not perfect answer. But neither is autocracy. Minimal intervention is still the ideal over full state control.
Just as unfettered liberalism in government has caused massive deficits and short sighted policy making, unfettered ethnic nationalism (which is the type of nationalism popular here) has tented to cause brutal civil wars that generally fail to solve the ailments of its hosts.
The founding fathers of most western republics are in many ways being vindicated today over again. They were more libertarian than authoritarian. The societies they created are more successful due to this, not in spite of it.
History is littered with the alternative. Autocratic regimes; who keep re-emerging, yet time after time are consigned to our collective historical dustbins.
Here's a list of dead Autocratic regimes that saw themselves as paragons of civilization, just as many idealistic nationalists do today. Of course they all collapsed. Some have re-emerged, many never learned their lesson and will probably repeat their mistakes:
Romanov Imperial Russia
Apartheid South Africa
Qin Dynasty Imperial China
Haile Salassie's Imperial Ethiopia
Estado-Novo regimes of the Latin World
Thus I'll re-iterate, the state has no business directly picking winners or losers in society, especially a heterogeneous one. Winners and losers will emerge organically over time.
Trying to force a square peg in a round hole will only turn the place into Afghanistan in short order.
Quote: (01-11-2017 03:05 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:
Principles versus outcomes. This is where men have been failing. Believing that they can just write the proper words down in a piece of legislature and then hit the cruise control button and go to sleep.
![[Image: Chamberlain_m.jpg]](http://hem.fyristorg.com/robertm/norge/images/Chamberlain_m.jpg)
"Does PUA say that I just need to get to f-close base first here and some weird chemicals will be released in her brain to make her a better person?"
-Wonitis
Quote: (01-12-2017 04:49 PM)Different T Wrote:
So why not go full progressive? Just some random preference you have that's no more valid than any LGBTQAIDS+ member's preference....
Here's Leonard being honest about being a right-wing classical Liberal in a liberal democracy (from the "Drug Policy" thread):
Quote:Quote:
Fact: I don't like pot-heads
Fact: I am entitled to my opinion and entitled to affect its pursuance politically.
Fact: The above two facts are facts.
Fact: The third fact is also factual in nature.
Libertarian ism is like communism in fact they are good ideas on paper, but completely useless in the real world because Libertarians think people are good and will be inclined to help when humans are selfish assholes and only care about themselves. Most of the libertarians I know are weirdos.
One thing, the reason why the right is not a community is because conservatives in the U.S, after winning Congress and the Senate in 1994, went apeshit on ideological purity and purged out people who didn't agree with them 100% (these are mostly the moderates and moderate-conservatives that you guys seem to call cucks). With the litmus tests and "true conservative" BS terms, it made the Democrats much stronger (their need for ideological purity is much less seen as they hate Joe Manchin and Blue Dog Democrats) The moderates of the GOP were the brains of the party. If you want to see a Republican Party without the moderate wing, look at the George W Bush years.
Plus, some on the right don't feel to expand their base instead of just relying on a religious movement that is dying. As much as you guys hate the moderate and moderate-conservative Republicans, they have an appeal that hard right people don't have. Like what one poster said about a kernel of truth, there is that kernel in moderates.
It doesn't mean sacrificing principles, but trying to find common ground. For examples, the fighting between moderate and conservatives in the GOP came to a stop in the 70's where they tried to make the party more appeal able to the public. It did culminate in Reagan winning as he was able to attract both moderates and conservatives.
One thing, the reason why the right is not a community is because conservatives in the U.S, after winning Congress and the Senate in 1994, went apeshit on ideological purity and purged out people who didn't agree with them 100% (these are mostly the moderates and moderate-conservatives that you guys seem to call cucks). With the litmus tests and "true conservative" BS terms, it made the Democrats much stronger (their need for ideological purity is much less seen as they hate Joe Manchin and Blue Dog Democrats) The moderates of the GOP were the brains of the party. If you want to see a Republican Party without the moderate wing, look at the George W Bush years.
Plus, some on the right don't feel to expand their base instead of just relying on a religious movement that is dying. As much as you guys hate the moderate and moderate-conservative Republicans, they have an appeal that hard right people don't have. Like what one poster said about a kernel of truth, there is that kernel in moderates.
It doesn't mean sacrificing principles, but trying to find common ground. For examples, the fighting between moderate and conservatives in the GOP came to a stop in the 70's where they tried to make the party more appeal able to the public. It did culminate in Reagan winning as he was able to attract both moderates and conservatives.
The question is not a binary issue of Anarchy versus totalitarianism.
Most of western civilisation is suffering dramatically from a huge excess of liberalism on left wing issues while simultaneously criminalising the mere expression of right wing traditionalism and strangling right wing communities with taxes and regulation that directly benefit the left wing.
My assertion is that this is because the right has been lashed to the principles of unfettered "freedom" while the left embraces totalitarianism for it's own end and pummels us remorselessly.
In other words, they are holding us to box by Marquess of Queensberry Rules while they fight with every dirty trick in the book, and traitorous so-called "right wing" politicians who are concerned with nothing more than keeping the electoral cattle under control lecture us constantly to "keep the faith that if we stand by the principles of blah, blah, and blah that we will win in the end" even though we've been steadily losing for the last half century.
Brexit and Donald Trump's election was a massive repudiation of those Republicucks and Tory politicians who fought against their own team because to them the status quo kept them rich and powerful, even if their team was on track to total oblivion. They constantly chided traditionalists for straying from all the rules that saw them get their asses whipped year over year because it was easy money or because they truly believed that a principled defeat was superior to an unprincipled victory.
Well fuck that noise.
In the case of the USA, Constitution worship among some people on the right has become a blind religion. I understood this the moment I read a quote from a famous and long dead libertarian.
"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain — that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it."
You can find his whole screed here, (https://www.libertarianism.org/publicati...-authority) but the TL-DR version is that no government should exist for more than a couple of generations at most as nobody then surviving agreed to it. Whatever. But that quote? That's pure insight, right there.
It reveals as much that no set of words on paper no matter how well thought out and no matter how well intentioned is a cure-all for providing for your future prosperity. That is something that men must do.
I make this prediction now. If conservatives and libertarians spend the next four to eight years bullying Trump toward "restoring liberty" rather than unapologetically crushing the left then America is done. Finished. Over. Putting the protection of academic principles over the securing of real world outcomes will forever be a losing strategy. The unprincipled will shackle you with obligations and, being unshackled themselves, will slowly beat you to death.
Most of western civilisation is suffering dramatically from a huge excess of liberalism on left wing issues while simultaneously criminalising the mere expression of right wing traditionalism and strangling right wing communities with taxes and regulation that directly benefit the left wing.
My assertion is that this is because the right has been lashed to the principles of unfettered "freedom" while the left embraces totalitarianism for it's own end and pummels us remorselessly.
