rooshvforum.network is a fully functional forum: you can search, register, post new threads etc...
Old accounts are inaccessible: register a new one, or recover it when possible. x


Why is libertarianism equated with autism?
#76

Why is libertarianism equated with autism?

Quote: (04-29-2017 12:26 PM)Alsos Wrote:  

It's noteworthy that nobody seems to be arguing against the premise that libertarians do act like autists/spergs.

This thread itself demonstrates that they do so. Any discussion of how libertarians behave, how they alienate people...

Democrats and Republicans alienate from each other constantly. But they always have the other half of the room that's on their side. But then there's just the one libertarian guy in the same room that everyone disagrees with.

More people disagree with libertarians because, you're right, they don't understand us. If being on a higher playing field of thinking makes us uppity, then I guess a good way for the rest of the room to "win" is to simply call us weird or racist or selfish or retarded.

What I can never figure out is the fascination of the two major parties with libertarians. If we're all of no account and mentally deficient, then why are you all here trying to prove how silly we are? Why spend the energy explaining to a retard how stupid and worthless his ideology is? Why spend the time explaining to a retard that he's mentally ill? And if we seem arrogant, it's because we get tired of the little people encroaching our space.

Further, if you think we're all keyboard warriors that would be afraid of a bit of fisticuffs out in the real world, then you've certainly never spent a night out drinking with me.
Reply
#77

Why is libertarianism equated with autism?

" If being on a higher playing field of thinking makes us uppity, then I guess a good way for the rest of the room to "win" is to simply call us weird or racist or selfish or retarded."

Surely you see the irony in this statement.
Reply
#78

Why is libertarianism equated with autism?

Quote: (04-29-2017 03:07 PM)Repo Wrote:  

" If being on a higher playing field of thinking makes us uppity, then I guess a good way for the rest of the room to "win" is to simply call us weird or racist or selfish or retarded."

Surely you see the irony in this statement.

As an alleged sperg, I'm supposedly incapable of recognizing irony, sarcasm, or dry wit.
Reply
#79

Why is libertarianism equated with autism?

A few years ago around the time of the Ron Paul hype there was a great push towards Austrian Economics and Libertarianism. Many new sites came up like the Daily Bell as well as others.

When I found the way more intellectually and factually superior interest-free money reformers, then it was fun to watch a huge online battle raging between the usury-free group and the Libertarians usually converging in those new Libertarian sites. The usury-free front was made up of Realcurrencies, Recovering Austrians and a bunch of intellectual free thinkers who loved to rip the Austrians a new one. I never participated in those debates, but I saw that after a time those Austrian sites began to close off the comment sections, which was strange because they were alternative sites. Some kept it up, but they lost the debate since there are infinite points which are simply ripped apart by truly informed counter-arguments. And while you could not convince the hardcore Autistic believers, the other less indoctrinated readership was simply swayed by the arguments of the other group.

Thus sites like the Daily Bell called it quits and so did others. And the Ron Paul bait and switch also ended. Currently the online pendulum swings already away from the Libertarians for a variety of reasons. But I will say this - at least Libertarians will debate you (the non-globalist ones at least) - the Marxists on the other side of the spectrum are beyond reason and debate.

That is why the Marxists would simply shut down free speech and any doubting of the their system. A Libertarian system would be always up for debate. Even if we do not agree with them on all things, we do acknowledge that this love for freedom of speech is one of their fundamental belief cornerstones.
Reply
#80

Why is libertarianism equated with autism?

Quote: (04-29-2017 02:14 PM)BrewDog Wrote:  

Quote: (04-29-2017 12:26 PM)Alsos Wrote:  

It's noteworthy that nobody seems to be arguing against the premise that libertarians do act like autists/spergs.

This thread itself demonstrates that they do so. Any discussion of how libertarians behave, how they alienate people...

Democrats and Republicans alienate from each other constantly. But they always have the other half of the room that's on their side. But then there's just the one libertarian guy in the same room that everyone disagrees with.

More people disagree with libertarians because, you're right, they don't understand us. If being on a higher playing field of thinking makes us uppity, then I guess a good way for the rest of the room to "win" is to simply call us weird or racist or selfish or retarded.

Congratulations, you've missed the point of my post and embodied it at the same time.

Quote: (04-29-2017 02:14 PM)BrewDog Wrote:  

What I can never figure out is the fascination of the two major parties with libertarians. If we're all of no account and mentally deficient, then why are you all here trying to prove how silly we are? Why spend the energy explaining to a retard how stupid and worthless his ideology is? Why spend the time explaining to a retard that he's mentally ill? And if we seem arrogant, it's because we get tired of the little people encroaching our space.

Oh now you're just trolling me.

I see part of the fascination Republicans have with l/Libertarians as similar to an older, jaded adult looking at a young adult who has great promise but chooses to squander it, while part of it is an approach-avoidance conflict of seeing so many things they like but being put off by the rest of what amounts to a package deal. I'd guess 80% of the Republicans I know hate the GOP (the party) with a passion, but can't accept the LP as an alternative because of the aforementioned sperg/gamma behaviors and the ideological purity testing that shuts them out from the get-go. They like libertarians and even call themselves small-l libertarians, but refuse to switch to a party where they'll constantly be derided and belittled as "statists" for any deviation from ideological conformity, purity-tested on every single thing they say or believe, and generally made to feel unwelcome, stupid, and evil for having their own opinions on anything, however immaterial.

Quote: (04-29-2017 02:14 PM)BrewDog Wrote:  

Further, if you think we're all keyboard warriors that would be afraid of a bit of fisticuffs out in the real world, then you've certainly never spent a night out drinking with me.

