[Leonard D Neubache]

This is something I've been thinking about for a few days. It emerged from the debate over in the Drug Policy Thread where Ghost Tiger put the dagger in the last vestiges of my libertarianism with a stalwart appeal to paternal protectionism being valued over pie-in-the-sky ideals.

The blow-by-blow death of my belief in libertarianism has been the acceptance that by definition outcomes trump principles. Some would argue that solid principles will lead to better outcomes, but where those principles are impossible to enforce they are irrelevant.

Libertarianism as a whole it seems to me is therefore irrelevant.

So where does masculinity fit in?

Well I got to thinking "where did my love of libertarianism spring from" and when I dug deeply and honestly I realised something personally profound. That I had surrendered all paternal control of my society and fallen back to a position where I demanded everyone else behave as weakly as I was".

That's correct. In my society where all people are granted rights while being simultaneously bound by mutual obligations, I had become so disenfranchised, so disempowered and emasculated that I had relinquished all engagement. I had effectively pushed away from the table and said "I don't want to play any more".

Laughable in hindsight. Society is not going to let me play by different rules and widespread libertarianism exists only in the fevered dreams of socially reclusive hermits. I was in effect relinquishing power while failing to free myself of the burdens associated with my citizenship. All of the calories and none of the taste.

How did this come about?

For those of us that are any combination of white, male and heterosexual, we are effectively told that we effortlessly garner the fruits of society whether we realise it or not, and as such nobody is interested in hearing our demands much less considering them. We are in effect told that we have so many rights and so few obligations that we really ought to simply shut up and be grateful.

And this is where we come back full circle to Ghost Tiger's stalwart appeal to paternal protectionism. He realises that his child's life is his responsibility, and when forced to choose between pie-in-the-sky principles and keeping a firm hand the rudder of his community, his state and his nation he unapologetically chooses the latter, no matter how un-progressive it might be.

He does not foolishly relinquish his power in a futile attempt to disengage.

And that, my friends, is masculinity.

I therefore put it to you all that the resurgence in libertarianism is born of emasculated men demanding full disengagement from their societies when the truth is that they need to sack up like Trump did and fight to get their hands back on the rudder! There is no society without patriarchy. There is no civilisation without patriarchy. We are completely entitled to demand how we want our societies to function, who we want to be a part of them, and on what conditions. In the protection of our prosperity and the future of our children we do not need to dance around the supposed rights of saboteurs and civilisational assassins. We are not required to put the well being of human trash before that of our sons and daughters. Unapologetically we should chart a course forward for out own betterment and the betterment of our nations, taking full control to that and end.

And to hell with all of the screaming degenerates who want to get in the way.

Put them through the props, never look back, and never apologise for it.

[TooFineAPoint]

Perhaps you are projecting a bit.

At any rate, to be clear on what you are saying, is it that:

A. your new direction is not guided by any new principles?
and
B. patriarchy is only enforceable/effective via state fiat?

So we can find a common point of understanding, let's start with the Wikipedia definition of libertarianism -- "Libertarians seek to maximize autonomy and freedom of choice, emphasizing the value of political freedom, voluntary association, and the importance of individual judgment."

It sounds like you define it more as non-participation in politics with a soupcon of libertinism (the rejection of any restraints on morals or social behavior).

[Ghost Tiger]

Poetry my friend.

Not gonna lie... I got a little misty reading it.

Bloody well done sir. You are a talented writer and philosopher. You are a warrior poet.

As my good friend Lothario likes to say, we here on this forum truly are the last 300 men left in Sparta.

Yes I know, I know... they died. But so what? You wanna live forever?

[Leonard D Neubache]

(01-10-2017 09:10 AM)TooFineAPoint Wrote:  

Perhaps you are projecting a bit.

At any rate, to be clear on what you are saying, is it that:

A. your new direction is not guided by any new principles?
and
B. patriarchy is only enforceable/effective via state fiat?

So we can find a common point of understanding, let's start with the Wikipedia definition of libertarianism -- "Libertarians seek to maximize autonomy and freedom of choice, emphasizing the value of political freedom, voluntary association, and the importance of individual judgment."

It sounds like you define it more as non-participation in politics with a soupcon of libertinism (the rejection of any restraints on morals or social behavior).

Regardless of how wikipedia defines it, my only experience with Libertarians has been "no rules at all, for anyone, ever." But worse, there seems to be among them an extreme focus on decrying all obligations to society while claiming an infinite number of rights to be protected apparently by some sort of imaginary divine good will between all men.