In other words, they are holding us to box by Marquess of Queensberry Rules while they fight with every dirty trick in the book, and traitorous so-called "right wing" politicians who are concerned with nothing more than keeping the electoral cattle under control lecture us constantly to "keep the faith that if we stand by the principles of blah, blah, and blah that we will win in the end" even though we've been steadily losing for the last half century.
Brexit and Donald Trump's election was a massive repudiation of those Republicucks and Tory politicians who fought against their own team because to them the status quo kept them rich and powerful, even if their team was on track to total oblivion. They constantly chided traditionalists for straying from all the rules that saw them get their asses whipped year over year because it was easy money or because they truly believed that a principled defeat was superior to an unprincipled victory.
Well fuck that noise.
In the case of the USA, Constitution worship among some people on the right has become a blind religion. I understood this the moment I read a quote from a famous and long dead libertarian.
"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain — that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it."
You can find his whole screed here, (https://www.libertarianism.org/publicati...-authority) but the TL-DR version is that no government should exist for more than a couple of generations at most as nobody then surviving agreed to it. Whatever. But that quote? That's pure insight, right there.
It reveals as much that no set of words on paper no matter how well thought out and no matter how well intentioned is a cure-all for providing for your future prosperity. That is something that men must do.
I make this prediction now. If conservatives and libertarians spend the next four to eight years bullying Trump toward "restoring liberty" rather than unapologetically crushing the left then America is done. Finished. Over. Putting the protection of academic principles over the securing of real world outcomes will forever be a losing strategy. The unprincipled will shackle you with obligations and, being unshackled themselves, will slowly beat you to death.
The public will judge a man by what he lifts, but those close to him will judge him by what he carries.
If this is not understandable, please indicate that. There are at least some accessible practical “outcome” type issues for you to consider.
Before getting into the post, I would appreciate an answer to this question: If Hillary had won, would your optimistic feelings about affecting real change through Liberal politics remain?
Your latest post makes your stance much clearer, but also highlights a couple of issues you may consider. These things are largely related to concepts you are likely familiar with from game but take place at a higher level of resolution.
1) The primary issue is that you are still operating in the classical Liberal’s frame of “equality” and liberal democratic politics. In the “Drug Policy” thread, you state, “I am entitled to my opinion and entitled to affect its pursuance politically.”
It doesn’t actually seem that you are a moral relativist, rather you’re just reduced to acting like that when you’re engaging in politics in a liberal democracy. You seem to recognize this, but consider it the only way to “win” under current circumstance and the “rules of the game.”
Why does this matter? It is exactly what the progressives/Left want to see happening. Your statements about outcomes vs. principles are understandable, but it largely appears what you’re meaning by “principles” is the specific incoherent concept of “individual liberty” that conservatives/libertarians fall back on in their endless screeds against government as “violent oppressor of humanity.” As you state; such an abstract, delimited principle is easily weaponized by enemies who are not delusional enough to hold it.
But why would the Left want you to fight back on their own relativistic terms, even if it results in something like a Trump victory? Because you are reinforcing the frame that is the basis of their power. When you state that you (and by implication every other member of a liberal democracy) are simply “entitled to my opinion and entitled to affect its pursuance politically,” you are re-affirming that politics is and cannot be anything more than (1) a perpetual battle; and (2) the imposition of the arbitrary preferences of whatever coalition happens to control the levers of power.
Additionally, engaging in this frame with the attitude of “win according to this game” results in the engagement of the tactics of the Left, eg. Broad emotional appeals, offer free stuff, compromise and cut deals, and generally poorly thought out “ends justify means” strategy.
You may consider this an example of “Principles over outcomes,” but here’s an alternative perspective. The means used dramatically alters what ends/outcomes are possible. After securing the votes of tens of millions by way of subsidy, can the Left suddenly decide to change this policy? Can the people on these welfare programs suddenly become productive members of the private sector or government? After pushing through things like abortion under emotional appeals of women’s rights, equality, and health, can the Left practically encourage family formation and even replacement level birth rates?
Why do you think the right-wing engagement in these sorts of tactics would actually result in betterment? Or, more precisely; why do you think the right-wing can engage in this tactics, yet obtain different results?
To ask it again; without Trump’s victory, would you still be optimistic about the ability of persuasion and democratic politicking to bring about real change? In the “Migrant” thread, Zelcorpion states: “The dogma of the globalists is never 3 steps forward, but 2 steps forward and one step back, and then the next 2 steps forward.” The argument can easily be made that it is actually a preferable globalist strategy to follow this “2 steps forward and one step back” approach (even if a “3 steps forward” would likely be immediately successful) for reasons such as plausible deniability, scape-goating, and anchoring.
This is precisely the risk that you do not seem to identify; that you are playing exactly the role they need you to play. They push for “progress,” you pull back a bit using their tactics and allow them to consolidate gains, re-form for the next push forward, and anchor the illusion that liberal democracies are guided by the “true and good” preferences of the people. Rinse and repeat. A grinding “progress” where none are held to any account in this game of supposedly arbitrary assertion.
2) Again, to be clear, it doesn’t seem that you are actually a moral relativist and are merely playing the role such a frame requires of you. You state that we should be looking at outcome over principles. In fact, you seem to be indicating we ought to be looking for “good governance,” not some systematic schema to place faith in. However, there is a large misunderstanding in how you conceptualize politics in a liberal democracy. In government, corruption and defection pays. Literally. It is exactly this understanding that seems thrown out with some of your appeals to “winning.”
The Left/cuckservatives can cobble together powerful, disparate coalitions because it has no qualms about utilizing precisely this “glue.” Eg. get a donation from and/or place a few high-paying positions at some private company, promote some completely arbitrary reason to give said company subsidy, profit.
In other words, you implore libertarians to dispense with the notions of “individual liberty” (assuming this is what you really mean when saying “principles”) and focus on beating the Left. But if not to obtain the benefits of the aforementioned corruption and defection, for what purpose? If it’s for the purpose of achieving “good government,” you’ve put them in a strange quandary.
How are we to orient ourselves without a non-relativistic understanding? The Left/cuckservatives/globalists don’t face this problem precisely because they orient around Power accumulation and money which works enough for their purposes. Yet you implore these libertarians/right-wing conservatives to take on the moral-relativistic mindset of the Left in order to somehow achieve "good government"? If carried out, where does “acting like” end and the actual embodiment of these liberal principles begin? More importantly, how can this play acting ever cease when the very script states that this arbitrary assertion of preferences repeats itself over and over, ad infitium (“2 steps forward and one step back”).
3) Your rejection of libertarianism is a welcome step forward, but it puts you in a precarious spot. Yes, you’ve likely identified a key aspect (the lack of masculinity) in the formation of a libertarian mindset; but remaining a Classical Liberal is similar to AIDS patient that takes a decongestant after getting a cold and declares himself cured.
TL;DR: You state that Libertarians are getting played by holding stupid political notions. Consider that you are getting played for precisely the reason that you believe the "game" of liberal democratic politics is to achieve good governance.