Now I really think you're trolling me. But now I'm picturing meeting up with you in a bar, standing toe to toe with you, each of us bellowing at each other about some abstruse political principle, calling each other the most offensive and verbally-abusive names possible...but not ever coming to blows because neither of us will initiate force.

Libertarian standoff.

Okay, so I'll grant you can find the occasional Libertarian who might set aside the NAP under some convenient rationalization (akin to that SJW chestnut: "Mean words are literally violence!"). But this is a huge problem in my social circle at the moment, with the Libertarians popping off on social media on anyone who doesn't sufficiently hate on Trump and the GOP, launching into over-the-top emotionally incontinent rants, ridiculing them, calling them chickenshits and fascists, and generally being aggressive and abusive - online. Then they can't understand - cannot comprehend at all - why they don't get invited to real-world social gatherings, and why when they do get included the people they've publicly insulted and tried to shame and ostracize shun them and won't socialize with them.

They're lambs in person in their normal personas, but they've morphed into raging pricks online behind the safety of their keyboards. This strikes me as a moral hazard of fetishizing the NAP: expecting everyone to naturally abide by the non-initiation of force like they do makes hard-core libertarians less hesitant to mouth off, in an inversion of the observation that "an armed society is a polite society" (or maybe a parallel to the injunction that "you can't hit a girl!"). There is no incentive to rein yourself in when you anticipate no violent consequences for your (non-violent!) verbal belligerence. In contrast, someone who doesn't fetishize the NAP might be a little more circumspect in how they treat others, lest one of their friends take sufficient offense at something they say online to do more than shun them - that is, they're not so blind as to rely on others sharing their philosophy to protect them from the consequences of their assholery.
Reply
#81

Why is libertarianism equated with autism?

Quote: (04-29-2017 03:17 PM)BrewDog Wrote:  

Quote: (04-29-2017 03:07 PM)Repo Wrote:  

" If being on a higher playing field of thinking makes us uppity, then I guess a good way for the rest of the room to "win" is to simply call us weird or racist or selfish or retarded."

Surely you see the irony in this statement.

As an alleged sperg, I'm supposedly incapable of recognizing irony, sarcasm, or dry wit.

Prominent Libertarian leaning sphere guys are Fisto last I checked and the pro PUA Nick Krauser. Nick is super-high IQ. Both are far away from spergs and have bedded hundreds of beautiful women.

Disagreements over imaginary economic models which won't be realized are irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.
Reply
#82

Why is libertarianism equated with autism?

Quote: (04-29-2017 03:29 PM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

Prominent Libertarian leaning sphere guys are Fisto last I checked and the pro PUA Nick Krauser. Nick is super-high IQ. Both are far away from spergs and have bedded hundreds of beautiful women.

Disagreements over imaginary economic models which won't be realized are irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.

Well, maybe, but they're the exception that makes the rule, to misuse the old phrase. I think most people's experience with Libertarians more closely approximates this:

Quote:Quote:

More people disagree with libertarians because, you're right, they don't understand us. If being on a higher playing field of thinking makes us uppity, then I guess a good way for the rest of the room to "win" is to simply call us weird or racist or selfish or retarded.

What I can never figure out is the fascination of the two major parties with libertarians. If we're all of no account and mentally deficient, then why are you all here trying to prove how silly we are? Why spend the energy explaining to a retard how stupid and worthless his ideology is? Why spend the time explaining to a retard that he's mentally ill? And if we seem arrogant, it's because we get tired of the little people encroaching our space.

Further, if you think we're all keyboard warriors that would be afraid of a bit of fisticuffs out in the real world, then you've certainly never spent a night out drinking with me.

I think that last line in particular really gets to the heart of this thread, because of how ridiculous it is. It goes back to the inability of libertarians to understand how their behavior will be received. In person, it's probably a great line, because we can look at BrewDog and see that he's 6'1'', 225 pounds, has a scar under one eye from a broken bottle, and has a marines tattoo on his left bicep, which is the size of a pineapple.

On the internet, it comes across as try-hard keyboard trolling. No one, no matter what their political beliefs are, is gonna look at that statement and go, "Yeah, BrewDog's a badass. I wouldn't want to mess with him." Everyone is just going to laugh, and chalk it up to autism.
Reply
#83

Why is libertarianism equated with autism?

Quote: (04-29-2017 04:22 PM)SamuelBRoberts Wrote:  

Quote: (04-29-2017 03:29 PM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

Prominent Libertarian leaning sphere guys are Fisto last I checked and the pro PUA Nick Krauser. Nick is super-high IQ. Both are far away from spergs and have bedded hundreds of beautiful women.

Disagreements over imaginary economic models which won't be realized are irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.

Well, maybe, but they're the exception that makes the rule, to misuse the old phrase. I think most people's experience with Libertarians more closely approximates this:

Quote:Quote:

More people disagree with libertarians because, you're right, they don't understand us. If being on a higher playing field of thinking makes us uppity, then I guess a good way for the rest of the room to "win" is to simply call us weird or racist or selfish or retarded.

What I can never figure out is the fascination of the two major parties with libertarians. If we're all of no account and mentally deficient, then why are you all here trying to prove how silly we are? Why spend the energy explaining to a retard how stupid and worthless his ideology is? Why spend the time explaining to a retard that he's mentally ill? And if we seem arrogant, it's because we get tired of the little people encroaching our space.

