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.

 

Are you an authoritarian or a libertarian?

page: 2
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 29 2016 @ 08:17 AM
link   
Silly question worded in absolutes. No one wants full dictatorship unless they're the ones in control, and I'm sorry, but anyone who wants total freedom is an idiot. Unless that total freedom is just for themselves, in which case... Isn't that rather hypocritical of them? Freedom for me, but not for you, sounds an awful lot like the current system anyway.

My answer is "neither", both options are stupid.
edit on 29/4/2016 by Eilasvaleleyn because: Reasons




posted on Apr, 29 2016 @ 09:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: BubbaJoe
Libertarian with social safety nets, I know that confuses the situation.


Not if said social safety nets are funded by private, unforced donations.

That's one of the problems that I've seen some people have with libertarian ideals--they think that it equates to selfish individuals. It does not--it just allows the individual control over what they do with their property (in this case, monetary compensation for labor) without a government forcefully taking from them and using it for whatever they deem appropriate.



posted on Apr, 29 2016 @ 09:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

I don't think that you have an appropriate grasp of libertarian ideals and how they can work for a community.



posted on Apr, 29 2016 @ 10:22 AM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

I don't think you have an appropriate grasp of what "total freedom" would actually entail.



posted on Apr, 29 2016 @ 10:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
Not if said social safety nets are funded by private, unforced donations.

Wasn't that already tried?



posted on Apr, 29 2016 @ 12:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: SlapMonkey

I don't think you have an appropriate grasp of what "total freedom" would actually entail.


Well, I at least hope that you can understand that libertarianism isn't about "total freedom." You're painting with too broad of a brush and too loose a description.

You're describing 'anarchy,' and that's different than libertarianism. True enough, libertarians desire the smallest amount of central government possible, but we still understand that SOME government in a society is necessary for everyone to coexist in relative harmony.

Even the whole idea of 'do whatever you want unless it harms another person against their will' shows you that "total freedom" is not a founding tenant of the ideology. You can't live in a society AND have total freedoms--it's impossible.



posted on Apr, 29 2016 @ 05:23 PM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant

No man, you're either a freedom loving patriot at a TEA Party rally or a jack-booted thug. Duh.

Honestly though, I'm really neither. I would absolutely not want to be associated with a libertarian though, so...I guess authoritarian?



posted on Apr, 29 2016 @ 06:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
Why does it have to be all or nothing? This implies there isn't some form of middle ground. Complete anarchy is horrendous, as is being trapped in a real dictatorship. But most people prefer something in between.

What example of real anarchism being horrendous do you have?

I prefer a well organized society with safeguards and fair rules.So anarchism is not organized and does not have fair rules? It's even better if we add in advanced technologies,So anarchism has no advanced technology? equal access to the latest medical and scientific advances,So anarchism is poor medical care and no scientific advances? and things like that. What's so bad about that?


I though the market through competition creates advances in technology not government?

Government actually makes medicare more expensive,unprofitable and inefficient.



posted on Apr, 29 2016 @ 06:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: olaru12
Imo...most of the people claiming to be Libertarian are actually Republicans that don't want to be associated with
the Cluster **** that has become the GOP.


Ask them if they are for the NAP or not.

Then ask them do they believe the in income tax,abortion legalization, and gay marriage.

The state should not be involved in income tax,abortions,or marriage.
Its a personal choice by the individual.

A RepubliClown would be for jack-booted soviet-like government if it enforces their beliefs.



posted on Apr, 29 2016 @ 06:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: John_Rodger_Cornman
Are you an authoritarian or a libertarian?

No parties. No partisan politics BS.


Alright! Something I can sink my teeth into.



Do you want maximum freedom or maximum security?


Wait, i thought you said no partisan bs. What gives?

Imma just drop this here for ya'll to chew on


Are you an Authoritarian or Libertarian?

Your either for freedom or your not.

If your for freedom and don't believe in the initialization of force your a libertarian.

If your for government freedom(and not individual freedom) and believe in the initialization of force by government then your an authoritarian.

edit on 29-4-2016 by John_Rodger_Cornman because: added content



posted on Apr, 29 2016 @ 06:57 PM
link   
I'm a libertarian but I no longer suffer from the libertarian delusion.