Before getting into the post, I would appreciate an answer to this question: If Hillary had won, would your optimistic feelings about affecting real change through Liberal politics remain?
Your latest post makes your stance much clearer, but also highlights a couple of issues you may consider. These things are largely related to concepts you are likely familiar with from game but take place at a higher level of resolution.
1) The primary issue is that you are still operating in the classical Liberal’s frame of “equality” and liberal democratic politics. In the “Drug Policy” thread, you state, “I am entitled to my opinion and entitled to affect its pursuance politically.”
It doesn’t actually seem that you are a moral relativist, rather you’re just reduced to acting like that when you’re engaging in politics in a liberal democracy. You seem to recognize this, but consider it the only way to “win” under current circumstance and the “rules of the game.”
Why does this matter? It is exactly what the progressives/Left want to see happening. Your statements about outcomes vs. principles are understandable, but it largely appears what you’re meaning by “principles” is the specific incoherent concept of “individual liberty” that conservatives/libertarians fall back on in their endless screeds against government as “violent oppressor of humanity.” As you state; such an abstract, delimited principle is easily weaponized by enemies who are not delusional enough to hold it.
But why would the Left want you to fight back on their own relativistic terms, even if it results in something like a Trump victory? Because you are reinforcing the frame that is the basis of their power. When you state that you (and by implication every other member of a liberal democracy) are simply “entitled to my opinion and entitled to affect its pursuance politically,” you are re-affirming that politics is and cannot be anything more than (1) a perpetual battle; and (2) the imposition of the arbitrary preferences of whatever coalition happens to control the levers of power.
Additionally, engaging in this frame with the attitude of “win according to this game” results in the engagement of the tactics of the Left, eg. Broad emotional appeals, offer free stuff, compromise and cut deals, and generally poorly thought out “ends justify means” strategy.
You may consider this an example of “Principles over outcomes,” but here’s an alternative perspective. The means used dramatically alters what ends/outcomes are possible. After securing the votes of tens of millions by way of subsidy, can the Left suddenly decide to change this policy? Can the people on these welfare programs suddenly become productive members of the private sector or government? After pushing through things like abortion under emotional appeals of women’s rights, equality, and health, can the Left practically encourage family formation and even replacement level birth rates?
Why do you think the right-wing engagement in these sorts of tactics would actually result in betterment? Or, more precisely; why do you think the right-wing can engage in this tactics, yet obtain different results?
To ask it again; without Trump’s victory, would you still be optimistic about the ability of persuasion and democratic politicking to bring about real change? In the “Migrant” thread, Zelcorpion states: “The dogma of the globalists is never 3 steps forward, but 2 steps forward and one step back, and then the next 2 steps forward.” The argument can easily be made that it is actually a preferable globalist strategy to follow this “2 steps forward and one step back” approach (even if a “3 steps forward” would likely be immediately successful) for reasons such as plausible deniability, scape-goating, and anchoring.
This is precisely the risk that you do not seem to identify; that you are playing exactly the role they need you to play. They push for “progress,” you pull back a bit using their tactics and allow them to consolidate gains, re-form for the next push forward, and anchor the illusion that liberal democracies are guided by the “true and good” preferences of the people. Rinse and repeat. A grinding “progress” where none are held to any account in this game of supposedly arbitrary assertion.
2) Again, to be clear, it doesn’t seem that you are actually a moral relativist and are merely playing the role such a frame requires of you. You state that we should be looking at outcome over principles. In fact, you seem to be indicating we ought to be looking for “good governance,” not some systematic schema to place faith in. However, there is a large misunderstanding in how you conceptualize politics in a liberal democracy. In government, corruption and defection pays. Literally. It is exactly this understanding that seems thrown out with some of your appeals to “winning.”
The Left/cuckservatives can cobble together powerful, disparate coalitions because it has no qualms about utilizing precisely this “glue.” Eg. get a donation from and/or place a few high-paying positions at some private company, promote some completely arbitrary reason to give said company subsidy, profit.
In other words, you implore libertarians to dispense with the notions of “individual liberty” (assuming this is what you really mean when saying “principles”) and focus on beating the Left. But if not to obtain the benefits of the aforementioned corruption and defection, for what purpose? If it’s for the purpose of achieving “good government,” you’ve put them in a strange quandary.
How are we to orient ourselves without a non-relativistic understanding? The Left/cuckservatives/globalists don’t face this problem precisely because they orient around Power accumulation and money which works enough for their purposes. Yet you implore these libertarians/right-wing conservatives to take on the moral-relativistic mindset of the Left in order to somehow achieve "good government"? If carried out, where does “acting like” end and the actual embodiment of these liberal principles begin? More importantly, how can this play acting ever cease when the very script states that this arbitrary assertion of preferences repeats itself over and over, ad infitium (“2 steps forward and one step back”).
3) Your rejection of libertarianism is a welcome step forward, but it puts you in a precarious spot. Yes, you’ve likely identified a key aspect (the lack of masculinity) in the formation of a libertarian mindset; but remaining a Classical Liberal is similar to AIDS patient that takes a decongestant after getting a cold and declares himself cured.
TL;DR: You state that Libertarians are getting played by holding stupid political notions. Consider that you are getting played for precisely the reason that you believe the "game" of liberal democratic politics is to achieve good governance.
Libertarianism is a political philosophy (i.e. a set of ideas regarding the role that government should play in a society).
Libertarianism is not an all-encompassing philosophy for how to live your life.
The problem with libertarianism comes when people start worshipping "freedom" as if it were a god.
In my opinion, there is no problem with wanting minimal government intrusion into the private lives of citizens. The U.S. Founding Fathers believed in minimal government. The Founding Fathers also understood that with freedom comes responsibility. Minimal government only works when you have a moral (ideally religious) populace that understands the concept of hard work and personal responsibility.
There is a problem, however, with people who worship "libertarianism" and "freedom" as if it were a religion. Freedom (i.e. minimal government intrusion) is one of the many pillars of a healthy, prosperous society. It is not the only pillar, however, A society cannot survive and prosper on the idea of "freedom" alone.
If I remember correctly, Jefferson (or maybe it was one of the other Founding Fathers) said something to the effect of "Our Constitution will only work for a moral, hard-working, and religious people." That means that freedom and libertarianism will not work in a degenerate, atheist society (like our current society).
If you try to make libertarianism into an all-encompassing life philosophy, you devolve into libertinism and degeneracy.
Also, you can't have a free country if you don't have a country This means that libertarianism can only be applied domestically, and only to citizens of the country. This is why it is so ridiculous to see so-called "libertarians" advocating for open borders and "rights" for illegal immigrants. Even in a libertarian minimal-government system, the government's job is to establish borders and protect the citizens from invaders.
At this point, the term "libertarianism" has been tainted by the likes of people like Gary Johnson and organizations like Reason Magazine (reason.com). Libertarianism used to mean the political philosophy of Ron Paul (who was considered by some to be "the father of the Tea Party"). Now, libertarianism means gay sex orgies and "weeeeeeeed, man."
