Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

What Makes People Become Libertarians?

Page 5 of 11 [ 167 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 11  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

03 May 2011, 3:15 pm

marshall wrote:

My point was that modern luxury is the only thing that allows libertarians to downplay the importance of community and cooperation. The modern "nuclear family" is not the traditional atomic unit of society.


The "nuclear family" is an invention of the industrial age. It made labor portable.

the natural unit is the extended family more or less rooted to one location.

ruveyn



dsaly1969
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 4 Nov 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 41

03 May 2011, 3:27 pm

As a former libertarian, the problem with libertarianism is that it enshrines liberty as an excuse for narcissism and lack of benevolence. The overemphasis on individual liberty (which is important in and of itself) creates a lack of focus on interdependence - things like the social and national good, or concern about the environment. There is a reason that the vast majority of libertarians want to disprove global warming as they want justification to be able to pollute and use up natural resources, hoard wealth without concern for others, and otherwise continue and widen the gap between the top 2% of the population and the 98% rest of us schmucks.

It also tends to encourage the tin foil hat, black helicopter, "birther" and Tea Party crowd a little too much.

There must be a centrist balance between individual liberty and the larger common good of the neighborhood, state, and nation. This is why this country was founded as a constitutional representative republic (not a base democracy) under the rule of law (where laws should be focused on the protection of the citizenry). Unfortunately both major parties have forgotten this.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

03 May 2011, 3:29 pm

dsaly1969 wrote:
As a former libertarian, the problem with libertarianism is that it enshrines liberty as an excuse for narcissism and lack of benevolence. The overemphasis on individual liberty (which is important in and of itself) creates a lack of focus on interdependence - things like the social and national good, or concern about the environment. There is a reason that the vast majority of libertarians want to disprove global warming as they want justification to be able to pollute and use up natural resources, hoard wealth without concern for others, and otherwise continue and widen the gap between the top 2% of the population and the 98% rest of us schmucks.

It also tends to encourage the tin foil hat, black helicopter, "birther" and Tea Party crowd a little too much.

There must be a centrist balance between individual liberty and the larger common good of the neighborhood, state, and nation. This is why this country was founded as a constitutional representative republic (not a base democracy) under the rule of law (where laws should be focused on the protection of the citizenry). Unfortunately both major parties have forgotten this.


Without individual initiative we would still be living in caves.

ruveyn



AceOfSpades
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,754
Location: Sean Penn, Cambodia

03 May 2011, 3:30 pm

dsaly1969 wrote:
As a former libertarian, the problem with libertarianism is that it enshrines liberty as an excuse for narcissism and lack of benevolence. The overemphasis on individual liberty (which is important in and of itself) creates a lack of focus on interdependence - things like the social and national good, or concern about the environment. There is a reason that the vast majority of libertarians want to disprove global warming as they want justification to be able to pollute and use up natural resources, hoard wealth without concern for others, and otherwise continue and widen the gap between the top 2% of the population and the 98% rest of us schmucks.

It also tends to encourage the tin foil hat, black helicopter, "birther" and Tea Party crowd a little too much.

There must be a centrist balance between individual liberty and the larger common good of the neighborhood, state, and nation. This is why this country was founded as a constitutional representative republic (not a base democracy) under the rule of law (where laws should be focused on the protection of the citizenry). Unfortunately both major parties have forgotten this.
Am I not a libertarian cuz I believe in a balance? Or that that simply not make me a minarchist?



dsaly1969
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 4 Nov 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 41

03 May 2011, 3:30 pm

ruveyn wrote:
dsaly1969 wrote:
As a former libertarian, the problem with libertarianism is that it enshrines liberty as an excuse for narcissism and lack of benevolence. The overemphasis on individual liberty (which is important in and of itself) creates a lack of focus on interdependence - things like the social and national good, or concern about the environment. There is a reason that the vast majority of libertarians want to disprove global warming as they want justification to be able to pollute and use up natural resources, hoard wealth without concern for others, and otherwise continue and widen the gap between the top 2% of the population and the 98% rest of us schmucks.

