It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Top 10 Reasons Libertarians Aren’t Nice To You • Christopher Cantwell

page: 2
10
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 14 2016 @ 11:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: MagnaCarta2015
Interesting article.

Libertarianism has become a bit of a self congratulatory badge for conservatives that want to separate themselves while not being particularly libertarian in their actual outlook, I'd imagine many would vehemently deny being anarchists due to the negative connotations associated with the word but what he said was true... it pretty much is anarchist ideology.


Most do openly consider themselves anarcho-capitalists but, like the confusion of the term liberal, the unqualified term anarchism is more closely associated with anarcho-syndicalism in the popular vernacular.

In any case, as he correctly points out, there really aren't any converts from other political ideologies. Political pundits never decry the game.




posted on Jan, 14 2016 @ 11:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: greencmp

Reduce a society to economics and you start to forget a society involves people, I suppose. I like the libertarian critique, but The ideals of libertarianism are just as abstract and unattainable as socialism.


The ideal itself of not harming others certainly isn't antithetical to society. Essentially, libertarians believe only in society.

In a world with borders and armies, statelessness is indeed unattainable or, at least, likely to be very short lived.



posted on Jan, 14 2016 @ 11:27 AM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

So all Libertarians are arrogant with elitist mentalities? I don't think that is true and I wouldn't be so keen to promote that about myself.



posted on Jan, 14 2016 @ 11:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: greencmp

So all Libertarians are arrogant with elitist mentalities? I don't think that is true and I wouldn't be so keen to promote that about myself.


It really always has been a bit up its own ass but, that is the nature of an ideology that presumes its own meliority.

Honest introspection really can't be flattering or congratulatory.

The main point is that knowing that what is right can never be is terribly unsettling. Therefore, any vestiges of hope at realizing them anywhere but in theory are probably best expunged.

It doesn't mean give up on truth, it just means don't expect popular opinion to reflect it.
edit on 14-1-2016 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2016 @ 11:43 AM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

Then I'm glad I'm no longer a Libertarian. I try not to assume I'm better or smarter than the person I'm talking to just because we disagree. That is a quick way to never see eye-to-eye with anyone else.

Also, debating people stuck up their own ass is the worst.



posted on Jan, 14 2016 @ 11:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: greencmp

Then I'm glad I'm no longer a Libertarian. I try not to assume I'm better or smarter than the person I'm talking to just because we disagree. That is a quick way to never see eye-to-eye with anyone else.

Also, debating people stuck up their own ass is the worst.


You do it all the time.

And you were never a libertarian.
edit on 14-1-2016 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2016 @ 11:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: greencmp

Then I'm glad I'm no longer a Libertarian. I try not to assume I'm better or smarter than the person I'm talking to just because we disagree. That is a quick way to never see eye-to-eye with anyone else.

Also, debating people stuck up their own ass is the worst.


You do it all the time.

And you were never a libertarian.


Well I see you are going to live up to your points in the OP. With that ciao, I'm not going to get into a pissing match with you over this.



posted on Jan, 14 2016 @ 12:06 PM
link   
a reply to: greencmp


The ideal itself of not harming others certainly isn't antithetical to society. Essentially, libertarians believe only in society.

In a world with borders and armies, statelessness is indeed unattainable or, at least, likely to be very short lived.


I'm fairly certain non-aggression is not an ideal solely in the domain of libertarianism.

What I mean is, without any examples of successful libertarian societies, there is no way to know if it works or not. All we have is some general idea of what it means, influenced for the most part by a few intellectuals.



posted on Jan, 14 2016 @ 12:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: greencmp


The ideal itself of not harming others certainly isn't antithetical to society. Essentially, libertarians believe only in society.

In a world with borders and armies, statelessness is indeed unattainable or, at least, likely to be very short lived.


I'm fairly certain non-aggression is not an ideal solely in the domain of libertarianism.

What I mean is, without any examples of successful libertarian societies, there is no way to know if it works or not. All we have is some general idea of what it means, influenced for the most part by a few intellectuals.


That's basically accurate except that violence is not precluded, just not initiatable.

In that sense it is akin to taoism and other philosophies that have never been broadly manifested.

Another, perhaps better, summarization might be that coercion is forbidden and only choice is allowed. This happens to be the definition of voluntary cooperation.



posted on Jan, 14 2016 @ 12:31 PM
link   
Well it's good to know they are smarter and morally superior to the rest of us, I shall always bow down to the libertarians from now on.



posted on Jan, 14 2016 @ 12:32 PM
link   
a reply to: greencmp



In that sense it is akin to taoism and other philosophies that have never been broadly manifested.

Another, perhaps better, summarization might be that coercion is forbidden and only choice is allowed. This happens to be the definition of voluntary cooperation.