Modern libertarianism is a joke.
Libertarianism is not an all-encompassing philosophy for how to live your life.
The problem with libertarianism comes when people start worshipping "freedom" as if it were a god.
In my opinion, there is no problem with wanting minimal government intrusion into the private lives of citizens. The U.S. Founding Fathers believed in minimal government. The Founding Fathers also understood that with freedom comes responsibility. Minimal government only works when you have a moral (ideally religious) populace that understands the concept of hard work and personal responsibility.
There is a problem, however, with people who worship "libertarianism" and "freedom" as if it were a religion. Freedom (i.e. minimal government intrusion) is one of the many pillars of a healthy, prosperous society. It is not the only pillar, however, A society cannot survive and prosper on the idea of "freedom" alone.
If I remember correctly, Jefferson (or maybe it was one of the other Founding Fathers) said something to the effect of "Our Constitution will only work for a moral, hard-working, and religious people." That means that freedom and libertarianism will not work in a degenerate, atheist society (like our current society).
If you try to make libertarianism into an all-encompassing life philosophy, you devolve into libertinism and degeneracy.
Also, you can't have a free country if you don't have a country This means that libertarianism can only be applied domestically, and only to citizens of the country. This is why it is so ridiculous to see so-called "libertarians" advocating for open borders and "rights" for illegal immigrants. Even in a libertarian minimal-government system, the government's job is to establish borders and protect the citizens from invaders.
At this point, the term "libertarianism" has been tainted by the likes of people like Gary Johnson and organizations like Reason Magazine (reason.com). Libertarianism used to mean the political philosophy of Ron Paul (who was considered by some to be "the father of the Tea Party"). Now, libertarianism means gay sex orgies and "weeeeeeeed, man."
Modern libertarianism is a joke.
Quote: (01-13-2017 12:15 PM)Different T Wrote:
If this is not understandable, please indicate that. There are at least some accessible practical “outcome” type issues for you to consider.
Before getting into the post, I would appreciate an answer to this question: If Hillary had won, would your optimistic feelings about affecting real change through Liberal politics remain?
Your latest post makes your stance much clearer, but also highlights a couple of issues you may consider. These things are largely related to concepts you are likely familiar with from game but take place at a higher level of resolution.
1) The primary issue is that you are still operating in the classical Liberal’s frame of “equality” and liberal democratic politics. In the “Drug Policy” thread, you state, “I am entitled to my opinion and entitled to affect its pursuance politically.”
It doesn’t actually seem that you are a moral relativist, rather you’re just reduced to acting like that when you’re engaging in politics in a liberal democracy. You seem to recognize this, but consider it the only way to “win” under current circumstance and the “rules of the game.”
Why does this matter? It is exactly what the progressives/Left want to see happening. Your statements about outcomes vs. principles are understandable, but it largely appears what you’re meaning by “principles” is the specific incoherent concept of “individual liberty” that conservatives/libertarians fall back on in their endless screeds against government as “violent oppressor of humanity.” As you state; such an abstract, delimited principle is easily weaponized by enemies who are not delusional enough to hold it.
But why would the Left want you to fight back on their own relativistic terms, even if it results in something like a Trump victory? Because you are reinforcing the frame that is the basis of their power. When you state that you (and by implication every other member of a liberal democracy) are simply “entitled to my opinion and entitled to affect its pursuance politically,” you are re-affirming that politics is and cannot be anything more than (1) a perpetual battle; and (2) the imposition of the arbitrary preferences of whatever coalition happens to control the levers of power.
Additionally, engaging in this frame with the attitude of “win according to this game” results in the engagement of the tactics of the Left, eg. Broad emotional appeals, offer free stuff, compromise and cut deals, and generally poorly thought out “ends justify means” strategy.
You may consider this an example of “Principles over outcomes,” but here’s an alternative perspective. The means used dramatically alters what ends/outcomes are possible. After securing the votes of tens of millions by way of subsidy, can the Left suddenly decide to change this policy? Can the people on these welfare programs suddenly become productive members of the private sector or government? After pushing through things like abortion under emotional appeals of women’s rights, equality, and health, can the Left practically encourage family formation and even replacement level birth rates?
Why do you think the right-wing engagement in these sorts of tactics would actually result in betterment? Or, more precisely; why do you think the right-wing can engage in this tactics, yet obtain different results?
To ask it again; without Trump’s victory, would you still be optimistic about the ability of persuasion and democratic politicking to bring about real change? In the “Migrant” thread, Zelcorpion states: “The dogma of the globalists is never 3 steps forward, but 2 steps forward and one step back, and then the next 2 steps forward.” The argument can easily be made that it is actually a preferable globalist strategy to follow this “2 steps forward and one step back” approach (even if a “3 steps forward” would likely be immediately successful) for reasons such as plausible deniability, scape-goating, and anchoring.
This is precisely the risk that you do not seem to identify; that you are playing exactly the role they need you to play. They push for “progress,” you pull back a bit using their tactics and allow them to consolidate gains, re-form for the next push forward, and anchor the illusion that liberal democracies are guided by the “true and good” preferences of the people. Rinse and repeat. A grinding “progress” where none are held to any account in this game of supposedly arbitrary assertion.
2) Again, to be clear, it doesn’t seem that you are actually a moral relativist and are merely playing the role such a frame requires of you. You state that we should be looking at outcome over principles. In fact, you seem to be indicating we ought to be looking for “good governance,” not some systematic schema to place faith in. However, there is a large misunderstanding in how you conceptualize politics in a liberal democracy. In government, corruption and defection pays. Literally. It is exactly this understanding that seems thrown out with some of your appeals to “winning.”
The Left/cuckservatives can cobble together powerful, disparate coalitions because it has no qualms about utilizing precisely this “glue.” Eg. get a donation from and/or place a few high-paying positions at some private company, promote some completely arbitrary reason to give said company subsidy, profit.
In other words, you implore libertarians to dispense with the notions of “individual liberty” (assuming this is what you really mean when saying “principles”) and focus on beating the Left. But if not to obtain the benefits of the aforementioned corruption and defection, for what purpose? If it’s for the purpose of achieving “good government,” you’ve put them in a strange quandary.
How are we to orient ourselves without a non-relativistic understanding? The Left/cuckservatives/globalists don’t face this problem precisely because they orient around Power accumulation and money which works enough for their purposes. Yet you implore these libertarians/right-wing conservatives to take on the moral-relativistic mindset of the Left in order to somehow achieve "good government"? If carried out, where does “acting like” end and the actual embodiment of these liberal principles begin? More importantly, how can this play acting ever cease when the very script states that this arbitrary assertion of preferences repeats itself over and over, ad infitium (“2 steps forward and one step back”).
3) Your rejection of libertarianism is a welcome step forward, but it puts you in a precarious spot. Yes, you’ve likely identified a key aspect (the lack of masculinity) in the formation of a libertarian mindset; but remaining a Classical Liberal is similar to AIDS patient that takes a decongestant after getting a cold and declares himself cured.
