Comment on this entry
No More Libertarians
Can you remember when libertarians stood for something good? Okay, maybe you can’t, but let’s at least acknowledge the arguably reasonable notions that libertarianism once represented.
...
Complete entry
COMMENTS
Posted by post-postfuturist on 05/07 at 05:25 PM
“Funny, once Libertarians have got a lot of money they’re big preachers about people’s rights to the fruits of their labor, but as soon as they run into trouble they’re the first to go running the government for hand-outs. (for example the multi-billionare dollar handouts to bankers in the US).”
This is it, the above is exactly why libertarians cannot be trusted, their hypocrisy on state assistance is unconscionable; with the caveat they do sincerely want liberty—their own liberty and that of their families, friends, associates. What is amazing is they think we can’t see the duplicity.
We’re probably better off with Mormons as transhumanist allies than libertarians.
Posted by CygnusX1 on 05/08 at 06:37 AM
@ Postfuturist..
So exactly what is your political position and social philosophy?
You hate the tea party and republicans and their conservative tendencies, you despise libertarians because of their hypocrisy, are not democrats libertarians at heart? You slate socialism and marxism, and associate them with Soviet communism and it’s failures. You dismiss anarchism as naive - what is “your” political position?
You dismiss spirituality as mumbo-jumbo, Christians as imbeciles, and the working class poor as miscreants? Have I missed anyone out?
Cynicism is the lowest and most negative form of escapism. Better to spend your life meditating in a cave than whinging in a barrel?
It’s easy to point out the world’s problems, yet it takes some hard effort and thinking to seek solutions. So come on, throw us a bone here? What do “you” propose as solutions?
Posted by post-postfuturist on 05/08 at 11:32 AM
Cygnus, you are misrepresenting what I have written, IMO spirituality may be mumbo-jumbo, but it is is necessary escapism for starters; and no one would write at a technoprogressive or any progressive-tending site that working class poor are miscreants. I wrote that my observations of 40- 50 years have shown me the bottom of what we call ‘society’ (without civilization, ‘society’ is a misnomer) is insecure & violent, with a ludicrously recidivist “justice” system to exacerbate it all and squeeze funds out of the poor. The working poor are not usually the bad guys, it is the more violent types who if you would more carefully observe the situation at the bottom, you would know what it is about—however you don’t WANT to know, and who can blame you?: having a full appreciation of the vileness of the violent underclass (not, repeat, Not, the working poor) is a challenge to the assumption of social progress being more than necessary fiction. I ‘believe’ in damage control, not social progress; as of yet genuine social progress does not exist.
After eight wasted years of the Lapdog From Crawford TX, I am as you correctly noted, cynical, however justifiable cynicism is more akin to skepticism. The prospect of yet another (heave, retch) Bushclone being elected in 2016 or even next year has made me 100 percent pro-Obama; frankly, politics doesn’t interest me much any more, politics are a mausoleum, the Politics of Nostalgia. Politics appears most of all to be one person’s gain and another’s loss; but one can accept such without actually liking it, as one accepts at a young stage of life that Santa Claus doesn’t exist and neither does the Big Rock Candy Mountain. Again, as far as I know, social progress is a necessary fiction, a construct… a carrot to get progressive donkeys to move forward—whatever forward may turn out to be. If you have any more questions, please feel free to ask at the same bat time, same bat channel:
we wont be going anywhere any time soon.
Posted by Jerry Mitchell on 05/08 at 11:39 AM
Hmm post-postfunurist, funny. I was a libertarian when I was making 9 bucks an hour and supporting a family of 3 many years ago.
I didn’t go beg for government handouts either, I just worked 60 and 70 hour weeks to keep ahead.
So your description of libertarians is patently wrong. I think you see simply what you want to see.
Posted by post-postfuturist on 05/08 at 03:35 PM
“I didn’t go beg for government handouts either, I just worked 60 and 70 hour weeks to keep ahead.”
However you had extended family & friends who did (and some do today) receive help from the state, thus your libertarianism at that time was to a certain degree evasive. So when you abandoned your somewhat shallow libertarianism it was no great loss to you or to those around you who held partially insincere—and therefore temporary—views concerning outdated, nostalgic mausoleum politics such as libertarianism.
But you and your family could see what you wanted to see at the time and can see what you want to see today. Such is liberty.
Posted by CygnusX1 on 05/08 at 03:42 PM
@ Postfuturist..
Well Batman, you seem to have escaped the question yet again.. we will find out in the end what you stand for, it is only a matter of time.
;0]
Posted by post-postfuturist on 05/08 at 04:12 PM
Told you, Cygnus: I am voting for Obama. The reason for that is his and Clinton’s views coincide with mine. Nonetheless, today’s politics are relics: everything from libertarianism to Marxism is outmoded. However libertarianism is important for those who don’t want to think too deeply about freedom; Marxism is for those who are too dense to understand the complexities of ‘society’. Religion IMO is necessary feel-good because people need to escape from unpleasant realities centering around aging & death by way of ‘eternal life’, heaven, reincarnation and so forth.
BTW, Jerry Mitchell’s idiosyncratic anecdote concerning his being a libertarian way back when is meaningless in the sum total; he wouldn’t even be specific enough to write whether he is still a libertarian—perhaps he isn’t sure. As for you? no matter what I write, Cygnus, you will attempt to gainsay it; perhaps YOU are the one who doesn’t exactly know what he wants and are searching at IEET? no way to read your mind, though.
Posted by Jerry Mitchell on 05/08 at 04:13 PM
post-postfuturist - But you lumped ALL libertarians together, so therefore your statement is in fact false. Sure, you could have said some subset might by hypocritical (as would apply to every belief structure), but no - you piled everyone together and labeled them as such.
