How libertarian leaning is this forum?
-
@jens @Hando-Jin Are libertarians actually looking at most people today and thinking, "These people are capable of self-governing"?
-
@Kilgore libertarianism might work fine if everyone is 130 iq and living homogeneously. People right now are dumber and sicker than they have ever been. To think anything good would come from "letting the reigns loose" on people who are so fundamentally sick that they are literally cancerous tumors walking around in a semi-hibernation state is quite foolish I must say.
-
@jens national selection lol
-
@jens said in How libertarian leaning is this forum?:
@Kilgore libertarianism might work fine if everyone is 130 iq and living homogeneously. People right now are dumber and sicker than they have ever been. To think anything good would come from "letting the reigns loose" on people who are so fundamentally sick that they are literally cancerous tumors walking around in a semi-hibernation state is quite foolish I must say.
I disagree. I think that's exactly what they need.
Much of the sickness is caused by the current social order. Meaningless work being chief among them. I don't think the answer to sickness caused by authoritarianism is going to be having them live under somebody else's idea of a better authority.
-
@Hando-Jin said in How libertarian leaning is this forum?:
current social order
I think the dreadful social order is mostly a result of poor biological health, the social order then reinforces sickness. Healthy people will produce a healthy social order. Libertarianism is a critique of highly regulatory governments. That being said, what about government regulation is preventing people from creating healthy communities, social structure, and engaging in meaningful work? We both agree on the drawbacks of authoritarianism, but I am skeptical of the idea that our authoritarian social orders biggest driver is government regulation. Aside from taxation, social disorder and authoritarianism seems to be a product of a lack of governmental control not an excess. Big pharma and mega corporations sell poison to everyone, not the government Mass migration is a problem, and the government lets them do so. We live in one of the most libertarian times in recent history, and the social order has never been worse. The government allows the federal reserve to exist, which is a private institution. And inflation is behind many problems behind the current social order, don't we wish the government would step in and end the federal reserve?
-
@Kilgore said in How libertarian leaning is this forum?:
@jens @Hando-Jin Are libertarians actually looking at most people today and thinking, "These people are capable of self-governing"?
That is precisely the fatal error in libertarianism. It is projection of one's perceived self-sufficiency on the population at large. Worse, often this perception of self-sufficiency is not even justified.
-
@Ecstatic_Hamster said in How libertarian leaning is this forum?:
@Sugar completely support people in their rights to do anything that does not hurt others. Drugs prostitution etc all should be legal completely.
How could engaging in drugs and prostitution not hurt others?
-
@TheSir why would it hurt others? If I take a drug now, you have no idea and it’s not your business. It’s never anyone else’s business what a person does or takes into his body. The only thing that is other people’s business is aggressions against them. Taking a drug or practicing some type of sex that others find objectionable is nobody’s business.
I believe in freedom from coercion and compulsion. I suggest you read Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt, and perhaps The Road to Serfdom by Hayek. Anything bu Murray Rothbard as he was a fantastic historian and a very good writer and storyteller.
-
@Ecstatic_Hamster Though we abide by individualism, as individuals we do not exist in absolute isolation nor can our actions be separated from the living fabric of the society. Where the 'fine until it harms somebody' line of reasoning falls short is in not acknowledging that the behaviors justified by such rhetoric more often than not characteristically lower the individual's potential to positively contribute to the surrounding society. Since deliberately diminishing the growth potential of an entity is almost universally regarded as harmful, it would be fair to assert that letting the individual harm themselves in the name of pleasure will be indirectly harmful to everyone in the society by lowering the individual's ability to contribute to societal growth. In other words, in 'fine until it hurts somebody', the somebody has to not merely refer to bystanders, but the subject himself too, if we are to truly be mindful of the harmful consequences of our choices. The question thus becomes: why should the society harm itself by allowing its inhabitants to harm themselves?
-
BTW There is already a similar thread https://bioenergetic.forum/topic/730/why-is-the-ray-peat-community-so-far-right/
-
@Kvirion that isn't anyone else's business. My contribution to society is my business and nobody else's. There is no such thing as "society". There are ONLY individuals. Society is just another concept used to justify coercion and compulsion.