TL;DR: You state that Libertarians are getting played by holding stupid political notions. Consider that you are getting played for precisely the reason that you believe the "game" of liberal democratic politics is to achieve good governance.
Perhaps I'm being dense but I'm still waiting for the punchline. Power is real, so is the damage caused by it. If there is a way to absolve is of this by all means...
Quote: (01-11-2017 02:52 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:
We may not have been asked if we wanted gay-pride parades, but did we say stand up and say "no" in numbers large enough to matter, or did we quietly slink away and say "to each their own"?
That's just it. We did say "no". As recently as 2008 here in super liberal California, we voted to uphold the ban on gay marriage.
Then two years later the supreme court overturned Prop 8 as unconstitutional, much to the glee of shitlibs everywhere. Fast forward a few years later and you have the federal law mandating gay marriage by the same means.
In effect, the leftists (lets call them what they are, communists / totalitarians) have to give their constituents, via the court systems, what they can't (yet) get at the ballot box.
Where this applies to the argument against libertarianism, I don't really know. But it's worth mentioning. Though this is more of a symptom of cultural decay reaching the highest levels of the government which is it's own can of worms.
"Does PUA say that I just need to get to f-close base first here and some weird chemicals will be released in her brain to make her a better person?"
-Wonitis
Quote: (01-13-2017 12:15 PM)Different T Wrote:
If this is not understandable, please indicate that. There are at least some accessible practical “outcome” type issues for you to consider.
Before getting into the post, I would appreciate an answer to this question: If Hillary had won, would your optimistic feelings about affecting real change through Liberal politics remain?
...
I wont quote your entire post because my reply will be short (thought not to be taken as dismissive).
It's notable that you didn't reference cultural cohesion once in that entire appeal not to throw the metaphorical baby out with the bathwater.
We could engage in paralysis by analysis all day long about what the elites want us to do. The fact is that we cannot say for certain one way or another. What's plainly obvious is that if we keep doing the same thing we've done for the last 50+ years then we will get the same outcomes we've gotten for the last 50+ years.
"Do whatever you want as long as you don't bother me", is not a cultural flag anyone is going to fight and die for, much less risk their jobs or clean criminal records for. This is the reason I'm honestly starting to think that the constant drip feed of "they died for our freedom" verges on (((psyop propaganda))). The soldiers that went over to lay waste to the Taliban after 911 were not there to protect anyone's freedom. They were there to smash the people that had harmed their nation and their fellow citizens.
Nobody was rallying to "freedom". They were rallying to their nation's aid. "Freedom" was the first casualty when the Patriot Act arrived and nobody was fighting and dying on the opposite side of that battle. And I'm not even going to get into a debate about whether that act was right or wrong. I'm only making the point that nobody about to run into machine gun fire is shouting "FOR THE FIRST AMENDMENT!"
So I'll come back to my first point about your post.
It's notable that you didn't reference cultural cohesion once in that entire appeal not to throw the metaphorical baby out with the bathwater.
Tell me then. Between the individuals with high principles and the culturally cohesive citizens with camaraderie, who will win?
Morality to the exclusion of practicality. If you want, I'll have it etched on your tombstone.
p.s. If Hillary had won then I would be spending a lot less time on the internet and a lot more time at the shooting range. Trump's victory has only given us four guaranteed years to smash the foundations of the left and build genuine cultural fortifications that can rallied to and protected, but if we obsess over first-principles instead then we are doomed to failure.
The public will judge a man by what he lifts, but those close to him will judge him by what he carries.
Just to be clear, here's the point by point breakdown.
I'm not sure what you means by "liberal politics". Are you referring to democracy? Also I'm not sure why you paint my point of view as "optimistic". It's not. We in the West have been given an incredible gift in the form of Brexit and Trump. This will give us some breathing room to come together and square up for what looks like a bloody battle to come.
If I am optimistic it is only the optimism of someone who now has a chance where once it seemed like they had none.
If Hillary had won then I would have abandoned all pretence of civility and prepared to fight the globalists by all means, legal and otherwise.
I see only what has or has not worked in the past, and what definitely will not work in the future. "Affecting the pursuance of my politics" is not limited to voting. It's not even necessarily limited to lawful means, and to any such degree that the left has outlawed what I believe to be legitimate means to resist their advances then I will carefully ignore said laws.
No offence but you need to get your head out of the clouds. Politics has always been war by other means, and war has always been politics by other means. Survival is the will to power. We started losing when we lost sight of that fundamental truth. We can no more lean on a mythical right to non-aggression than the water buffalo can lean on a mythical right not to be the victim of aggression from lions. You dominate or you will be dominated. That is the natural order, which is likely why academics can't comprehend it.
That's incorrect. Those are appeals to weak people where the powerbrokers of the left are trying to drag large numbers of fundamentally pathetic political groups under one umbrella for the purposes of political warfare. Traditional family units and patriarchal patriots require no such cat-herding.
This is premised on the assumption that we can only win by fundamentally altering who we are. Untrue for the reason listed above.
Not relevant now. Trump won. "What if"s are a waste of time. You might as well ask a quarterback what play he would have chosen if the 40 yard pass he just made wasn't successful. He doesn't care. He's thinking about the next play.
The feckless LGBTQWERTY freaks are crying in their safe spaces and the elite media are flailing wildly in the dark. This is because Trump tossed out the conservative rulebook and went with what would get gains. To suggest that this total rout of the enemy is "playing into their hands" borders on being completely absurd. You are again blinded by a view of the world that seems to revolve entirely around principles. Trump tears up the TPP. The globalists scream, cry and tear out their hair. And you would have us believe that this is a loss because we have abandoned the principle of free and open markets? Trump (please, God) defunds sanctuary cities and restores the balance of the vote to the right. The illegals cry, go home, and Trump gets another 4 years to make gains. And you would see this as what? An abandonment of the principle of federal non-intervention in state issues?
This is why the right has been getting it's ass kicked for 50 or more years. Every time the left gets power it weaponises the federal government and floods the nation with illegals. Every time the right gets power it digs through it's thousands of first-principles and finds that there's nothing they can do about any of it that won't compromise their lofty ideals. Oftentimes this is largely driven by playing on the heartstrings of a treacherously perverted take on Christianity that holds to the sole commandment of "Thou shalt not resist while everyone else fucks you in the ass".
Your analogy of two steps forward and one step back seem to rest on the principle that it's morally correct to suffer the left taking two steps forward and when your turn comes around you simply stand still and hope everyone realises what great guys you are before flocking to your cause. How's that non-aggression working out for you? Catching on yet?
I intend to start taking two steps backward and making the left stand still.