It also tends to encourage the tin foil hat, black helicopter, "birther" and Tea Party crowd a little too much.

There must be a centrist balance between individual liberty and the larger common good of the neighborhood, state, and nation. This is why this country was founded as a constitutional representative republic (not a base democracy) under the rule of law (where laws should be focused on the protection of the citizenry). Unfortunately both major parties have forgotten this.


Without individual initiative we would still be living in caves.

ruveyn


No duh - that's why I said that THERE MUST BE A BALANCE!

Here let me put it again - There must be a centrist balance between individual liberty and the larger common good of the neighborhood, state, and nation.

Libertarians are idealistic purists who do not grasp the impact of such extreme ideas in the real world.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

03 May 2011, 3:49 pm

dsaly1969 wrote:

Libertarians are idealistic purists who do not grasp the impact of such extreme ideas in the real world.


The main error that libertarians of the hyper-ideological variety make is that humans exist atomically. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Humans are social (but not herd or hive) animals. No human has ever survived atomically. Humans need nurturing others to survive their infancy and to acquire a language. So, as you point out, the question is how much "I" versus how much "Us" and "We" shall we live with. Humans need the specialization of labor and the collectivization of defense to survive. So, as you point out, the balance is the question.

My answer is to have as little central authority as is consistent with public safety and health.

Your answer?

ruveyn



dsaly1969
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 4 Nov 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 41

03 May 2011, 3:58 pm

ruveyn wrote:
dsaly1969 wrote:

Libertarians are idealistic purists who do not grasp the impact of such extreme ideas in the real world.


The main error that libertarians of the hyper-ideological variety make is that humans exist atomically. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Humans are social (but not herd or hive) animals. No human has ever survived atomically. Humans need nurturing others to survive their infancy and to acquire a language. So, as you point out, the question is how much "I" versus how much "Us" and "We" shall we live with. Humans need the specialization of labor and the collectivization of defense to survive. So, as you point out, the balance is the question.

My answer is to have as little central authority as is consistent with public safety and health.

Your answer?

ruveyn


Oh I am absolutely on board with your position as far as it is reasonably applied. No argument there. I'm all for rule of law - but I think that many victimiless crime laws are simply unnecessary and a waste of limited law enforcement resources. On the other hand, I do believe in strict punishment for violating criminal offenses.



Vexcalibur
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,398

03 May 2011, 4:52 pm

psychohist wrote:
marshall wrote:
Humans evolved to work together and have compassion for one another.

Humans also evolved to work against each other and have hatred for one another. The compassion and the hatred are the two sides of the same in group / out group coin.
This is pop pseudo-science.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB411.html
http://www.physorg.com/news186416144.html

Living and working for the betterment of all is actually a trait of more advanced species. Humans, dolphins, apes, lions and many others do much better in this regard than ... reptiles which are very primitive. In fact, living in society is a very expensive trait that requires quite the energy and larger brains. So we should be able to explain that species develop this by claiming that it is an advantage to them

Sure people are selfish, but most people are smart enough to know that the best for them is to be part of society. In fact, the very few people that seem to be born without this and are more like the theoretical competitive 0-altruism person are sociopaths, which are a minority among us all.


_________________
.


Last edited by Vexcalibur on 03 May 2011, 5:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.

AceOfSpades
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,754
Location: Sean Penn, Cambodia

03 May 2011, 4:59 pm

Vexcalibur wrote:
psychohist wrote:
marshall wrote:
Humans evolved to work together and have compassion for one another.

Humans also evolved to work against each other and have hatred for one another. The compassion and the hatred are the two sides of the same in group / out group coin.
This is pop pseudo-science.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB411.html
http://www.physorg.com/news186416144.html

Living and working for the betterment of all is actually a trait of more advanced species. Humans, dolphins, apes, lions and many others do much better in this regard than ... reptiles which are very primitive. In fact, living in society is a very expensive trait that requires quite the energy and larger brains.

