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.

 

Why Libertarians Are Hopeless • Christopher Cantwell

page: 1
10
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 14 2016 @ 06:07 PM
link   
I am sorry to say that I am forced to agree with this assessment of the state of political discourse and the direction of our society.

Blame is irrelevant at this point, logic and reason no longer serve us if ever they really did considering how little they influence popular opinion.

Why Libertarians Are Hopeless



The time for a dictator and monarch is upon us, and however much this may displease the libertarian matters not. His goals were sabotaged by his acceptance of the rodent, and the time of the wolf has arrived. I fear the best we can hope for is that our ruler be benevolent, and that under his reign a better humanity emerges.

But with history as my guide, I won’t be holding my breath for such an outcome.


"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy."

-Alexander Fraser Tytler(?)

I really can’t see a way to pull up out of this death spiral, the damage is too extensive and there is no will to repair it anyway.




posted on Jan, 14 2016 @ 06:13 PM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

Might I suggest a political persuasion in lieu of your conclusion?



posted on Jan, 14 2016 @ 06:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheTory
a reply to: greencmp

Might I suggest a political persuasion in lieu of your conclusion?


I thought that he had. Benevolent dictatorship.



posted on Jan, 14 2016 @ 06:21 PM
link   
a reply to: greencmp



Why Libertarians Are Hopeless


Same can be said about every other political party that exists; there's nothing more stuffy than walking into a movement that is ruled by politically-based platforms and those who would rather poop their britches than even think that there might be someone who disagrees.

next up? Political commandos in action! Film at 11!





posted on Jan, 14 2016 @ 06:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp
I am sorry to say that I am forced to agree with this assessment of the state of political discourse and the direction of our society.

Blame is irrelevant at this point, logic and reason no longer serve us if ever they really did considering how little they influence popular opinion.

Why Libertarians Are Hopeless



The time for a dictator and monarch is upon us, and however much this may displease the libertarian matters not. His goals were sabotaged by his acceptance of the rodent, and the time of the wolf has arrived. I fear the best we can hope for is that our ruler be benevolent, and that under his reign a better humanity emerges.

But with history as my guide, I won’t be holding my breath for such an outcome.


"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy."

-Alexander Fraser Tytler(?)

I really can’t see a way to pull up out of this death spiral, the damage is too extensive and there is no will to repair it anyway.


Then what group do you feel is not hopeless?



posted on Jan, 14 2016 @ 06:37 PM
link   
Push too far and take things out of balance and this is what will happen. The rabbits have out-grown their place and pushed too hard and the wolves are getting angry.



posted on Jan, 14 2016 @ 06:43 PM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

This is why we need to stop voting for parties and personalities, and start voting on the issues. And I do not mean that we need to vote for the person or party who will advance our will in a given vote, but we need to install a system of governance in the western world, which totally does away with representatives, and forces each individual to represent themselves.

The people should be the ones to compose and decide upon which policies will be bought forward for possible immortalisation in law, and the people should then vote on which policies get through that process, and which fail. The people. THE PEOPLE! Not a judge or any collection thereof, not a politician or any number thereof, but the whole of the mass of the people, by some system of distributed democracy, one in which the people are the SOLE power in the nation.

I think running a modern, western nation by way of party political status quo, is bound to result in failure at some point, and arguably it already has. I want better for my own nation here in the UK, and I think that if people by and large, in the States had any idea that such a thing could come about at some point, they would want it yesterday.
edit on 14-1-2016 by TrueBrit because: Clarification added for the benefit of unwary readers.



posted on Jan, 14 2016 @ 06:48 PM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

Did you read the very, very long essay?

As it says, voting is part of the problem because people do not vote on what is best for all but only on what they can grab for themselves.


edit on 14-1-2016 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2016 @ 06:57 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

I did read the entire article, and many more like it over the years. This is not the first time I have read such points made, and will not be the last.

However, I think that if you really are concerned about the sort of system I describe, with relation to the article the OP posted, you might want to think about it a little deeper.

You see, while it is true that at present, with the system as it is, people will vote to see their needs dealt with, and ignore everything else, in a distributed system as I described that would be impossible, because someone else would always vote it down, because one persons needs always knock elbows with someone else's.

Over time, the system would self regulate, and self improve, because people would realise that if they want an economy, taxation system, healthcare, and so on, that works, they have to think about it, come up with good solutions for the problems which ail it, and learn to formulate policy which will work to install the solution. At that point, others will realise the benefit or drawback of that particular policy suggestion, and tweak it, and mess about with it until a workable, and agreeable compromise has been made, at which point it gets passed into law, and things move along. Also, with the entire country working on things during a small portion of their down time, we would get more kinks worked out of our system of governance in one week, than our stuffy couple of hundred dimwits in suits do at the moment over an entire parliamentary term, and they get paid to do the job, which is ridiculous given how bad they all are at it!



posted on Jan, 14 2016 @ 07:04 PM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

What I see is you talking about direct democracy. Such a system is simple tyranny of the majority which was directly addressed and if part of the problem. Right now, our so-called Representative system has been watered down to the point where it might as well be direct democracy, and we can see the results. We are very near the tipping point where one of the two described ideologies can forever enforce its way of the rest of us, the minority to the detriment of all even if they don't see it that way.

Do you really want to see what happens when the rabbits try to tyrannize the rest of us? The anger everyone professes to decry is only the beginning.