That's why this American election has been so important. It flushed out many of the traitors in the so-called conservative party who revealed themselves to be conserving little more than their petty, dying fiefdoms. It revealed to the little man that the two party system was acting more like a one party system. Not only did Trump win, but he revealed many of the traitors and will continue to do so. And he did it by tossing out all of the precious principles surrounding cuck Republican politics, the party of codified surrender and contrition.
I'm not imploring libertarians to do anything. I just said that their attitude of full societal MGTOW (as RoR put it) was weak and unmanly, as was mine when I subscribed to those ideals. I'll gladly trade the hetero-normative patriotic nuclear families on the Democrat side for all of the "stop bothering me" crowd on the right. The numbers are more than favourable.
Traditionalism is more of an orientation than so called "conservative principles" ever was, the latter still being debated by flaccid, pasty suits to this second.
Unless you're suggesting some OTHER change of pace that would alter the momentum of the West then you're only arguing for the same rate of failure we have experienced over the last 50 years.
So let me ask YOU a hypothetical. If that principled and likeable but impotent fellow Romney had run for president instead of Trump, what position do you think we would be in?
For bonus points, if Hillary had been caught with Huma between her legs and Romney miraculously won, where do you think America would be in 4 years and (with an inconceivable second term) 8 years respectively?
Quote: (01-13-2017 12:15 PM)Different T Wrote:
If this is not understandable, please indicate that. There are at least some accessible practical “outcome” type issues for you to consider.
Before getting into the post, I would appreciate an answer to this question: If Hillary had won, would your optimistic feelings about affecting real change through Liberal politics remain?
I'm not sure what you means by "liberal politics". Are you referring to democracy? Also I'm not sure why you paint my point of view as "optimistic". It's not. We in the West have been given an incredible gift in the form of Brexit and Trump. This will give us some breathing room to come together and square up for what looks like a bloody battle to come.
If I am optimistic it is only the optimism of someone who now has a chance where once it seemed like they had none.
If Hillary had won then I would have abandoned all pretence of civility and prepared to fight the globalists by all means, legal and otherwise.
Quote:Quote:
Your latest post makes your stance much clearer, but also highlights a couple of issues you may consider. These things are largely related to concepts you are likely familiar with from game but take place at a higher level of resolution.
1) The primary issue is that you are still operating in the classical Liberal’s frame of “equality” and liberal democratic politics. In the “Drug Policy” thread, you state, “I am entitled to my opinion and entitled to affect its pursuance politically.”
It doesn’t actually seem that you are a moral relativist, rather you’re just reduced to acting like that when you’re engaging in politics in a liberal democracy. You seem to recognize this, but consider it the only way to “win” under current circumstance and the “rules of the game.”
I see only what has or has not worked in the past, and what definitely will not work in the future. "Affecting the pursuance of my politics" is not limited to voting. It's not even necessarily limited to lawful means, and to any such degree that the left has outlawed what I believe to be legitimate means to resist their advances then I will carefully ignore said laws.
Quote:Quote:
Why does this matter? It is exactly what the progressives/Left want to see happening. Your statements about outcomes vs. principles are understandable, but it largely appears what you’re meaning by “principles” is the specific incoherent concept of “individual liberty” that conservatives/libertarians fall back on in their endless screeds against government as “violent oppressor of humanity.” As you state; such an abstract, delimited principle is easily weaponized by enemies who are not delusional enough to hold it.
But why would the Left want you to fight back on their own relativistic terms, even if it results in something like a Trump victory? Because you are reinforcing the frame that is the basis of their power. When you state that you (and by implication every other member of a liberal democracy) are simply “entitled to my opinion and entitled to affect its pursuance politically,” you are re-affirming that politics is and cannot be anything more than (1) a perpetual battle; and (2) the imposition of the arbitrary preferences of whatever coalition happens to control the levers of power.
No offence but you need to get your head out of the clouds. Politics has always been war by other means, and war has always been politics by other means. Survival is the will to power. We started losing when we lost sight of that fundamental truth. We can no more lean on a mythical right to non-aggression than the water buffalo can lean on a mythical right not to be the victim of aggression from lions. You dominate or you will be dominated. That is the natural order, which is likely why academics can't comprehend it.
Quote:Quote:
Additionally, engaging in this frame with the attitude of “win according to this game” results in the engagement of the tactics of the Left, eg. Broad emotional appeals, offer free stuff, compromise and cut deals, and generally poorly thought out “ends justify means” strategy.
That's incorrect. Those are appeals to weak people where the powerbrokers of the left are trying to drag large numbers of fundamentally pathetic political groups under one umbrella for the purposes of political warfare. Traditional family units and patriarchal patriots require no such cat-herding.
Quote:Quote:
You may consider this an example of “Principles over outcomes,” but here’s an alternative perspective. The means used dramatically alters what ends/outcomes are possible. After securing the votes of tens of millions by way of subsidy, can the Left suddenly decide to change this policy? Can the people on these welfare programs suddenly become productive members of the private sector or government? After pushing through things like abortion under emotional appeals of women’s rights, equality, and health, can the Left practically encourage family formation and even replacement level birth rates?
Why do you think the right-wing engagement in these sorts of tactics would actually result in betterment? Or, more precisely; why do you think the right-wing can engage in this tactics, yet obtain different results?
This is premised on the assumption that we can only win by fundamentally altering who we are. Untrue for the reason listed above.
Quote:Quote:
To ask it again; without Trump’s victory, would you still be optimistic about the ability of persuasion and democratic politicking to bring about real change? In the “Migrant” thread, Zelcorpion states: “The dogma of the globalists is never 3 steps forward, but 2 steps forward and one step back, and then the next 2 steps forward.” The argument can easily be made that it is actually a preferable globalist strategy to follow this “2 steps forward and one step back” approach (even if a “3 steps forward” would likely be immediately successful) for reasons such as plausible deniability, scape-goating, and anchoring.
Not relevant now. Trump won. "What if"s are a waste of time. You might as well ask a quarterback what play he would have chosen if the 40 yard pass he just made wasn't successful. He doesn't care. He's thinking about the next play.
Quote:Quote:
This is precisely the risk that you do not seem to identify; that you are playing exactly the role they need you to play. They push for “progress,” you pull back a bit using their tactics and allow them to consolidate gains, re-form for the next push forward, and anchor the illusion that liberal democracies are guided by the “true and good” preferences of the people. Rinse and repeat. A grinding “progress” where none are held to any account in this game of supposedly arbitrary assertion.
The feckless LGBTQWERTY freaks are crying in their safe spaces and the elite media are flailing wildly in the dark. This is because Trump tossed out the conservative rulebook and went with what would get gains. To suggest that this total rout of the enemy is "playing into their hands" borders on being completely absurd. You are again blinded by a view of the world that seems to revolve entirely around principles. Trump tears up the TPP. The globalists scream, cry and tear out their hair. And you would have us believe that this is a loss because we have abandoned the principle of free and open markets? Trump (please, God) defunds sanctuary cities and restores the balance of the vote to the right. The illegals cry, go home, and Trump gets another 4 years to make gains. And you would see this as what? An abandonment of the principle of federal non-intervention in state issues?