Posted by post-postfuturist on 05/08 at 04:20 PM
PS, Cygnus:
my core beliefs derive from PR Sarkar’s theories filtered through Ravi Batra. If you don’t approve I will send you a formal apology in triplicate.
Your obedient servant,
post-postfuturist
Posted by post-postfuturist on 05/08 at 09:47 PM
“But you lumped ALL libertarians together, so therefore your statement is in fact false.”
Yes, however since IMO libertarianism is an outdated 20th century ideology, it doesn’t interest me either to the positive or the negative as to which libertarians think what. I don’t fear libertarians as I fear hardline Communists and National Socialists, yet there are more libertarians. But that’s not the real reason, the real reason is: it isn’t practical anymore to go by what people say, merely because a libertarian says he wants freedom does not necessarily mean anything. Such might only be a half-truth; it could mean he only wants freedom for himself and his allies—it isn’t what people say it is what they don’t say. You don’t believe everything you read, do you? I’ve been told libertarians are transhumanist allies yet it doesn’t mean one can go by their word, their say-so.
Posted by Peter Wicks on 05/09 at 06:26 AM
“Religion IMO is necessary feel-good because people need to escape from unpleasant realities centering around aging & death by way of ‘eternal life’, heaven, reincarnation and so forth.”
It occurred to over the weekend that there may be another, better reason why we need religion. Human beings (perhaps women more than men; in any case some more than others) instinctively relate on an interpersonal level, and consequently it can be very helpful for people to personalize concepts such as Good and Love. Lert’s assume for example that we want people to behave compassionately. It can be very helpful to this end for people to pray to a personal, anthropomorphic God of Love. Nor does this even need to involve real deception: just as you suspend disbelief when you read a novel or watch a film, so you know that the God you pray to is a figment of your imagination, but he/she is no less “real” for that, at least in a Platonic sense.
Perhaps the real impediment to constructive theism for anglosaxons is the lack of a gender-neutral personal third person pronoun in English.
Posted by Peter Wicks on 05/09 at 06:31 AM
PS @CygnusXI…I guess post-post’s political position and social philosophy is a bit like the British Constitution: you have to deduce it from all the various comments he’s made over the years  . I have a hunch it then comes out fairly close to mine. (And I also think Obama is great. Perfect no, but can you think of a successful politician who is more clever, honest and responsible?)
Posted by post-postfuturist on 05/09 at 03:39 PM
“...I guess post-post’s political position and social philosophy is a bit like the British Constitution: you have to deduce it from all the various comments he’s made over the years”
I’m like the Magna Carta: old & leathery.
Libertarians who blog at IEET and extropy chat, etc., are sophisticated and worth dialoguing (on a good day; on a bad day we monologue) with, unfortunately libertarians you meet on a daily basis are very ordinary—and such is not a compliment.
Most libertarians are from GOP-type families in rightwing locales, libertarianism is to them merely souped-up Republicanism.
But only IMO naturally.
Posted by post-postfuturist on 05/10 at 12:07 AM
For once I am going to be very specific: if libertarians are serious they will support the proposition to eliminate Selective Service, and will want to levy a defense tax—flat or graduated. Eliminating Selective Service is largely symbolic yet all the same thoroughly ethical, while instituting a defense tax is crucial.
Somehow it doesn’t appear libertarians are, or would be, much interested in either proposal; and frankly, there is little/no point in attempting to communicate with such people if they are not actually interested in hearing of what others think ought to be done to advance liberty.
Posted by post-postfuturist on 05/10 at 12:35 AM
PS:
“Nobody thinks that *they* are rich. And taxes, as every liberal knows, are only supposed to be for rich people (re: progressive tax structure).”
This is why it is so difficult to communicate; does anyone really think that any sovereign individual (SI)—from an Olsen sister to a Soros—does not know they are rich? Non- SIs, yes, but does Trump think he is wealthy? you betcha. Does Gates? yes. An SI knows he or she is an SI.
As for the second clause, “taxes, as every liberal knows, are only supposed to be for rich people (re: progressive tax structure)”, a defense tax would be a progressive tax, even if a flat tax, because it is moral, and because it forces those who have more to pay taxes to defend what they have that isn’t in cyberspace (far too difficult to tax cyber-wealth).
Merely the existence of a defense tax would draw attention to how in an uncivilized world having property means the property has to be defended—and defense has to be paid for via taxes.
Voluntary contributions for taxes? sounds rather counterintuitive, IMO.
Posted by Jerry Mitchell on 05/10 at 09:35 AM
Well, it looks like your chomping at the bit to debate the issues, but it’s unlikely your going to get many more takers on this thread. Most sensible people understand your not going to change most people’s core philosophy from a few internet postings - our frame of reference is so different that to bring them to some modicum of agreement would take eons of discussion, which most people just dont have time for.
i.e. Most libertarians have derived the usefulness of the axiom of non-aggression. Those coming from other philosophies have different axioms, so your not going to understand why I’m asking you to define your boundaries on the use of force (which is doubtful you even could). For you, other questions are more important and primary. You see us as fixating on some meaningless concept and we see you as jack booted thugs ready to go out “do-gooding” and taking whatever actions you want to meet some ultimate better cause. It’s a large gap to bridge indeed.
Posted by post-postfuturist on 05/10 at 01:25 PM
Not merely a gap, an unbridgable chasm. Liberty? what is freedom without civilization? what is freedom without decency?
You write you don’t like the state confiscating from you yet the want the state to defend you via the military, police. But who doesn’t? we say one thing, think another, do something else.
Page 2 of 2 pages < 1 2
Add your comment here:
| 
IEET Blog