I stand to be corrected on that. I understand guys like Ron Paul aren't full retard anarchists but the realities of what they're suggesting certainly lead there. No borders? You might as well break out the white body paint and the up-armoured semi-trailers.

edit: long answer, and I apologise for excessive editing. I need to get some sleep.

A) As I alluded to in the post, principles are ideas but outcomes are realities. I could build a system of principles, but to what end if they led to outcomes that were far removed from the ones I wanted? Americans in theory have the right to bear arms. A fine principle. You might note that the amendment mentions nothing about arms being forbidden to paroled felons previously convicted of armed robbery. Where do your principles stand when the rubber hits the road?
So I suppose I only have one guiding principle. Do what's right and suffer the least evil you must. Codifying that into specifics merely shackles you with logic traps.

B) Civilisation is only possible through state. Patriarchy is essentially a very small state and can exist without a larger state, but civilisation as we know it cannot. The perpetually warring tribes of our ancient ancestors would be evidence enough of that, as would current day Afghanistan.

last edit: Libertarianism and patriarchy are mutually exclusive. If the state (minimal as it is under such a libertarian arrangement) can use it's minimal powers to strip you for example of your fatherly right to control your daughter's behaviour before she demonstrates adult capacity then she will exercise her libertarian right at age 16/18 to do as she pleases and you will set your society down the path that has led us to where we are today.
Appeals to "you should have raised her right" are irrelevant. A society that places the rights of the individual above the responsibilities of the family unit will always devolve into a formless slush of moral relativism.

[Ghost Tiger]

(01-10-2017 09:10 AM)TooFineAPoint Wrote:  

Perhaps you are projecting a bit.

Oh here we go... enter the FILM guy who always wants to make it about PROJECTING.

MERYL STREEP IS A MALIGNANT CUNT!!!

[Ghost Tiger]

(01-10-2017 09:16 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

Regardless of how wikipedia defines it

Fuck Wikipedia!

INFOGALACTIC PLANETARY, PLANETARY INFOGALACTIC

[MOVSM]

Libertarianism is irrelevant NOW. But that is wrong. Libertarianism and conservatism are made for each other, if you ask me. The two should really cooperate instead of competing.

Here's what I mean--libertarianism without conservatism is a useless academic debate.
Conservatism without libertarianism is a stagnant pretentiousness. Conservatism can only conserve what it already has. And it's been failing at that for the last century at least.

Take for example, subsidies. An abomination for libertarians. But when American airlines that receive no subsidies have to compete against Arab airlines that do, in national interest conservatism must step in to solve the problem.

Thus libertarianism becomes the way forward for conservatism, which corrects libertarianism's shortcomings.

Best example of that cooperation is US Constitution.


That said, I moved toward conservatism during this election because I cannot stand the people in libertarian party.

[Different T]

(This post seems as much a “Deep Forum” as “Politics” post, so let’s discount the lack of 250 posts maybe?)

This is a pretty surprising and welcome post to see on this board.

Pretty funny that it took less than 5 posts after TooFineAPoint’s accusation for quasi-libertarian MOVSM to post a confession of just who is actually projecting on this issue.

@ Leonard D Neubache and GhostTiger

Modern Libertarianism is only the updated version of a much older tradition of classical Liberalism. Classical Liberalism was identified centuries ago by defenders of monarchy to be nothing more than the ideological defense for the seizure of the State by the monied oligarchies. Look around and ask: does that seem an accurate description of the outcome?

[The Beast1]

^^ It's 50 posts now Different T! Post away.

And yes, this post is better served in the deep forum.

[Kid Twist]

Leonard, I jumped ship a while back because I saw Libertarianism as being a clear precursor to a one world economic system, which necessarily contradicted nation states. I think you in a round-a-about way came to the same conclusion (or I did after you did more eloquently), with the joining principle being that we must have beliefs and order that differentiate us, or none of us are anything (which is my multiculturalism is a failure and contradiction). Freedom and order must be considered at all times, realizing that most are irresponsible or not disciplined enough for extremes of "freedom" and thus order must be instituted as a way to form society and its direction.

[SamuelBRoberts]

(01-10-2017 07:45 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

Well I got to thinking "where did my love of libertarianism spring from" and when I dug deeply and honestly I realised something personally profound. That I had surrendered all paternal control of my society and fallen back to a position where I demanded everyone else behave as weakly as I was".