The delusion is that libertarians think other people have the similar levels of IQ and EQ as they do. libertarians easily will outscore other groups and are a large degree immunized from groupthink, social norms, and emotions. But libertarians are dumb enough to believe that people can think as easily as they do. Trying to apply the NAP over and over in every situation is much more difficult than making a decision based on feels and social norms. libertarians also have distinctive personality traits for example it is much harder to make a libertarian disgusted.
*See psychologist Jon Haidt for more info on personality politics

I've seen other libertarians eventually reach similar conclusions. These conclusions include things like macro level effects of culture, genetics, value systems/religion, etc.

for example democracy will not persist in a country if the average IQ is below 90. There is not even a point in trying to create one there it will fail.
*See psychologist James Flynn, charles murray
Perhaps if the average IQ of a society was let's say 115, the society was monocultural, and ethnocentric then a libertarian society could persist but it would only exist as long as they could maintain closed borders. This does not exist though.



posted on Apr, 29 2016 @ 07:06 PM
link   
a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman
Hmm, it's a little hard to answer in this format. So I'll try to respond to each part individually.


What example of real anarchism being horrendous do you have?

Go to a lot of poor regions and you'll see what I mean. I mean actual favelas, shantytowns, villages, and other lawless areas where government services and government presence are nonexistent. These are the places where gangs, paramilitaries, cartels, extremist factions, and tribal traditions "control" everything because of the lack of a stable government. And these places suck.

I've dedicated a large part of my life to exposing the plights of the poorest regions and I don't see how anyone can actually want this crap. Not to sound rude, but the only people I ever hear that want anarchy are semi-wealthy people who think the rest of the world will adhere to some honor code or system of "fairness". True anarchy in practice sucks because the vast majority of people can't protect themselves or their families from well armed douchebags who take advantage of the lawlessness.


So anarchism is not organized and does not have fair rules?

No, it doesn't. Especially not in practice. I'm sure you've heard of the "Might Makes Right" philosophy?


So anarchism has no advanced technology?

Actually, I'll ask you that. How would a truly anarchist region provide the citizens in that region with advanced technology? Volunteering? How would voluntary "services" reach all citizens? Or do you even care if all citizens are given access to those technological advances?

Because the closest thing that I can imagine is a monopoly that price gouges the people in the region, and is perfectly free to discriminate against which customers it wants to serve. And with it having a literal monopoly over the technology, it can prevent other people from entering the market to serve those neglected citizens. Note, this isn't a theory; I'm referring to what actually happens in practice. I've seen first hand what organized crime groups do to people who try to offer lower priced products & services in their "turf". And I've advocated several projects that exposed what major corporations do in poor regions (like Coca Cola and Chiquita and the paramilitaries they employ to crush local dissidents).


So anarchism is poor medical care and no scientific advances?

Once again, I'll ask you that. Because even our current medical system has much of its costs directly subsidized by taxpayers. And having a medical system with no set standards or rules would be disastrous.

Maybe you don't know this, but when my parents were kids, there was a thing called "Forced Racial Segregation" here in the US. Hospitals and independent doctors could and would refuse to treat ethnic minorities. In fact, many ethnic minorities literally had to get "medical treatment" either at home w/folk remedies or at veterinarians because the established medical system refused to serve them. And once again, this isn't just some theory or legend; this happened just one generation ago in this very country.

So why on Earth would I assume that a lawless version of this country would treat its citizens any better? There are political and business leaders right now who fight against me building a mosque, having Halal foods, sending my family members to "their" schools, and wouldn't hire me because of my "funny sounding, foreign" names. But somehow I'm supposed to believe that in a lawless society, they would allow me to enjoy the quality medical services and scientific advances they may have? Yeah right. They don't even want poor people right now to have the same access to healthcare. So why would a lawless/anarchist society make that problem any better?


I thought the market through competition creates advances in technology not government?