Further, if you think we're all keyboard warriors that would be afraid of a bit of fisticuffs out in the real world, then you've certainly never spent a night out drinking with me.

I think that last line in particular really gets to the heart of this thread, because of how ridiculous it is. It goes back to the inability of libertarians to understand how their behavior will be received. In person, it's probably a great line, because we can look at BrewDog and see that he's 6'1'', 225 pounds, has a scar under one eye from a broken bottle, and has a marines tattoo on his left bicep, which is the size of a pineapple.

On the internet, it comes across as try-hard keyboard trolling. No one, no matter what their political beliefs are, is gonna look at that statement and go, "Yeah, BrewDog's a badass. I wouldn't want to mess with him." Everyone is just going to laugh, and chalk it up to autism.

You're wrong once more. My tattoo isn't that large.

[Image: 633954601399562625-imsorry.jpg]
Reply
#84

Why is libertarianism equated with autism?

Quote: (04-29-2017 01:37 PM)BrewDog Wrote:  

Quote: (04-29-2017 10:10 AM)Kratomite Wrote:  

Quote: (04-29-2017 07:39 AM)BrewDog Wrote:  

Quote: (04-29-2017 06:38 AM)Kratomite Wrote:  

2. Peaceful, welcoming societies get overrun. Look at Europe. You libertarians and your open borders have no answers for that other than "muh private property". And that's why libertarianism is rapidly becoming a moribund, irrelevant ideology.

Because Merkel, Hollande and the rest of Europe are libertarians? You really got me there.

Please, teach us more.

Lol.

Their border/immigration policy is 100% kosher with libertarianism.

Open borders, globalization,offshoring,etc...are all libertarian wet dreams. And that's why you'll never get more than 1% of the vote.

Half of libertarians don't subscribe to open borders and won't support the Libertarian Party because of this one issue.

And even if so, you found one issue you can equate between the European socialists and the Libertarian Party, and now that makes European politics a "libertarian wet dream?" The two things are polar opposites.

If we take that route, can we say that many Republicans dislike gay marriage, therefore Saudi Wahabiism is a Republican wet dream? See the absurdity?

Half of "libertarians" are trying to be trendy by claiming 3rd party status. Pretty much all libertarian philosophers have supported free markets, open borders, and globalization. Those are the central creeds of their faith (and yes it is faith for them).

I didn't equate European politics with libertarianism, merely the open borders, all cultures are equal notion,etc...

As for the last bit, I'll ignore how spergish that line of reasoning is.

But truthfully, I hold Republican bible bangers in almost as much contempt as Wahabis. And it's funny you mentioned it, because Republican administrations have been very much in bed with the Wahabis.
Reply
#85

Why is libertarianism equated with autism?

Quote: (04-29-2017 01:19 PM)puckerman Wrote:  

Quote: (04-28-2017 10:41 PM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

I'm glad to see that you've functionally denounced all of the founding fathers, taking a Libertarian minority and functionally splitting it between the fedora wearing atheist crowd on one side and on the other side the only ones that ever got it to work sort of, ie culturally homogeneous Christians.
...
Even though I no longer believe in god, I do very much believe in marriage and family. Many cultures have had strong families without the fraud that is Christianity. Our problems are cultural and legal, not relgious.
...

[Image: 1426802?wid=240&hei=240&op_sharpen=1]

Confirmed.

You'd think that someone who recognises insidious government control would recognise the difference between religion and organised religion.

But unlike Buddhism, islam, Judaism, Shinto or Hinduism, it's instead Christianity that you single out as "a fraud", despite it being a recurring factor in the creation of the greatest nations in the world and the greatest civilisation in the history of mankind.

Moreover, the fact that our societies are declining in direct parrallell to declining rates of adherence to Christian morals is apparently an irrelevance.

This is why atheism is correctly identified as a religion. Because only religious zeal would blind someone to the relevance of Christianity in the formation and continuation of western civilisation.

The public will judge a man by what he lifts, but those close to him will judge him by what he carries.
Reply
#86

Why is libertarianism equated with autism?

Quote: (04-29-2017 09:45 PM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

Quote: (04-29-2017 01:19 PM)puckerman Wrote:  

Quote: (04-28-2017 10:41 PM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

I'm glad to see that you've functionally denounced all of the founding fathers, taking a Libertarian minority and functionally splitting it between the fedora wearing atheist crowd on one side and on the other side the only ones that ever got it to work sort of, ie culturally homogeneous Christians.
...
Even though I no longer believe in god, I do very much believe in marriage and family. Many cultures have had strong families without the fraud that is Christianity. Our problems are cultural and legal, not relgious.
...

[Image: 1426802?wid=240&hei=240&op_sharpen=1]

Confirmed.

You'd think that someone who recognises insidious government control would recognise the difference between religion and organised religion.

But unlike Buddhism, islam, Judaism, Shinto or Hinduism, it's instead Christianity that you single out as "a fraud", despite it being a recurring factor in the creation of the greatest nations in the world and the greatest civilisation in the history of mankind.

Moreover, the fact that our societies are declining in direct parrallell to declining rates of adherence to Christian morals is apparently an irrelevance.

This is why atheism is correctly identified as a religion. Because only religious zeal would blind someone to the relevance of Christianity in the formation and continuation of western civilisation.

That is a peculiar statement given that the two pillars of Western civilization (ancient Greece and Rome) both reached their zenith before the carpenter from Nazareth was even born.
Reply
#87

Why is libertarianism equated with autism?

Quote: (04-29-2017 09:45 PM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

You'd think that someone who recognises insidious government control would recognise the difference between religion and organised religion.