-
@Ecstatic_Hamster said in How libertarian leaning is this forum?:
There is no such thing as "society". There are ONLY individuals.
LOL! This statement above is against all valid scientific knowledge...
-
Humans act to achieve desired ends. That is all society is, acting individuals. A distinction between isolate and collective activities are a bit redundant to the matter, unless we're talking about forced collectivization...which means humans are no longer free to act in the pursuit to achieve desired ends.
-
I recommend reading Ludwig von Mises's Human Action. It's an indispensable read for anyone wanting to understand the subjective nature of humans.
-
@Ecstatic_Hamster You say there are only individuals by using a collective form of communication. Language itself is developed through society. Matthew Raphael Johnson discusses this topic in this video.
Furthermore, what you do is everbody's business as you are using up scarce resources, and our forefathers sacrificed for this moment. You have a God given moral duty to be good. You have a duty to your brothers and sisters to be your highest self.I think we should adpot the libertarian view that big goverment is wasteful at best, and destructive in most instances. Moreover we should judge the goverment by what it is and does, and not by how it suistain itself powerwise(Rothbard). That being said, we should be conservatives/socialist in terms of morality. We should not legalize drugs. Pornography should only be available to adults. Prostitution should be legal, taxed, not discussed, and hidden from society at large.
-
@Norwegian-Mugabe Who is this god you speak of? You have a god given moral duty if you choose voluntarily to accept the word of god as valid. But the separation of church & state is the only thing that prevents our nation from devolving into another dark age. There is a world where religious zealots can be just as dangerous as drag queens to our children. Emotional cultural biases have no place in determining our liberties...our forefathers specifically fought and died to prevent that as well. Also taxation is theft, and regulation is anti-market, so in a way I agree with you we shouldn't be "legalizing" drugs. I should be able to open a lemonade stand and sell fentanyl to whoever wants it.
-
@Mulloch94 said in How libertarian leaning is this forum?:
Ludwig von Mises's Human Action.
It's outdated, mostly incorrect, and...
BTW New Science says:
“Selfishness beats altruism within groups. Altruistic groups beat selfish groups. Everything else is commentary.” ― David Sloan Wilson, Edward O. Wilson -
@Norwegian-Mugabe this is why I don't usually participate in these discussions.
Your values are that coercion and compulsion are okay. Mine are they are not.
There is no reconciling. And I'll never change anyone's mind.
I've done a great deal of reading on political economy and I'm happy to answer sincere questions but I have no interest in debating someone who fundamentally is okay forcing people to do things in the name of some collective concept. That is very abhorrent to me.
-
@Mulloch94 The German-speaking countries between 1770-1830 were the best period in history, and it was built upon Christianity. The Renaissance was also Christian. In other words, the peaks of mankind were fueled by the correct Christian beliefs. Christianity is reasonable and also our tradition, so we should try to build great Christian societies again. The marriage institution is the first thing that needs to be fixed. We should not allow no-fault divorce, and we should incentivize marriage much more than we do today in terms of tax breaks and more child support ETC.
Moreover, all policies in all societies without exception are based on morality. You cannot get away from forming society on moral grounds. Anarcho-capitalism and communism are also chosen on moral grounds.
@Kvirion That's one of the best quotes I have ever read. Thank you for sharing it.
@Ecstatic_Hamster There are good reasons for why certain things should be allowed, while other things should be either banished or decentivezed. Pornography, prostituion, and recreational drugs for the most part all leads to a worsening of people and the fabric between people. Our policies should lift both individuals and society towards greater heights. If you do not want to debate, then get the hell out of political posts like this. We create these post to share points of view. Stendhal adviced us to enter society with a duel. That's what I support.
-
@Ecstatic_Hamster said in How libertarian leaning is this forum?:
Society is just another concept used to justify coercion and compulsion.
In that case, why submit to it? Why pay taxes to it and benefit from its tax-produced products and services? I don't believe you are really against the idea of a society. Rather, you just want rights without duties. Yet duties are necessary for the perpetuation of your rights. Unless you are an anarchist, wanting to enjoy individualism while disregarding how to best serve the society that is making your individualism possible is the attitude of a parasite. Is it not so?