Oh really? That's funny, seeing as our markets are completely propped up by our governments. Have you ever heard of "Lemon Socialism"? It's literally the business concept of privatizing the profits while socializing the risks. In other words, it's the common business practice of getting taxpayers to cover the costs (like R&D, property taxes, healthcare costs, etc) while letting the investors keep the profits. Then there are the State-sponsored monopolies that literally refute this too (like many utilities arrangements).

Besides, our entire defense industry should serve as a rebuttal to this talking point. Where would the technological advancements come from without direct government funding, subsidies, and purchases? Not to mention that nuclear power wouldn't exist without government programs, subsidies and government-backed insurance. Because private insurers won't cover nuclear power plants (for obvious reasons). And then there are the constant government grants and programs for other technological advances like particle accelerators, the numerous NASA-funded scientific advances, etc.

Are you sure you want to make that argument?



posted on Apr, 29 2016 @ 07:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: jellyrev
Perhaps if the average IQ of a society was let's say 115...


The average IQ is 100. Because that's how IQ works. Libertarians are out for themselves and tend to believe that everyone only has their own interests in mind. We're all selfish creatures and anyone who isn't trying to make more money for themselves by eliminating taxes is an idiot or, in this case, too stupid to realize it.

When you started in on 'the libertarian delusion' I thought this was what you were talking about, how they read one Ayn Rand novel and, suddenly, they've got it all figured out. They'll start reading articles on Rothbard and Mises theory and now they're economics experts with some modicum of authority on the subject. Everyone else just doesn't get it. If only they were smarter, like me, we'd live in a libertarian utopia where government doesn't exist and we exchange goods and services at a fair market price.



posted on Apr, 29 2016 @ 07:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: BubbaJoe
Libertarian with social safety nets, I know that confuses the situation.


Not if said social safety nets are funded by private, unforced donations.

That's one of the problems that I've seen some people have with libertarian ideals--they think that it equates to selfish individuals. It does not--it just allows the individual control over what they do with their property (in this case, monetary compensation for labor) without a government forcefully taking from them and using it for whatever they deem appropriate.


Slap, I appreciate what you are saying, and understand what you are presenting. Social safety nets will never be funded by private, unforced donations. The wealthy are greedy, and maybe wealthy because of that.

I do taxes for a living, I did an amended return today, where the filers made over 1 mil as a married couple with 2 kids, want to guess what their charitable contributions were, will give you a hint, they were less than my wife and I make on 40K a year.



posted on Apr, 29 2016 @ 08:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: John_Rodger_Cornman

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: John_Rodger_Cornman
Are you an authoritarian or a libertarian?

No parties. No partisan politics BS.


Alright! Something I can sink my teeth into.



Do you want maximum freedom or maximum security?


Wait, i thought you said no partisan bs. What gives?

Imma just drop this here for ya'll to chew on


Are you an Authoritarian or Libertarian?

Your either for freedom or your not.

If your for freedom and don't believe in the initialization of force your a libertarian.

If your for government freedom(and not individual freedom) and believe in the initialization of force by government then your an authoritarian.


"Zero-sum thinking is an obsession of mine, but mostly in economics." - P. J. O'Rourke

Fortunately for the world, reality doesn't exist in absolutes. Yes, you risk death for not tendering taxes. George Washington himself set that precedent.

Im more of an antifederalist than a libertarian, if you want to get down to what i think would work (decentralized government accountable directly to the people). Although if youw ant my desire? i am an anarchist at heart.



posted on Apr, 29 2016 @ 08:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman
Hmm, it's a little hard to answer in this format. So I'll try to respond to each part individually.


What example of real anarchism being horrendous do you have?

Go to a lot of poor regionswith government and you'll see what I mean.No. What do you mean? I mean actual favelasBrazil has a government, shantytowns, villages, and other lawless areas where government services and government presence are nonexistentbut have gun laws and laws against drugs making local drug sellers rich. These are the places where gangs, paramilitaries, cartels, extremist factions, and tribal traditions "control" everything because of the lack of a stable government.They become the rulers. And these places sucklegalize drugs,prostitution,gambling,gun ownership and see how much the gang make after that. Just go legitimate after they legalize it..