I do recognize that difference. It's only organized religion that tries to influence the laws and politics of where I live. It's only organized religion that coddles most dictators like Hitler, Franco, and Mussolini. Right now, we see evangelical Protestants worshipping a man who is the most un-Christian President in America in over 100 years.

Quote:Quote:

But unlike Buddhism, islam, Judaism, Shinto or Hinduism, it's instead Christianity that you single out as "a fraud", despite it being a recurring factor in the creation of the greatest nations in the world and the greatest civilisation in the history of mankind.

Christianity is the one I see the most. So, it's the one that is on my mind the most. If I lived in Japan, I would attack Shinto more often. I don't live there, so it barely enters my mind.

Quote:Quote:

Moreover, the fact that our societies are declining in direct parrallel to declining rates of adherence to Christian morals is apparently an irrelevance.

I suspect we would be better off. Now that the genie is out of the bottle, how do you plan on putting it back into the bottle?

Quote:Quote:

This is why atheism is correctly identified as a religion. Because only religious zeal would blind someone to the relevance of Christianity in the formation and continuation of western civilisation.

An atheist is a person who does not believe in god. Lack of belief is not a religion. This is why the burden of proof always falls on the believer. It's the same if you believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, or little green men on other planets.

I do agree with much of what Jefferson said about Christianity:

Quote:In a letter to John Adams, Thomas Jefferson Wrote:

The truth is that the greatest enemies to the doctrines of Jesus are those calling themselves the expositors of them, who have perverted them for the structure of a system of fancy absolutely incomprehensible, and without any foundation in his genuine words. And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. But we may hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away all this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this the most venerated reformer of human errors.

Quote:In a letter to Thomas Pickering, Jefferson Wrote:

no one sees with greater pleasure than myself the progress of reason in it’s advances towards rational Christianity. when we shall have done away the incomprehensible jargon of the Trinitarian arithmetic, that three are one, and one is three; when we shall have knocked down the artificial scaffolding, reared to mask from view the simple structure of Jesus, when, in short, we shall have unlearned every thing which has been taught since his day, and got back to the pure and simple doctrines he inculcated, we shall then be truly and worthily his disciples: and my opinion is that if nothing had ever been added to what flowed purely from his lips, the whole world would at this day have been Christian.
Reply
#88

Why is libertarianism equated with autism?

http://www.breitbart.com/national-securi...tarianism/

I gotta come out in defense of non-globalist Libertarians (so 99,9999% of them).

[Image: Pope-Francis-640x480.jpg]

Quote:Quote:

Pope Francis Warns Against ‘Invasion’ of Libertarianism


Quote:Quote:

Pope Francis had harsh words to describe libertarians Friday, saying they deny the value of the common good in favor of radical selfishness where only the individual matters.
I cannot fail to speak of the grave risks associated with the invasion of the positions of libertarian individualism at high strata of culture and in school and university education,” the Pope said in an message sent to members of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences meeting in the Vatican and subsequently shared with Breitbart News.

“A common characteristic of this fallacious paradigm is that it minimizes the common good, that is the idea of ‘living well’ or the ‘good life’ in the communitarian framework,” Francis said, while at the same time exalting a “selfish ideal.”

Members of the Pontifical Academy are currently engaged in a workshop bearing the title “Towards a Participatory Society: New Roads to Social and Cultural Integration,” which began Friday and will run through May 2.

This fucking globalist cuck - his statements about Libertarians being the real danger and staging a veritable invasion in universities is of course utter bullshit.

Most universities including Harvard, Yale and MIT - even fucking Oxford - are MARXIST SHITSHOWS.

And we can all disagree upon ideal systems, but we can discuss with Libertarians anything, while the Marxists - well there is no discussion with them, since they just want to shut you up, later even kill you because of your ideas. I can go out and have a beer with a Libertarian, but the only interaction I can have with an Antifa member is to set up a date where I fuck his hairy girlfriend while he watches.

Fuck them. Fuck the pope. We should all know who the bigger enemy is out there.
Reply
#89

Why is libertarianism equated with autism?

^^Well I at least learned something new today.

Pontifical is a word.
Reply
#90

Why is libertarianism equated with autism?

In any open political discussion, as soon as people start talking about right vs. left, there's always at least one of those guys who is compelled to step in and lecture everyone about "muh other axes!"

"Well, actually, the common right-left spectrum doesn't take into account that there is more than just one axis. There's also an authoritarian and libertarian axis, too, which you've never heard of ever before! In fact...{long-winded dissertation on the comparative merits of the Nolan Chart and other alternative political compasses follows}"

This tic is part sperg, part gamma - sperg because of the compunction to elaborate at a level of detail nobody wants about a tangential topic nobody was concerned with, gamma because it's intellectual showboating (or pontificating if you like) and a self-centered shifting of the conversation to his own topic of choice. The ratio of the parts depends on the speaker, and is a function of how self-aware he is of what he's doing when he does this - ironically this puts the speaker himself on an axis of sorts, in this case between the poles of sperg and gamma.
Reply
#91

Why is libertarianism equated with autism?

Quote:[url=https://twitter.com/voxday/status/860941560795373568][/url]

Vox Day is my favorite periscope broadcaster, and he's been on fire in his last ten or so political broadcasts.

He argues that libertarianism is just as idealistic as communism, and that libertarianism's most dangerous idealistic falsehood is the inability to recognize as legitimate any limitations on individualism.

Libertarian falsehood, "Individuals create society." Reality, "Families create individuals, and the nation is just a large collection of families."