What bothers me personally is that choice isn't the only thing that binds peoples and societies. I fear that a libertarianism society, assuming everyone voluntarily cooperated in it according to their own decisions and not enforced from the top down, would give self-interest free reign with little restraint or opposition.

As a libertarian, what's your stance on borders?



posted on Jan, 14 2016 @ 12:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
Well it's good to know they are smarter and morally superior to the rest of us, I shall always bow down to the libertarians from now on.


Only if you choose to.




posted on Jan, 14 2016 @ 12:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: greencmp



In that sense it is akin to taoism and other philosophies that have never been broadly manifested.

Another, perhaps better, summarization might be that coercion is forbidden and only choice is allowed. This happens to be the definition of voluntary cooperation.


What bothers me personally is that choice isn't the only thing that binds peoples and societies. I fear that a libertarianism society, assuming everyone voluntarily cooperated in it according to their own decisions and not enforced from the top down, would give self-interest free reign with little restraint or opposition.

As a libertarian, what's your stance on borders?


It would also give self-sacrifice and pure charity free reign.

As long as a person is not harming others, what is there to restrain?

It isn't necessarily about self-interest though, just the absence of duress.

The border question is difficult to answer, if the states which surround a free people have borders, it wouldn't be up to us. Moreover, in an actual libertarian society, private property always has defined boundaries whether they are hardened or not.
edit on 14-1-2016 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2016 @ 12:45 PM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

Well I didn't know it was a point of being a libertarian, now that I know those two points I will have no choice!

And to think I hear all this ridicule about how the left acts smarter and morally superior all the time. The libertarians are the real title holders of that!



posted on Jan, 14 2016 @ 12:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: greencmp

Well I didn't know it was a point of being a libertarian, now that I know those two points I will have no choice!

And to think I hear all this ridicule about how the left acts smarter and morally superior all the time. The libertarians are the real title holders of that!


We are certainly all more alike than we care to admit.



posted on Jan, 14 2016 @ 01:00 PM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

I personally feel your OP would have been enhanced by this quote

It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a ‘dismal science.’ But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.”
― Murray N. Rothbard

That said I'll give you points 10 to 6, 5 down is seriously up for debate....



posted on Jan, 14 2016 @ 01:00 PM
link   
a reply to: greencmp




It would also give self-sacrifice and pure charity free reign.

As long as a person is not harming others, what is there to restrain?

It isn't necessarily about self-interest though, just the absence of duress.


I can agree with that regarding the absence of duress.

I think people already have free-reign to self-sacrifice and charity, but I could be wrong about that. I would agree that more government intervention lessens the desire for self-sacrifice and charity, but I don't think less or no taxes would produce a result any different.

Damage to the environment is my main concern. What is the libertarian thought on the environment?



posted on Jan, 14 2016 @ 01:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: greencmp

I personally feel your OP would have been enhanced by this quote

It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a ‘dismal science.’ But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.”
― Murray N. Rothbard

That said I'll give you points 10 to 6, 5 down is seriously up for debate....


Good call, that was my first choice too but, I deleted it because I use it too much and I didn't want just another meme.

An important family member died yesterday so I suppose I'm not really trying to be influential here as much as cathartic.



posted on Jan, 14 2016 @ 01:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: greencmp




It would also give self-sacrifice and pure charity free reign.

As long as a person is not harming others, what is there to restrain?

It isn't necessarily about self-interest though, just the absence of duress.


I can agree with that regarding the absence of duress.

I think people already have free-reign to self-sacrifice and charity, but I could be wrong about that. I would agree that more government intervention lessens the desire for self-sacrifice and charity, but I don't think less or no taxes would produce a result any different.

Damage to the environment is my main concern. What is the libertarian thought on the environment?


Murray Rothbard is probably the most thorough about environmental issues. He simply treats it as property rights.

Befouling another person's property is a violation of their property rights and is an act of violence of sorts.

He explains pretty well how a completely private justice system might operate.



posted on Jan, 14 2016 @ 01:37 PM
link   
a reply to: greencmp




Murray Rothbard is probably the most thorough about environmental issues. He simply treats it as property rights.

Befouling another person's property is a violation of their property rights and is an act of violence of sorts.

He explains pretty well how a completely private justice system might operate.


I'll have to give him a read. Any recommendations? I admit my naivety on this topic so I appreciate your insight.

But what about one's own property? Can one rape its resources, maybe pave over it? Can one do what he wants on it? Also private land does not include air and oceans. I just have this inclination that libertarianism declines any obligation to these sorts of things.

I'm sorry about your loss, friend. If you're mourning, I would suggest avoiding the regressive left on these boards.




top topics



 
10
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join