PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Becky (My pronouns are Assigned/By/God) on January 21, 2021, 07:20:14 AM
-
I agree.
https://darkherald.net/2021/01/08/leaving-libertarian/
“The iron clad belief that there is only the self and that there is no one to stand in judgement over your life but the self that you created. This is the foundation for that entire school of thought. Atheism is not an optional extra if you are a true capital “L” Libertarian, it’s required.
Thus we hit the fundamental flaw; if there is only the self…then why have children?
The future belongs to those who show up and Libertarians breed like progressives. One child per couple leads to extinction in four generations.”
-
https://darkherald.net/2021/01/08/leaving-libertarian/
Mighty long screed. Skimmed to the end, looking to see what ‘ism he now believes? Socialism? Or some other authoritarianism? Or one of the many “mostly free ‘isms” which penalize actions that victimize no one? He mentions nationalism, but that means nothing - almost any philosophy except anarchist can be applied the nationalist label.
Really not sure why libertarians are suddenly being attacked or at fault - they have little real political power (probably because they eschew power as part of their philosophy - one of his few valid criticisms.)
-
Summary - he bastardized the definitions of libertarian thought, conflated it with communism and then condemned it. Or maybe he is just conflating it with the Libertarian political party, which is staffed with people who would rather be right than win (ie, fanatics)
Example: Free trade is clearly and obviously a failure.
He cites trade deficit as the proof, but ignores the complex reasons for deficits. One of the major ones is the statist over-regulation of industry, which has resulted in the US being unable to produce goods at a lower cost. An additional reason is that the excellent US dollar causes US made goods to be too expensive overseas, so US exports are limited.
Second example: Atheism is the bedrock of Libertarianism.
For a true libertarian, religion is irrelevant. What someone else believes is their choice, what you believe is yours. If someone is stating that atheism is the official belief of Libertarianism, they are missing the boat. The very structure of there being an "official" anything for libertarian thinking is wrong.
Bottom line, he doesn't get what being libertarian means.
-
Strange - I thought I had posted a second reply here, but I don’t see it now.
-
I was agreeing with the portion of the article I quoted.
-
I was agreeing with the portion of the article I quoted.
But if it is wrong, how can it be a flaw? Libertarians do not require atheism. Think about that sentence, there is no required anything for real libertarians. Anyone who claims otherwise is inherently violating the philopsophy.
Which means: You're being fooled
-
I was agreeing with the portion of the article I quoted.
I understand your point. I don't agree, though. I did attempt to post a response to that blogger's web site, but my post there went into moderation and while he has approved at least one subsequent reply, mine has yet to appear - if ever. I no longer have the text of my reply to his blog (I thought I had coped it to this thread, but maybe I forgot to click "Post" after I had clicked "Preview".) The basic thrust of my reply to him was roughly as follows:
What "ism" or philosophy are you leaving Libertarianism FOR? Nationalism is defined as devotion to the State and whatever philosophy or policies it adopts. It is therefore non-specific. Is it socialism, authoritarianism, some other "ism"?
Two of the three women who helped define modern Libertarianism, Rose Wilder Lane, Isabel Paterson, and Ayn Rand, believed in God. You quoted from the one atheist and ignored the other two, who saw religion and Libertarianism as compatible (and Paterson felt Libertarianism followed from Christian princiles.)
-
Ayn Rand’s philosophy was Objectivism, not really libertarianism.
-
Ayn Rand’s philosophy was Objectivism, not really libertarianism.
True, but she developed it after her association with Lane and Paterson, so I think it’s a philosophical branch from libertarianism.
-
Just pointing out that when there is nothing beyond the self, nothing transcendent, and nothing holy (except the self), chaos reigns. We’re seeing it now. I suppose it’s true that such a belief isn’t required to be a libertarian, so I’ll let that go.
But I suppose also that “belief” in the self and its rights indicates belief in some kind of transcendence. Principles and eternal verities dwell in transcendence.
The word for a narrow, empirical-only, self-focused person might accurately be “meocon.” All starts and ends with self and all existence focuses on self and what self is doing, deserving and being. That leads to the identity politics travesty and destruction we now are seeing.
Nor do libertarians as a whole apparently eschew having children. I don’t really know their views on that, if any. I confess that the only “real-life” libertarian I ever have (to my knowledge) interacted with is Jim, and that’s on the internet. He could be a Rastafarian posing as a libertarian for giggles.
-
Just pointing out that when there is nothing beyond the self, nothing transcendent, and nothing holy (except the self), chaos reigns. We’re seeing it now. I suppose it’s true that such a belief isn’t required to be a libertarian, so I’ll let that go.
But I suppose also that “belief” in the self and its rights indicates belief in some kind of transcendence. Principles and eternal verities dwell in transcendence.
The word for a narrow, empirical-only, self-focused person might accurately be “meocon.” All starts and ends with self and all existence focuses on self and what self is doing, deserving and being. That leads to the identity politics travesty and destruction we now are seeing.