Reality, "The state is merely a collection of laws, related to power. But the nation is a collection of people who are related to each other by race and ethnicity. Culture is a set of beliefs that a nation has, which is an expression of their culture and race."
Reply
#92

Why is libertarianism equated with autism?

Quote: (05-15-2017 07:19 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

Vox Day is my favorite periscope broadcaster, and he's been on fire in his last ten or so political broadcasts.

He argues that libertarianism is just as idealistic as communism, and that libertarianism's most dangerous idealistic falsehood is the inability to recognize as legitimate any limitations on individualism.

Libertarian falsehood, "Individuals create society." Reality, "Families create individuals, and the nation is just a large collection of families."

Reality, "The state is merely a collection of laws, related to power. But the nation is a collection of people who are related to each other by race and ethnicity. Culture is a set of beliefs that a nation has, which is an expression of their culture and race."

Vox Day focuses on the issue of borders and the nation-state which is based on a specific uniform group of people.

Libertarianism has many crazy ideas which will never come about:

+ no borders = madness
+ no nation state or anyone being able to swear allegiance to a nation - so anyone can become Japanese and Chinese so long as he swears allegiance?
+ unlimited freedom - parents should be able to sell their childrens (Rothbard)
+ no tariffs and no borders - yeah great
+ usury left intact, but raw material covering of currencies added which automatically favors the 0,01% of the world - they own most gold - most gold is not even mined today (I read multiple stories of companies and individual explorers who found new gold ores, but were turned down, because it turned out that the place was already owned by a super-rich family - they simply don't even want it to be mined and taken from the ground)
+ best no minimum wage and no unions - yeah that will work out fine - the Dickensian times were great
+ the unseen hand of the market = as in the goodness of the 0,01% will forever fondle your balls and tuck you in your bed each night - of course the reality is that it would manifest in a ruthless brutal system and a Libertarian paradise even if achieved would instantly self-destruct or be taken over by the most wealthy who buy off half the Libertarian army for 50 times their normal wages - in a way the free market would take care of it and usher in a totalitarian dictatorship.
Reply
#93

Why is libertarianism equated with autism?

Quote: (05-16-2017 02:16 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

+ unlimited freedom - parents should be able to sell their childrens (Rothbard)

Some states have safe haven laws that let you abandon your kid at a firehouse. Is that worse than selling your kid?

Quote: (05-16-2017 02:16 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

+ no tariffs and no borders - yeah great

What's the point of tariffs if other countries are just going to enact retaliatory tariffs? To the extent that international trade is disrupted by tariffs, countries have an incentive to conquer other countries in order to gain access to their resources.

Quote: (05-16-2017 02:16 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

+ best no minimum wage and no unions - yeah that will work out fine - the Dickensian times were great

"The century of 1815-1914 is widely recognized as the liberal epoch, a period of industrial progress, unprecedented growth in both population and living standards, expansion of individual liberties and social tolerance, the abolition of slavery and serfdom, a reprieve from major wars, and the waning of political authoritarianism." -- Barry Loberfeld

Quote: (05-16-2017 02:16 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

+ the unseen hand of the market = as in the goodness of the 0,01% will forever fondle your balls and tuck you in your bed each night - of course the reality is that it would manifest in a ruthless brutal system and a Libertarian paradise even if achieved would instantly self-destruct or be taken over by the most wealthy who buy off half the Libertarian army for 50 times their normal wages - in a way the free market would take care of it and usher in a totalitarian dictatorship.

So instead we're going to entrust the politicians with fondling your balls and tucking you in your bed each night? At least in a capitalist market, there are competing firms offering consumers an opportunity to choose the provider that in their opinion will offer the highest quality ball fondling and bed tucking services at the lowest prices. There is freedom for any innovator who believes he has come up with a superior method of ball-fondling and bed-tucking to enter the market at the risk of his own capital, without needing to get the approval of bureaucrats.
Reply
#94

Why is libertarianism equated with autism?

If there is a correlation there, it's probably because people on the autism spectrum are less likely to look laterally to see what other people are doing (reasoning by analogy), and more likely to rely on looking backwards to see where an idea comes from and work their way forward (reasoning by first principles).

We get some questions like this on this forum about relationships, where somebody is struggling valiantly to understand "why" something is happening in a social situation, and they're often accused of trolling. In my experience with people who I suspect had undiagnosed Asperger Syndrome, this is exactly how they tend to think and sometimes you'd swear to God they're putting you on.

Rifling the Constitution and the Federalist for an explanation of the rules and then stubbornly defending that reasoning is exactly what you'd expect, as opposed to participating in the give-and-take of mainstream politics for pragmatic, social reasons.

Hidey-ho, RVFerinos!
Reply
#95

Why is libertarianism equated with autism?

Quote: (05-16-2017 02:58 AM)Jean Valjean Wrote:  

Quote: (05-16-2017 02:16 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

+ unlimited freedom - parents should be able to sell their childrens (Rothbard)

Some states have safe haven laws that let you abandon your kid at a firehouse. Is that worse than selling your kid?

Giving up a kid for adoption should not be a measure of financial gain. Otherwise you would put incentives on child trade - child robbery, psychopathic mothers, psychopathic fathers - all of this would explode. It is actually already happening in China with male children. We similarly don't want to show public executions, because it fosters a bad negative mentality in people even if some have deserved execution by their crimes. Also some libertarians have probably argued for the right of their parents to sell their kids to cannibalistic pedophiles, because why not - profit is profit.