I've dedicated a large part of my life to exposing the plights of the poorest regionsheld down by corrupt governments stealing from the public and lack of lucrative foreign trade deals,little foreign investment,massive national debt(to the banks), poor credit(to the banks),hyperinflation because of a plundering corrupt inefficient government and not anarchism and I don't see how anyone can actually want this crap. Not to sound rude, but the only people I ever hear that want anarchy are semi-wealthyI am not wealthy. people who think the rest of the world will adhere to some honor code or system of "fairness". True anarchy in practice sucks Where is true anarchy in practice? because the vast majority of people can't protect themselves or their families from well armed douchebagsWhat about privatize security firms? who take advantage of the lawlessness.What lawlessness?



So anarchism is not organized and does not have fair rules?

No, it doesn't. Especially not in practice. I'm sure you've heard of the "Might Makes Right" philosophy?


So anarchism has no advanced technology?

Actually, I'll ask you that. How would a truly anarchist region provide the citizens in that region with advanced technology? Volunteering? How would voluntary "services" reach all citizens? Or do you even care if all citizens are given access to those technological advances?
The market would provide technology to the community like it does almost everywhere else

Because the closest thing that I can imagine is a monopolyThe community can opt for anti-trust measures if necessary. that price gougesgouge all they want they will go out of business because of competition with reasonable prices. Oh you can use government to stack the deck in your favor nor do you have corporate person-hood. the people in the region, and is perfectly free to discriminate against which customersand go out of business when they do it it wants to serve. And with it having a literal monopoly over the technology, it can prevent other people from entering the market to serve those neglected citizens. Note, this isn't a theory; I'm referring to what actually happens in practice. I've seen first hand what organized crime groups do to people who try to offer lower priced products & services in their "turf". And I've advocated several projects that exposed what major corporations do in poor regions (like Coca Cola and Chiquita and the paramilitaries they employ to crush local dissidents).
private security firms owned by the community,media exposure, and product boycott



So anarchism is poor medical care and no scientific advances?

Once again, I'll ask you that. Because even our current medical system has much of its costs directly subsidized by taxpayers. And having a medical system with no set standards or rules would be disastrous.
Why would an anarchist society have no standards or rules?
Maybe you don't know this, but when my parents were kids, there was a thing called "Forced Racial Segregation"By government here in the US. Hospitals and independent doctors could and would refuse to treat ethnic minorities. In fact, many ethnic minorities literally had to get "medical treatment" either at home w/folk remedies or at veterinarians because the established medical system refused to serve them. And once again, this isn't just some theory or legend; this happened just one generation ago in this very country.

So why on Earth would I assume that a lawless version of this country would treat its citizens any better?anarchism is not lawlessness There are political and business leaders right now who fight against me building a mosque, having Halal foods, sending my family members to "their" schools, and wouldn't hire me because of my "funny sounding, foreign" names. But somehow I'm supposed to believe that in a lawless society, they would allow me to enjoy the quality medical services and scientific advances they may have? Yeah right. They don't even want poor people right now to have the same access to healthcare. So why would a lawless/anarchist society make that problem any better?




I thought the market through competition creates advances in technology not government?

Oh really? That's funny, seeing as our markets are completely propped up by our governments.textbook fascism not ideal capitalism Have you ever heard of "Lemon Socialism"? It's literally the business concept of privatizing the profits while socializing the risks. In other words, it's the common business practice of getting taxpayers to cover the costs (like R&D, property taxes, healthcare costs, etc) while letting the investors keep the profits. Then there are the State-sponsored monopolies that literally refute this too (like many utilities arrangements).
The Monsanto protection act. The bailouts. TARP. BP disaster relief slush funds,QE,...etc etc
Besides, our entire defense industry should serve as a rebuttal to this talking point. Where would the technological advancements come from without direct government funding, subsidies, and purchases? Not to mention that nuclear power wouldn't exist without government programs, subsidies and government-backed insurance. Because private insurers won't cover nuclear power plants (for obvious reasons). And then there are the constant government grants and programs for other technological advances like particle accelerators, the numerous NASA-funded scientific advances, etc.