And I confess that I don't want to see it either. I've been plain about that. There needs to be balance between the two sides or there will be some sort of war.

edit on 14-1-2016 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2016 @ 07:19 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

That is just the thing. Direct democracy is very different from what I am suggesting. Direct democracy is, this rabble of people think that kicking the snot out of this particular group or dude is a good idea, getting torches and cudgels, and going and doing it. That is not what I am taking about.

I am talking about a system where all decisions must be ratified by not just majority consent, but with input from everyone. There are things that we all agree on, like what we want from our nation, in return for the taxes we pay, and to make sure we get them, we could install methods of getting rid of corrupt, unelected individuals from within the ranks of public service. As you may or may not be aware, the department responsible for tax and customs in my nation, is fantastically corrupt, and has some very dodgy contracts with a company which supplies it with everything from office supplies, to air-conditioning servicing.

That contract, under a distributed democracy, could be picked up, torn apart, its issuers arrested for treason, and the corporate body that has been skimming us for years fined to the tune of billions of pounds, its owners arrested, its assets liquidated and returned to the people as interest on their overpayment to this company, and by doing this in each and every government department, chasing down corruption without relent or concern for the waves it makes, we could be sitting on enough to future proof our country and feed hordes and hordes of migrants without even flinching about the cost.



posted on Jan, 14 2016 @ 07:47 PM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

If anyone is hopeless it's the conservatives. Look at the clowns running for president in the GOP. Good lord, they need to clean house ASAP. Democrats too, just horrible.



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 01:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp
Why Libertarians Are Hopeless • Christopher Cantwell

So democracy is a failed experiment.
No surprise here!

What's with demonizing an entire 'category' of people?
Isn't that bigotry, like; all Republikkkans are low IQ, greedy, selfish, corrupt people (just because most/many are)?

To me, anyway, 'libertarian' has something to do with 'liberty' (definitionally, anyway).
Last I heard, that was not a 'bad thing'!



edit on 15-1-2016 by namelesss because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 05:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheTory
a reply to: greencmp

Might I suggest a political persuasion in lieu of your conclusion?


It's not that I am against libertarianism, I have been beating my head against a brick wall about it for a while.

If you get the chance to read that article and the source materials, you will see why I have come to this conclusion myself.



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 05:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker



originally posted by: TheTory
a reply to: greencmp

Might I suggest a political persuasion in lieu of your conclusion?


I thought that he had. Benevolent dictatorship.


It's not that I want it and it is very unlikely to be benevolent.

Rather, I have to admit now that it seems inevitable much to my dismay.



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 05:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: greencmp
I am sorry to say that I am forced to agree with this assessment of the state of political discourse and the direction of our society.

Blame is irrelevant at this point, logic and reason no longer serve us if ever they really did considering how little they influence popular opinion.

Why Libertarians Are Hopeless



The time for a dictator and monarch is upon us, and however much this may displease the libertarian matters not. His goals were sabotaged by his acceptance of the rodent, and the time of the wolf has arrived. I fear the best we can hope for is that our ruler be benevolent, and that under his reign a better humanity emerges.

But with history as my guide, I won’t be holding my breath for such an outcome.


"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy."

-Alexander Fraser Tytler(?)

I really can’t see a way to pull up out of this death spiral, the damage is too extensive and there is no will to repair it anyway.


Then what group do you feel is not hopeless?


I don't know, I'm not sure that there is any way to avoid what's coming.




posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 05:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: greencmp

This is why we need to stop voting for parties and personalities, and start voting on the issues. And I do not mean that we need to vote for the person or party who will advance our will in a given vote, but we need to install a system of governance in the western world, which totally does away with representatives, and forces each individual to represent themselves.

The people should be the ones to compose and decide upon which policies will be bought forward for possible immortalisation in law, and the people should then vote on which policies get through that process, and which fail. The people. THE PEOPLE! Not a judge or any collection thereof, not a politician or any number thereof, but the whole of the mass of the people, by some system of distributed democracy, one in which the people are the SOLE power in the nation.

I think running a modern, western nation by way of party political status quo, is bound to result in failure at some point, and arguably it already has. I want better for my own nation here in the UK, and I think that if people by and large, in the States had any idea that such a thing could come about at some point, they would want it yesterday.


If you have a few hours, I just put up a thread with the source materials he used for that article.

The Truth About Gene Wars: r/K Selection Theory • Stefan Molyneux

It's not for the faint of heart.



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 05:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: greencmp

If anyone is hopeless it's the conservatives. Look at the clowns running for president in the GOP. Good lord, they need to clean house ASAP. Democrats too, just horrible.


The mainstream candidates are not genuine Conservatives or genuine "Democrats".




posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 05:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: namelesss

originally posted by: greencmp
Why Libertarians Are Hopeless • Christopher Cantwell

So democracy is a failed experiment.
No surprise here!

What's with demonizing an entire 'category' of people?
Isn't that bigotry, like; all Republikkkans are low IQ, greedy, selfish, corrupt people (just because most/many are)?

To me, anyway, 'libertarian' has something to do with 'liberty' (definitionally, anyway).
Last I heard, that was not a 'bad thing'!


I agree, that's not really what he's saying though.

It's pretty horrifying if you read it and the source materials.
edit on 15-1-2016 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 06:40 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Just not 'genuine' is sufficient....




top topics



 
10
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join