Quote: (05-16-2017 02:16 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

+ no tariffs and no borders - yeah great

What's the point of tariffs if other countries are just going to enact retaliatory tariffs? To the extent that international trade is disrupted by tariffs, countries have an incentive to conquer other countries in order to gain access to their resources.

The US had massive high tariffs on a multitude of goods. You impose rationally tariffs on things you want to protect at home (if they are any good) and open the market to other items that other countries do better without destroying your place. As I said before - the US has massive tariffs and China has so too on many issues. Just the West is expected to open up. The tariff-free world is already reality for the big corporations.

Quote: (05-16-2017 02:16 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

+ best no minimum wage and no unions - yeah that will work out fine - the Dickensian times were great

"The century of 1815-1914 is widely recognized as the liberal epoch, a period of industrial progress, unprecedented growth in both population and living standards, expansion of individual liberties and social tolerance, the abolition of slavery and serfdom, a reprieve from major wars, and the waning of political authoritarianism." -- Barry Loberfeld

Only a libertarian could define the most gruesome period of working conditions of men as great. Children worked in mines at age 10, huge numbers of women prostituted themselves, men in WWI were so malnourished that many European men grew 10cm - 3-4 inches because the tasted meat daily for the first time in their lives and were still young enough to grow. The economy grew for a multitude of reasons, rise in scientific method, inventions, rather unrestrained monetary policy. But it would have done even better with strong unions, minimum wage, interest free money. No restriction on monetary policy at a few times in the 19th century. The depression of the 1890s was worse than the one from the 1930s and it was 100% created by a collaboration of the "free capitalist" banks who acted like one in restricting the gold-backed money supply. Your revisionism of history is appalling. In fact some countries like Netherlands and Britain had a higher living standard for the general population in the 15th and 16th century than after industrialization started. The height and life expectancy dropped as farmers were bankrupted and the power of the well-paid guilds were broken.
A lot of the progress seen in the 19th century was also unleashed because literacy was promoted far and wide in most Western countries, geniuses were no longer entrapped by pure economic factors of having to get into a factory while the moron Aristocrat was given his deserving position at the university. There were a multitude of factors as I said before but it was not for the most part the exploitative way of capitalism which caused this transformation to happen.



Quote: (05-16-2017 02:16 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

+ the unseen hand of the market = as in the goodness of the 0,01% will forever fondle your balls and tuck you in your bed each night - of course the reality is that it would manifest in a ruthless brutal system and a Libertarian paradise even if achieved would instantly self-destruct or be taken over by the most wealthy who buy off half the Libertarian army for 50 times their normal wages - in a way the free market would take care of it and usher in a totalitarian dictatorship.

So instead we're going to entrust the politicians with fondling your balls and tucking you in your bed each night? At least in a capitalist market, there are competing firms offering consumers an opportunity to choose the provider that in their opinion will offer the highest quality ball fondling and bed tucking services at the lowest prices. There is freedom for any innovator who believes he has come up with a superior method of ball-fondling and bed-tucking to enter the market at the risk of his own capital, without needing to get the approval of bureaucrats.

No - the current politicians are already pretty close to the expression of the will of a few super-rich individuals. They simply took control of the state and it bears no longer any resemblance to the will of the people. There will always be a tug of war between interests, but relinquishing this to the generosity of the 0,01% is frankly exactly what the state will give you, because they almost fully control it anyway.
Reply
#96

Why is libertarianism equated with autism?

https://www.anonymousconservative.com/bl...-strategy/

Quote:Quote:

Libertarianism Will Always Be A Minority Strategy

Rand Paul’s campaign collapses:

The libertarian moment in American politics—foretold just last year in the New York Times magazine—is like the horizon; always retreating as we advance upon it.

The political events of 2015 are a brutal reminder about how far this country is from embracing libertarianism and how alien those ideas are even to the purported shock troops of the freedom movement. While libertarianism’s opponents can take heart, its champions are setting their cause back by pretending that all is well.

The collapse of the Rand Paul campaign speaks volumes. In a 15-person field, Paul is the only candidate who looks even remotely libertarian (social tolerance, foreign policy restraint, and limited government). He started the campaign with decent name recognition, a seat in the United States Senate, lavish media attention, a serious will to win, and a battle-tested, national political operation inherited from his father, Ron.

If there were any significant support for Libertarian ideas in the GOP—any at all—Rand Paul would be near the top of an otherwise crowded, fragmented field that is fighting over every non-libertarian voter in the party.

Yet he’s polling at a mere 1 percent among Republican voters nationwide and has a higher unfavorability rating than anyone else in the GOP race


If politics was intellectual and logical, surely libertarianism would be what everyone could agree on. Lets all leave each other alone. But politics isn’t logical. These are reproductive strategies. They are burned in as deeply as any instinct.

In areas where humans are densely packed and resources are overabundant, you get the conflict and competition-averse r-selected reproductive strategy of liberalism. Where humans are densely packed enough to routinely encounter other humans, but resources are scarce, you get the competitive K-selected strategy of conservatism. Where humans adopt an r or K-strategy they seek to use government to make the world around them either r or K, so the world they live in will be congruent with what they are designed to encounter.

Libertarianism is what you see in animals like Grizzly Bears that are so spread out they rarely encounter others of their species. For that reason, it will only emerge in humans rarely, and most often where they are spread out away from each other like Alaska or the western states.

All the logic and reason in the world will not make K-strategists and r-strategists ignore their instincts. Compromise is impossible.

Understanding where politics comes from is invaluable to strategizing. Rand wasn’t perfect, but he might have done better recognizing the facts of r/K, and downplaying his libertarianism in favor of appealing to K-strategists by emphasizing where he would agree with them.