That's correct. In my society where all people are granted rights while being simultaneously bound by mutual obligations, I had become so disenfranchised, so disempowered and emasculated that I had relinquished all engagement. I had effectively pushed away from the table and said "I don't want to play any more".

Laughable in hindsight. Society is not going to let me play by different rules and widespread libertarianism exists only in the fevered dreams of socially reclusive hermits. I was in effect relinquishing power while failing to free myself of the burdens associated with my citizenship. All of the calories and none of the taste.

This is an interesting idea, but I'm not 100% sure I'm following it. Can you explain more about what you mean by "behaving weakly"?

[MajorStyles]

Wonderful revelation and something I never thought of. Libertarianism has a romantic ring to it, and there's even a cultural cache from referring to yourself as such. But as you point out, it just allows somebody else - usually more degenerate - to foll the void that you've created. The next thing you know, you're homeland becomes unbearable to live in.

+1

[goodburger]

"The blow-by-blow death of my belief in libertarianism has been the acceptance that by definition outcomes trump principles. Some would argue that solid principles will lead to better outcomes, but where those principles are impossible to enforce they are irrelevant.

Libertarianism as a whole it seems to me is therefore irrelevant."

I think this is about spot on and I've followed a similar path. Libertarianism and limited gov. are a gentleman's agreement between like minded people and when that agreement exists it's probably the most robust system out there. But when the cultural cohesion breaks down so does the system, especially when the core principles are weaponized against them.

[Rhyme or Reason]

Great post. So as you see it, libertarianism is a society wide Mgtow.

[goodburger]

Edit: double post

[John Michael Kane]

Libertarians are overwhelmingly a joke. They are pie in the sky, truly. They have these grand notions about letting everyone "do their own thing". What they fail to realize is that with universal suffrage, women will ALWAYS vote en masse for massive, Big Daddy government. That automatically means that Libertarians will never be in power. Their utopian ideals are undermined by the political reality that makes them irrelevant. There's an old saying that politics is the realm of the "possible". There's no incentive to do anything that libertarians espouse. Incentives drive behavior, and and these folks haven't got a clue about how disparate racial, religious, gender or other groups have their own agendas that conflict with small government and individual liberty without any restraints. Leonard D Neubache nailed it in the original post. The way for a prosperous society is through paternal investment and guidance, not acting like a libertine, excuse me, libertarian.

[Ghost Tiger]

This meme is mandatory for this thread.

[armenia4ever]

Libertarianism used to be about keeping the government out of matters they had no business being in - specifically in regards to the family and your kids.

I'm not really sure what it's about now, except appealing to as many hats as possible - and I hold quite a few libertarian principles. The main failing which it suffers is what Aurini outlined in an article "Libertarianism is an Effect, Not a Cause".

What good is principles and ideals in dealing with people who won't play on the same field? That's where reality and ideals clash.

Now is it from a lack of masculinity as Ghost Tiger concludes? That seems like projection to some extent. I suggest it has less to do with being a depressed essentially lifeless drone individual and trying to make sure everyone else is so you can all be on the same playing field and more to do with realizing the foundations of freedom are crumbling all around us.

You want to bring back the liberty we once had. It's a conviction you hold to your core. However, you run into one of the problems that libertarians face today - a lack of community with your similar ideals.

This isn't just libertarians - its what a lot of the right has lacked for a while - any real strong sense of community. What did exist has been battered away by both the left and the government over time.

[Highpool]

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.

[king bast]

According to Jonathan Haidt's "the Righteous mind" there are 6 foundations upon which all moral customs are based.

Fairness
Care
Liberty
Loyalty
Authority
Sanctity

People of all political persuasions share a fondness for Fairness, but beyond that, Liberals focus on care to the exclusion of all others points, and in the same way, Libertarians focus on Liberty to the exclusion of all others. Conservatives care about all foundations, but the weighting given to each would vary from individual to individual.



Such unbalanced priorities as liberalism and libertarianism obviously aren't going to lead to Utopia, as they leave too many moral foundations unaddressed or worse, actively opposed.

A problem that seems to be emerging is that people are now actively undermining the care foundation because "that's lefty shit", and the same goes for liberty - "thats for those stoopid libertarians". An example of the former is the refugee issue - I'm not opposed to helping those in need, but it needs to be kept in perspective and balanced with other considerations. An example of the latter is the war on drugs - telling grown adults they can't smoke a fucking plant that never hurt anyone is just plain stupid whichever way you slice it, but theres no shortage of conservatives acting like it's the end of the world. Opposition seems to be more out of spite for those of other political persuasions than consideration of the relevant issues.