This is why the right has been getting it's ass kicked for 50 or more years. Every time the left gets power it weaponises the federal government and floods the nation with illegals. Every time the right gets power it digs through it's thousands of first-principles and finds that there's nothing they can do about any of it that won't compromise their lofty ideals. Oftentimes this is largely driven by playing on the heartstrings of a treacherously perverted take on Christianity that holds to the sole commandment of "Thou shalt not resist while everyone else fucks you in the ass".
Your analogy of two steps forward and one step back seem to rest on the principle that it's morally correct to suffer the left taking two steps forward and when your turn comes around you simply stand still and hope everyone realises what great guys you are before flocking to your cause. How's that non-aggression working out for you? Catching on yet?
I intend to start taking two steps backward and making the left stand still.
Quote:Quote:
2) Again, to be clear, it doesn’t seem that you are actually a moral relativist and are merely playing the role such a frame requires of you. You state that we should be looking at outcome over principles. In fact, you seem to be indicating we ought to be looking for “good governance,” not some systematic schema to place faith in. However, there is a large misunderstanding in how you conceptualize politics in a liberal democracy. In government, corruption and defection pays. Literally. It is exactly this understanding that seems thrown out with some of your appeals to “winning.”
That's why this American election has been so important. It flushed out many of the traitors in the so-called conservative party who revealed themselves to be conserving little more than their petty, dying fiefdoms. It revealed to the little man that the two party system was acting more like a one party system. Not only did Trump win, but he revealed many of the traitors and will continue to do so. And he did it by tossing out all of the precious principles surrounding cuck Republican politics, the party of codified surrender and contrition.
Quote:Quote:
The Left/cuckservatives can cobble together powerful, disparate coalitions because it has no qualms about utilizing precisely this “glue.” Eg. get a donation from and/or place a few high-paying positions at some private company, promote some completely arbitrary reason to give said company subsidy, profit.
In other words, you implore libertarians to dispense with the notions of “individual liberty” (assuming this is what you really mean when saying “principles”) and focus on beating the Left. But if not to obtain the benefits of the aforementioned corruption and defection, for what purpose? If it’s for the purpose of achieving “good government,” you’ve put them in a strange quandary.
I'm not imploring libertarians to do anything. I just said that their attitude of full societal MGTOW (as RoR put it) was weak and unmanly, as was mine when I subscribed to those ideals. I'll gladly trade the hetero-normative patriotic nuclear families on the Democrat side for all of the "stop bothering me" crowd on the right. The numbers are more than favourable.
Quote:Quote:
How are we to orient ourselves without a non-relativistic understanding? The Left/cuckservatives/globalists don’t face this problem precisely because they orient around Power accumulation and money which works enough for their purposes. Yet you implore these libertarians/right-wing conservatives to take on the moral-relativistic mindset of the Left in order to somehow achieve "good government"? If carried out, where does “acting like” end and the actual embodiment of these liberal principles begin? More importantly, how can this play acting ever cease when the very script states that this arbitrary assertion of preferences repeats itself over and over, ad infitium (“2 steps forward and one step back”).
Traditionalism is more of an orientation than so called "conservative principles" ever was, the latter still being debated by flaccid, pasty suits to this second.
Quote:Quote:
3) Your rejection of libertarianism is a welcome step forward, but it puts you in a precarious spot. Yes, you’ve likely identified a key aspect (the lack of masculinity) in the formation of a libertarian mindset; but remaining a Classical Liberal is similar to AIDS patient that takes a decongestant after getting a cold and declares himself cured.
TL;DR: You state that Libertarians are getting played by holding stupid political notions. Consider that you are getting played for precisely the reason that you believe the "game" of liberal democratic politics is to achieve good governance.
Unless you're suggesting some OTHER change of pace that would alter the momentum of the West then you're only arguing for the same rate of failure we have experienced over the last 50 years.
So let me ask YOU a hypothetical. If that principled and likeable but impotent fellow Romney had run for president instead of Trump, what position do you think we would be in?
For bonus points, if Hillary had been caught with Huma between her legs and Romney miraculously won, where do you think America would be in 4 years and (with an inconceivable second term) 8 years respectively?
The public will judge a man by what he lifts, but those close to him will judge him by what he carries.
Thanks, Leonard.
Seems he would have lost by a lot. Any republican besides Trump seems like they would have lost by a lot.
Likely a lot more similar to what a next 4 or 8 years of Hillary would have looked like.
Quote:Quote:
If that principled and likeable but impotent fellow Romney had run for president instead of Trump, what position do you think we would be in?
Seems he would have lost by a lot. Any republican besides Trump seems like they would have lost by a lot.
Quote:Quote:
if Hillary had been caught with Huma between her legs and Romney miraculously won, where do you think America would be in 4 years and (with an inconceivable second term) 8 years respectively
Likely a lot more similar to what a next 4 or 8 years of Hillary would have looked like.
Thankyou for your honest answer.
Trump = outcomes over principles.
Trump = outcomes over principles.
The public will judge a man by what he lifts, but those close to him will judge him by what he carries.
This debate shows why it's good for libertarians to stay principled rather than moderate their positions to appeal to the masses. It ends up being self-defeating every time (as in the case of the Gary Johnson nomination), because people confuse what libertarianism stands for with the watered-down Libertarianism offered by America's best-organized third party. Especially during a time when people are ready for political and cultural change, it doesn't make sense for a radical movement to disavow or downplay its more controversial stances in order to be more accessible to the general public.
Anarcho-capitalism, the purest form of libertarianism, could be considered nationalism on steroids, because it would theoretically allow every landowner to start his own country. Far from advocating a borderless world, it would allow every landowner to set absolute limits on what can cross into his property (thus, for example, a landlord would not be forced to allow blacks equal opportunity to become tenants, if he didn't want to; he could deny them entry, just as the U.S. can discriminate against certain countries in its visa-granting policies).
However, the landowner has the responsibility to provide for his own protection (e.g. by raising his own military forces, or paying a private defense agency, or having powerful friends). So, being able to actually remain independent comes down to having money, which requires being the most efficient capitalist. This isn't that different than the situation we have now, with sovereign nation-states; the countries that mess up their economies through bad policies (e.g. by provoking their most productive geniuses to emigrate) end up not being able to afford a military that can defend them from external attack.
The difference between anarcho-capitalism and a system like neomasculine nationalism, is that anarcho-capitalism explicitly leaves more room for political power to be transferred through economic transactions. E.g., if you think your son wouldn't make a good ruler, you don't have to pass the kingdom down to him; you can just sell the kingdom to some megacorp specializing in acquiring and managing kingdoms, and give your son the money, or donate it to a worthy charity, or invest it in stocks. So, power can be transferred to the best rulers without the need for bloodshed, or for an inefficient system like democracy that lends itself to a lot of rent seeking behavior.