Until r/K takes over the field of political science, everyone is just guessing.

https://www.anonymousconservative.com/bl...on-of-man/

Quote:Quote:

r/K Selection, Early America, Libertarianism, and the Future Evolution of Man

AcThinker asked in the comments how r/K played into the formation of America.

One critical aspect of r/K is that people grow uncomfortable if they are exhibiting one psychology, but are living in the opposite environment. r’s do not like living in a K-environment, nor do K’s like living in an r environment. So the environment is what molded the psychology, but one result is that the psychology is only comfortable in the environment. People try to rectify this discomfort in a few ways. Some get involved politically, and try to structure their government in the model of their respective ideology. Others move to areas where the environment more closely mirrors their reproductive strategy.

When it comes to the formation of early America, what you saw was humans migrating from England, to a very harsh environment, where support from civilization was quite sparse, and populations were not densely packed together. One early colony at Roanoke actually disappeared entirely and nobody is sure what happened to it. Indians were often not welcoming, people were quite sparsely populated, and camps had to be protected.

I view the early migration from England to America as similar to what we might see today if humans were to make Mars into a new frontier. Imagine today a harsh environment began to be colonized. It wouldn’t be a utopia and you would have to struggle mightily to survive, but you would be left alone and could limit your interactions with fellow citizens and governing structures if you wanted to, allowing you to do what you wanted. Who would migrate toward that combination of harshness and cost, to enjoy the freedom and liberty of reduced population densities?

In r/K Selection there is a third model of behavior. It is the psychology that arises when individuals are spread out to the point they do not regularly encounter others. Individuals in the field refer to r/K’s density dependence, and the break down in it as populations think out. One primary hallmark of this third psychology is a breakdown in the reflexive desire to compete seen in K-strategists, or to avoid competition in r-strategists. If they rarely encounter others, the constant reflex for competition (K) or competition-aversion ® that marks r/K morphs into a hybridized desire to pacifistically avoid conflict, unless fighting is necessary in which case to you savage your enemy as brutally as possible. In humans, this psychology appears closely linked to libertarianism, and the example which best illustrates it is the Grizzly bear. If a Grizzly Bear reflexively fought every Grizzly he saw, he would spend a lot of time fighting Grizzlies he could have let be. Likewise, if he ran from every challenge, he would be chased constantly.

Where you find this psychology in humans, they will often be armed and aggressive if threatened, yet strangely non-judgmental and pacifistic if left alone. They don’t care about out-grouping the weirdo, though they will emphasize functionality themselves. They don’t like groups (or authority) ganging up on anyone, and reject group-conformity, even if the group considers them one of its own. Self-sufficiency will be important to them, and they will have a propensity to know how everything around them works, so they can fix it themselves if need be. They don’t care to rely on others for anything, and they have a burning desire to be able to do whatever they want, with no external interference, even as they have a burning desire to not interfere in anyone else’s life themselves.

Those first colonizers set out for an environment which more closely matched their innate reproductive strategy’s ideal environment than the monarchy. Having arrived and survived, they structured the governments of the new world to exhibit their own libertarian, Grizzly Bear psychology, and this attracted more r/K breakdown psychologies from the Old World.

As time went on, some r’s came to live in America’s cities and enjoy the bounty libertarianism created. However the primary allure of America, the primary difference between England and America, was freedom – and the potential for limited interaction between individuals and government. In this case, the libertarians in Europe had an option to render their environment congruent with their psychology by migrating, and those small numbers fled Europe for the new continent.

Early America was unique in that the initial low population densities combined with the hardships of survival, and attracted psychologies unusually obsessed with freedom. The freedom those psychologies created acted as a further attractant and distilled these strange, independent, freedom-loving souls out of first Britain, and then Europe, condensing them all in one place in fairly high density. The result was the formation of a governmental structure and nation so imbued with that nature that is has survived as a free society even in the presence of the copious r-strategist liberal morons which infest this nation today.

Imagine if we could purchase gravitational drives and Mr Fusion powerplants at the local hardware store, and weld capsules that would take us to Mars, where the freshly terraformed, food-less, government-less planet awaited, these psychologies would be packing up right now with seeds, guns, ammo, livestock, and whatever else they could fit into their capsules to escape the r-selected utopias we’re all living in now. If you landed there, not many of those folk would want a government with lots of regulations and red tape, or a government-funded welfare state.

Unfortunately the r/K breakdown psychology of libertarianism is doomed in the short term. Where it congregates in great numbers, greatness follows, a glut ensues, and then it is inevitably diluted by the explosion of r-strategist rabbits. Lacking the drive to police its own ranks aggressively and purge the r’s who want everyone controlled, and the K’s who desire group-conformity in pursuit of success, libertarianism just can’t maintain its own purity as the success accumulates, and population densities grow. In leaving everyone else alone, they seal their own fate, since humans in dense populations will always go r or K, depending on resource availability.

I suspect that will change with the advent of cheap space travel, and the eventual ability of individuals to spread out, remain mobile, and self-sort in space. But until then, with all of us mired geographically, the one option in the political world everyone should be able to agree on will remain the minority strategy that only a precious few will embrace.
Reply
#97

Why is libertarianism equated with autism?

Quote: (04-29-2017 03:24 PM)Simeon_Strangelight Wrote:  

A few years ago around the time of the Ron Paul hype there was a great push towards Austrian Economics and Libertarianism. Many new sites came up like the Daily Bell as well as others.