When you can direct all your energies towards addressing a single point as with liberalism and libertarianism, it makes fighting a whole lot more effective on that front. Conservatives are up against it because they need to fight on 6 fronts, spreading their forces too thin. This is why they need to find common ground with the other groups - support libertarians when their interests overlap with ours, and as hard as it may be, we also need to find common ground with those bloody liberals. As misguided as they are, there was and still is, a kernel of truth beneath all the bullshit.

Nobody wins when the liberty or care foundations are undermined, so we need to be careful that we don't cut off our nose to spite our face.

[Leonard D Neubache]

(01-10-2017 02:10 PM)SamuelBRoberts Wrote:  

...

This is an interesting idea, but I'm not 100% sure I'm following it. Can you explain more about what you mean by "behaving weakly"?

The idea being that I had retreated to a sort of intellectual safe space defined by the idea that in return for demanding no traditional standard of behaviour from others that they should demand no progressive standard of behaviour from me.

For example, a gay couple walk down the street in matching bikini thongs.
*shrug* "As long as they don't demand I celebrate their behaviour or behave as they behave then they are free to do as they please".

Decades later you can imagine the kind of society you'd have on your hands, particularly when it's every libertarian for himself at the voting booth but the collectivists are still hammering you with new laws and stuffing you in jail for breaking them.

I call it "behaving weakly" because it's choosing the path of least resistance into the hellish pit of moral relativity while crowning yourself as some sort of righteous Ghandi-esque enlightened human. It's the same reason Buddhists are routinely slaughtered by Muslims until they are literally forced to choose between their religion and their lives.

[Leonard D Neubache]

(01-10-2017 05:33 PM)Rhyme or Reason Wrote:  

Great post. So as you see it, libertarianism is a society wide Mgtow.

Perfectly encapsulated.

It seems everyone has demands on how others must act in our society and what rights they think should be respected.

The only ones absent from this process are guys like us. We have been all but forbidden from making demands of the societies that are ironically entirely dependant on our contributions.

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"?

[Leonard D Neubache]

(01-10-2017 04:56 PM)goodburger Wrote:  

"The blow-by-blow death of my belief in libertarianism has been the acceptance that by definition outcomes trump principles. Some would argue that solid principles will lead to better outcomes, but where those principles are impossible to enforce they are irrelevant.

Libertarianism as a whole it seems to me is therefore irrelevant."

I think this is about spot on and I've followed a similar path. Libertarianism and limited gov. are a gentleman's agreement between like minded people and when that agreement exists it's probably the most robust system out there. But when the cultural cohesion breaks down so does the system, especially when the core principles are weaponized against them.

This is something I wanted to talk about. Why the right continually gets smashed by the left (except for the most notable recent victories).

The right is riddled with moral academics perpetually trying to hammer out the perfect principle. You can go to most right wing policy clearing houses and what you'll find is a bunch of people arguing about shit like where the commas should sit in the second amendment.

Meanwhile the left only differs in the number of conservatives they want to put in jail or a grave, and whatever their stripe they all seem to agree on a simple answer of "more".

They hold us to all the ridiculous principles we pedestalise and yet obviously ignore them themselves. When they burn the American flag they hold us to the right of expression. A week later they will find a progressive judge to jail a man for merely flying the stars and bars.

Progressive: "The second amendment infers the right of paroled murderers to own firearms! Do you agree with the second ammendment, and respect the right of paroled murderers to own a machine gun?"

Conservative: "Uhhhhhhh...."

A more effective counterpoint would simply be to say "I'm not concerned with the specifics of the second amendment but I believe in the right of law abiding citizens to own guns and refuse to accept that this is a binary issue."

The outcome-based appeal resonates where the principle-based defence simply looks ridiculous.

If 12 months ago we asked each American conservative "would you commit on principle not to vote for any candidate who talked about "grabbing women by the pussy" they would have of course agreed and Trump would have lost.

The republican Nevertrump backstabbers appealed to precisely what?

Principle! Used as an intellectual chain to trap men into subservience to those who are ironically completely unprincipled themselves.

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.

[goodburger]

^^^

Exactly, imagine if you tried to sell a product or get laid using the typical Republican/libertarian techniques, 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. 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.

Meanwhile the left makes broad emotional arguements and will use any means necessary plus they give away free stuff. This is why they have been winning.

[Different T]

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:

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.