Have you ever read “The Virtue of Selfishness” by Ayn Rand? It’s very eye opening. Here’s a summary:
It is commonly believed that morality demands we choose between sacrificing other people to ourselves (which is deemed “selfish” and therefore immoral) and sacrificing our own values to satisfy others’ needs (which is deemed unselfish and therefore moral). In this book, Rand rejects both options as forms of selflessness, and offers a new concept of egoism — an ethics of rational selfishness that rejects sacrifice in all its forms.
Selfishness, however, does not mean “doing whatever you please.” Moral principles are not a matter of personal opinion — they are based in the facts of reality, in man’s nature as a rational being, who must think and act successfully in order to live and be happy. Morality’s task is to identify the kinds of action that in fact benefit oneself. These virtues (productivity, independence, integrity, honesty, justice, pride) are all applications of the basic virtue, rationality. Rand’s moral ideal is a life of reason, purpose and self-esteem.
It’s not true that the libertarian ideal of selfishness means it all starts and ends with the self; it does not refer to the traditional “evil” concept of the term. It is referring to basically, free market economics, in which the “selfish” profit motive results in widespread prosperity for all. This can be applied beyond economics into the personal life. A person who doesn’t focus on the self, does not evolve and develop into his best potential.
A selfish person does what leads to his own happiness, and that is best for others. Sociopaths, the quintessential example of your “evil” definition of selfishness, are actually very miserable people. Doing things for your spouse that makes them happy, makes you happy, and so is selfish. Giving to charity makes you feel good, so it is a selfish act.
This is one of the most misunderstood concepts of libertarianism.
Nor do libertarians as a whole apparently eschew having children. I don’t really know their views on that, if any. I confess that the only “real-life” libertarian I ever have (to my knowledge) interacted with is Jim, and that’s on the internet. He could be a Rastafarian posing as a libertarian for giggles.
I’ve known a lot. They’re pretty much normal people, although more intelligent than average. With intelligence comes lower birth rate, so I’m not sure being libertarian has anything to do with it. It’s just a correlation, if libertarians have fewer children. The most fervent libertarians I know are a couple with about a dozen children, so generalities don’t always apply. They’re also definitely not atheists, they are Christians, pretty devote at that.
-
Just pointing out that when there is nothing beyond the self, nothing transcendent, and nothing holy (except the self), chaos reigns.
You are correct.
However, this is not a libertarian thing. A libertarian might say "I believe in God, but if you do not, that is OK". You are free to do whatever you please without punching me (or someone else) in the nose.
-
You are correct.
However, this is not a libertarian thing. A libertarian might say "I believe in God, but if you do not, that is OK". You are free to do whatever you please without punching me (or someone else) in the nose.
Just don’t tell a Libertarian that Trump only banned bumpstocks. That’s NOT OK with them. That denotes Trump as an enemy of the second amendment, so they will vote for the libertarian, guaranteeing that the party of gun confiscation wins the election.
-
Okay, that discussion officially fries my feeble brain, even though I did make it through Fountainhead and part way through Atlas Shrugged.
But I follow.
On election night 2012, my husband turned to me after O won (or did he ... Dominion?) and said, “Until we lose the labels, we’re doomed.” One clearly can see the sides lining up against each other. It’s so easy to label and freeze.
-
Just don’t tell a Libertarian that Trump only banned bumpstocks. That’s NOT OK with them. That denotes Trump as an enemy of the second amendment, so they will vote for the libertarian, guaranteeing that the party of gun confiscation wins the election.
Yes, well Trump didn't do that, the DoJ did through reinterpreting existing law.
I would say it's a dumb thing to have banned them because 1) they aren't really good for anything except shooting fast with zero accuracy and 2) I can do the same thing with my finger and a belt loop. Actually, there's lots of ways to make a bump stock out of household items.
-
Yes, well Trump didn't do that, the DoJ did through reinterpreting existing law.
I would say it's a dumb thing to have banned them because 1) they aren't really good for anything except shooting fast with zero accuracy and 2) I can do the same thing with my finger and a belt loop. Actually, there's lots of ways to make a bump stock out of household items.
Understood. My point was libertarians literally lost their minds over this bump stock thing.
My brother and I saw one of those at the NRA convention in Indianapolis 5 or so years ago. I thought it was the most ridiculous thing I’ve seen.
-
Understood. My point was libertarians literally lost their minds over this bump stock thing.
My brother and I saw one of those at the NRA convention in Indianapolis 5 or so years ago. I thought it was the most ridiculous thing I’ve seen.
I don't know ANYONE who has one and I belong to a large gun club and a large pro 2A organization in PA. Total non issue.
-
Practice enough, put the right trigger in an AR, and do some basic gunsmithing, you can shoot almost as fast and more accurately than a bump stock.
-
Practice enough, put the right trigger in an AR, and do some basic gunsmithing, you can shoot almost as fast and more accurately than a bump stock.
(but still not as fast as that guy who did 12 shots in under 3 seconds with a 6-shot revolver)
anyway, back to bashing? Libertarianism.