Democracy hasn't worked out too well, so some in the manosphere seem to want to revert to the feudalism or absolute monarchies that preceded it, but the market remains the most efficient system known to man for allocating resources in ways that well best satisfy human wants. James Buchanan won the Nobel prize for his public choice theory that showed that economic principles apply to politics just as much as they apply to other fields of human endeavor. Anarcho-capitalism is a form of democracy too, but it's consumer (and investor) democracy, where people vote with their dollars, and therefore those who have demonstrated good business sense in the past are more likely to be in a position to be able to cast multiple votes. Therefore, it's a meritocratic system.
In any case, if you are in a period of transitioning from one philosophy to another, or have recently made the switch, it can be helpful to write up a manifesto laying out everything comprehensively, so that it can be used as a tool for outreach, and so that any contradictions or other flaws can be more readily identified. It's definitely a useful way to achieve clarity of thought. I've written several such manifestos, and can now look back and say, "x, y, and z are the reasons why I no longer agree with this," and also I can remember the objections (many of which I now agree with) that others raised when I showed them the manifestos.
I'm not even entirely sure that there's any contradiction between libertarianism and patriarchal systems in which the daughter is the father's property till he marries her off to someone. Libertarianism holds that "man has rights because they are natural rights. They are grounded in the nature of man: the individual man's capacity for conscious choice, the necessity for him to use his mind and energy to adopt goals and values, to find out about the world, to pursue his ends in order to survive and prosper, his capacity and need to communicate and interact with other human beings and to participate in the division of labor."
A creature so emotional as to not possess these characteristics, would be considered not a man (because she could not function in society as a man could), and therefore could be treated by the man who produced her as his property. As a practical matter, she would be unable to look after herself, and would be in need of a caregiver, much as animals are.
Anarcho-capitalism, the purest form of libertarianism, could be considered nationalism on steroids, because it would theoretically allow every landowner to start his own country. Far from advocating a borderless world, it would allow every landowner to set absolute limits on what can cross into his property (thus, for example, a landlord would not be forced to allow blacks equal opportunity to become tenants, if he didn't want to; he could deny them entry, just as the U.S. can discriminate against certain countries in its visa-granting policies).
However, the landowner has the responsibility to provide for his own protection (e.g. by raising his own military forces, or paying a private defense agency, or having powerful friends). So, being able to actually remain independent comes down to having money, which requires being the most efficient capitalist. This isn't that different than the situation we have now, with sovereign nation-states; the countries that mess up their economies through bad policies (e.g. by provoking their most productive geniuses to emigrate) end up not being able to afford a military that can defend them from external attack.
The difference between anarcho-capitalism and a system like neomasculine nationalism, is that anarcho-capitalism explicitly leaves more room for political power to be transferred through economic transactions. E.g., if you think your son wouldn't make a good ruler, you don't have to pass the kingdom down to him; you can just sell the kingdom to some megacorp specializing in acquiring and managing kingdoms, and give your son the money, or donate it to a worthy charity, or invest it in stocks. So, power can be transferred to the best rulers without the need for bloodshed, or for an inefficient system like democracy that lends itself to a lot of rent seeking behavior.
Democracy hasn't worked out too well, so some in the manosphere seem to want to revert to the feudalism or absolute monarchies that preceded it, but the market remains the most efficient system known to man for allocating resources in ways that well best satisfy human wants. James Buchanan won the Nobel prize for his public choice theory that showed that economic principles apply to politics just as much as they apply to other fields of human endeavor. Anarcho-capitalism is a form of democracy too, but it's consumer (and investor) democracy, where people vote with their dollars, and therefore those who have demonstrated good business sense in the past are more likely to be in a position to be able to cast multiple votes. Therefore, it's a meritocratic system.
In any case, if you are in a period of transitioning from one philosophy to another, or have recently made the switch, it can be helpful to write up a manifesto laying out everything comprehensively, so that it can be used as a tool for outreach, and so that any contradictions or other flaws can be more readily identified. It's definitely a useful way to achieve clarity of thought. I've written several such manifestos, and can now look back and say, "x, y, and z are the reasons why I no longer agree with this," and also I can remember the objections (many of which I now agree with) that others raised when I showed them the manifestos.
I'm not even entirely sure that there's any contradiction between libertarianism and patriarchal systems in which the daughter is the father's property till he marries her off to someone. Libertarianism holds that "man has rights because they are natural rights. They are grounded in the nature of man: the individual man's capacity for conscious choice, the necessity for him to use his mind and energy to adopt goals and values, to find out about the world, to pursue his ends in order to survive and prosper, his capacity and need to communicate and interact with other human beings and to participate in the division of labor."
A creature so emotional as to not possess these characteristics, would be considered not a man (because she could not function in society as a man could), and therefore could be treated by the man who produced her as his property. As a practical matter, she would be unable to look after herself, and would be in need of a caregiver, much as animals are.
Quote: (01-15-2017 11:49 AM)Jean Valjean Wrote:
I'm not even entirely sure that there's any contradiction between libertarianism and patriarchal systems in which the daughter is the father's property till he marries her off to someone. Libertarianism holds that "man has rights because they are natural rights. They are grounded in the nature of man: the individual man's capacity for conscious choice, the necessity for him to use his mind and energy to adopt goals and values, to find out about the world, to pursue his ends in order to survive and prosper, his capacity and need to communicate and interact with other human beings and to participate in the division of labor."
A creature so emotional as to not possess these characteristics, would be considered not a man (because she could not function in society as a man could), and therefore could be treated by the man who produced her as his property. As a practical matter, she would be unable to look after herself, and would be in need of a caregiver, much as animals are.
This is the same rationale men used to justify slavery. You do realize that man, as used in that passage, refers to both men and women, right? Libertarianism contradicts "patriarchal systems" precisely because it holds Man as autonomous beings. Women may not possess these characteristics to the degree that men do, but to simply say that they do not possess these characteristics at all is absurd.
Quote: (01-13-2017 02:27 PM)Rob Banks Wrote:
If I remember correctly, Jefferson (or maybe it was one of the other Founding Fathers) said something to the effect of "Our Constitution will only work for a moral, hard-working, and religious people." That means that freedom and libertarianism will not work in a degenerate, atheist society (like our current society).
That's pretty key. The rational, "classical liberal", approach to government works only with the right culture and a relatively well-educated and informed population. Subversion of education, news media, and entertainment media by the left has undermined that in the US.
Subversion and control of those industries is made easier by the fact that, let's face it, most logical types opt for industries like manufacturing, technology ... hard sciences ... and tend to leave the social stuff in the hands of the less logical and more emotional types. We all used to just snigger at the art history and women's studies majors ... guess what ... while we were focused on business and technology, they've all been focused on taking control of society. They own culture, media, education and government.
Democracy also worked better before women's suffrage. It made sense for the head of the household to cast a vote for the household. Women voting meant the ability of the left to use wives votes to neutralize their husbands vote, among other things. Husbands and wives should never be on different sides in politics.
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)