You don't need government to fund something for it to exist.The people can voluntarily fund it without the need for government.NASA's space program



posted on Apr, 29 2016 @ 09:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: John_Rodger_Cornman

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: John_Rodger_Cornman
Are you an authoritarian or a libertarian?

No parties. No partisan politics BS.


Alright! Something I can sink my teeth into.



Do you want maximum freedom or maximum security?


Wait, i thought you said no partisan bs. What gives?

Imma just drop this here for ya'll to chew on


Are you an Authoritarian or Libertarian?

Your either for freedom or your not.

If your for freedom and don't believe in the initialization of force your a libertarian.

If your for government freedom(and not individual freedom) and believe in the initialization of force by government then your an authoritarian.


"Zero-sum thinking is an obsession of mine, but mostly in economics." - P. J. O'Rourke

Fortunately for the world, reality doesn't exist in absolutes. Yes, you risk death for not tendering taxes. George Washington himself set that precedent.
Why can't a person tax another person but the government is allowed to tax the general population and it is allowed?

Im more of an antifederalist than a libertarian, if you want to get down to what i think would work (decentralized government accountable directly to the people). Although if youw ant my desire? i am an anarchist at heart.
I agree decentralizing power is a good idea. Separation of powers was a brilliant firewall against a dictatorship,revolution, or a military coup. The constitution when followed does a great job at that but it is not being followed very well currently.



posted on Apr, 29 2016 @ 09:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: links234

originally posted by: jellyrev
Perhaps if the average IQ of a society was let's say 115...


The average IQ is 100. Because that's how IQ works. Libertarians are out for themselvesTrue.We want maximum freedom for ourselves with minimal government and tend to believe that everyone only has their own interests in mind. We're all selfish creatures and anyone who isn't trying to make more moneyLibertarians are not just out for making a buck. for themselves by eliminating taxesWhich would help the poor with a decent job from a small business is an idiotname calling or, in this case, too stupidmore name calling to realize it.

When you started in on 'the libertarian delusion'character attack I thought this was what you were talking about, how they read one Ayn Rand novel and, suddenly, they've got it all figured out.character attack They'll start reading articles on Rothbard and Mises theory and now they're economics experts with some modicum of authoritylol you have to be an "authority" to have an opinion on a subject. Yeah...lol on the subject. Everyone else just doesn't get it.Not really everyone is has different beliefs it does not make them better or worse than anyone else. If only they were smarter,character attack like me,indirect insult...good one though lol we'd live in a libertarian utopiabecause a government dominated "utopia" is better? where government doesn't exist and we exchange goods and services at a fair market price.Yeah. Fair market prices for goods and services are terrible.


I think most people are either classical liberals,anarcho-capitalists, libertarian socialists, or minarchists
But they are conditioned to think they are democrats or republicans.

Off topic: Is anyone here watching the Heat vs Hornets game?
Game 7!!!

edit on 29-4-2016 by John_Rodger_Cornman because: added content

edit on 29-4-2016 by John_Rodger_Cornman because: added content

edit on 29-4-2016 by John_Rodger_Cornman because: added content

edit on 29-4-2016 by John_Rodger_Cornman because: added content



posted on Apr, 30 2016 @ 06:41 AM
link   
a reply to: links234

Being able to understand the text of mises, rothbard, locke, bastiat, hayek, etc are all part of the libertarian experience. They create a worldview for libertarians which misses out on much of how average people think. Sure trying to maximize satisfaction is a good axiom but satisfaction is fleeting, changing by the moment.
It also misses out on culture, and politics. They are all intertwined.

We are talking about the same delusion, I used to be deluded in those texts as well, even though I still read the text. A lot of libertarians are just looking for the truth, but austrian econ and classic liberalism does not offer a full picture, though it does offer a better picture than most.



posted on Apr, 30 2016 @ 02:30 PM
link   
a reply to: BubbaJoe

I didn't say that the rich had to fund it. I know plenty of middle-class folks (myself included) who donate things, money, time, and effort all of the time.

Why would you focus on only the rich, and why would you use one example as evidence for your generalized opinion on the matter. Yes, there will be stingy people, and there will be very charitable people, and both types exist in all income brackets.




top topics



 
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join