When I found the way more intellectually and factually superior interest-free money reformers, then it was fun to watch a huge online battle raging between the usury-free group and the Libertarians usually converging in those new Libertarian sites. The usury-free front was made up of Realcurrencies, Recovering Austrians and a bunch of intellectual free thinkers who loved to rip the Austrians a new one. I never participated in those debates, but I saw that after a time those Austrian sites began to close off the comment sections, which was strange because they were alternative sites. Some kept it up, but they lost the debate since there are infinite points which are simply ripped apart by truly informed counter-arguments. And while you could not convince the hardcore Autistic believers, the other less indoctrinated readership was simply swayed by the arguments of the other group.

Thus sites like the Daily Bell called it quits and so did others. And the Ron Paul bait and switch also ended. Currently the online pendulum swings already away from the Libertarians for a variety of reasons. But I will say this - at least Libertarians will debate you (the non-globalist ones at least) - the Marxists on the other side of the spectrum are beyond reason and debate.

That is why the Marxists would simply shut down free speech and any doubting of the their system. A Libertarian system would be always up for debate. Even if we do not agree with them on all things, we do acknowledge that this love for freedom of speech is one of their fundamental belief cornerstones.

So where exactly do the Austrians go wrong

*Cold Shower Crew*
*No Fap Crew*
*150+ IQ Crew*
Reply
#98

Why is libertarianism equated with autism?

I'm surprised how this thread is back on top being the original poster about this. I realized I should've thought about what I said, it was just really asking why some posters thought libertarians were autistic. I see I posted like a troll.
Reply
#99

Why is libertarianism equated with autism?

More generally on libertarianism, from Nassim Taleb (who calls himself a libertarian) at the tail end of a chapter in his book warning people to be careful about realising that religion doesn't mean the same thing to Sunni suicide bombers as it does to Buddhists as it does to Protestant Christians:

Quote:Skin in the Game Wrote:

As we mentioned, the Roman emperor Julian the Apostate tried to revert to ancient paganism after his father's cousin Constantine the Great made Christianity a state religion almost half a century earlier. But he made a fatal reasoning error.

His problem was that, having been brought up as a Christian, he imagined that paganism required a structure similar to that of the church, ce genre de trucs. So he tried to create pagan bishops, synods, and these kinds of things. He did not realise that each pagan group had his own definition of religion, that each temple had its own practices, that by definition paganism was distributed in its execution, rituals, cosmogonies, practices, and "beliefs". Pagans did not have a category for paganism.

After Julian, a brilliant general and warrior, died in battle (heroically), the dream of returning to ancient values ended with him.

Just as paganism cannot be pigeon-holed, the same applies to libertarianism. It does not fit the structure of a political "party" -- only that of a decentralised political movement. The very concept doesn't allow for the straitjacket of a strong party line and unified policy with respect to, say, court locations or relations with Mongolia. Political parties are hierarchical, they are designed in a way to substitute someone's own decision making with a well-defined protocol. This doesn't work with libertarians. The nomenklatura that is necessary in the functioning of a party cannot exist in a libertarian environment fraught with fractions and vehemently independent people.

Nevertheless, we libertarians share a minimal set of beliefs, the central one being to substitute the rule of law for the rule of authority. Without necessarily realising it, libertarians believe in complex systems. And, since libertarianism is a movement, it can still exist as splintered factions within other political parties.

This should be seen in the context, the very realistic context, that Taleb holds that universalism in political views is idiocy. Groups of people are not, I am surprised to learn, just the sum of their parts; they are something else again, in the same way that a riot and the madness of crowds are real things with their own existence. Consequently, socialism at the macro level has never worked. At the micro level, it sometimes does, as any parent who's ever had to figure out how to distribute ice cream to a few siblings has discovered for the sake of their own sanity.

Remissas, discite, vivet.
God save us from people who mean well. -storm
Reply

Why is libertarianism equated with autism?

This is only my guess but, as an high-functioning autistic guy (just a diagnosis, not a crutch - I learned game and nobody ever knows unless I tell them) who was a libertarian at one point in the past myself, I would guess that it is because libertarians tend to be idealistic utopianists who do not take into account (or seem to even be aware of) variations in human behavior and motivation. The fact is that a truly libertarian (in the American sense) system of government would fail within a week because the open borders would make the country vulnerable to invasion by other less permissive cultures, the women would overwhelmingly vote for the sort of nonsense that would ruin the freedoms and benefits enjoyed by everyone, some people would take advantage of the relative lack of law and order to victimize, manipulate, and swindle others, and others would inevitably seek to take over so that they may sit upon the aluminum throne. In a truly libertarian society, it only takes a single ambitious psychopath to bring everything crashing down.

Additionally, libertarians tend to be what would be considered fiscally conservative in the US while being what would be considered socially very liberal in the same country. They are basically "conservatives" who do not want to step on anyone's toes by taking a stand on any social issue that might be unpopular at the time. They are also radical individualists and relativists (which goes with being socially liberal) who, like autists, seem to be very often unable to identify with or even imagine themselves as part of a larger group of other humans who each have their own goals, desires, motives, and so on. So, like many autists do in their own personal lives, libertarians tend to support whichever policy or course of action promises to make them more able to remove themselves from and, for the most part, ignore the rest of humanity. For these reasons, they do not have any major enemies but nor do they have any allies. Like most autists, they tend to exist, all but invisible, on the periphery of the political scene, coming and going without anybody else taking much notice and, if they all disappeared tomorrow, it is unlikely that their absence would throw society out of balance.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)