Sure people are selfish, but most people are smart enough to know that the best for them is to be part of society. In fact, the very few people that seem to be born without this and are more like the theoretical competitive 0-altruism person are sociopaths, which are a minority among us all.
Objectivism should be called Regressionism since it boils down to appealing to the reptilian brain (cerebellum) rather than the neo-cortex.



Last edited by AceOfSpades on 03 May 2011, 5:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.

marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

03 May 2011, 5:01 pm

ruveyn wrote:
marshall wrote:

My point was that modern luxury is the only thing that allows libertarians to downplay the importance of community and cooperation. The modern "nuclear family" is not the traditional atomic unit of society.


The "nuclear family" is an invention of the industrial age. It made labor portable.

the natural unit is the extended family more or less rooted to one location.

ruveyn


The industrial need for portable labor and the nuclear family necessitates the social need for a government provided social safety net. We have created a society in which extended families and communities no longer feel fully obligated to provide for the needs of their vulnerable members when the artificial nuclear family fails. It would be nice to live in a society where there is no need for government to fill in the job of protecting the vulnerable and sick because the local community and voluntary charities provided everything. Unfortunately that kind of society isn't the direction the modern capitalist world is going.



marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

03 May 2011, 5:17 pm

AceOfSpades wrote:
Vexcalibur wrote:
psychohist wrote:
marshall wrote:
Humans evolved to work together and have compassion for one another.

Humans also evolved to work against each other and have hatred for one another. The compassion and the hatred are the two sides of the same in group / out group coin.
This is pop pseudo-science.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB411.html
http://www.physorg.com/news186416144.html

Living and working for the betterment of all is actually a trait of more advanced species. Humans, dolphins, apes, lions and many others do much better in this regard than ... reptiles which are very primitive. In fact, living in society is a very expensive trait that requires quite the energy and larger brains.

Sure people are selfish, but most people are smart enough to know that the best for them is to be part of society. In fact, the very few people that seem to be born without this and are more like the theoretical competitive 0-altruism person are sociopaths, which are a minority among us all.
Objectivism should be called Regressionism since it boils down to appealing to the reptilian brain (cerebellum) rather than the neo-cortex.


Also, the notion that capitalism thrives on pure self-interest and greed is a misnomer. Most capitalists take pride in the fact that they produce a product that makes the lives of average people easier, more pleasurable, etc. There are still good companies who don't sacrifice quality for the sake of making more money. There are good companies that don't want to destroy the environment. It seems the one place where pure greed and self-interest is the prime motivating factor is the financial sector. It's the people who spend their lives playing numbers games and not producing anything of tangible value. These people are really good and producing massive bubbles and massive recessions though.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

03 May 2011, 8:45 pm

AceOfSpades wrote:
Objectivism should be called Regressionism since it boils down to appealing to the reptilian brain (cerebellum) rather than the neo-cortex.

Hunh, don't see the part of the brain used as mattering. After all, newer doesn't mean better, it can be better, but there is nothing in evolutionary theory that privileges it so much.



Oodain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,

04 May 2011, 5:34 am

youn could in theory survive without a neo cortex and still have functional instincts, remove the reptilian brain and you wouldnt be more than a veggie.
the various areas of the brain, no matter how old all hold very important functions, in a way the older it is the more integrated it is(through evolution)
so the older the less chance we could do without.

or am i simply going crazy now?


_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//

the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

04 May 2011, 11:09 am

marshall wrote:

The industrial need for portable labor and the nuclear family necessitates the social need for a government provided social safety net. We have created a society in which extended families and communities no longer feel fully obligated to provide for the needs of their vulnerable members when the artificial nuclear family fails. It would be nice to live in a society where there is no need for government to fill in the job of protecting the vulnerable and sick because the local community and voluntary charities provided everything. Unfortunately that kind of society isn't the direction the modern capitalist world is going.


You have a good point there. When people opted for the capitalistic industrial model they made a deal with the Devil and it is not a perfect deal by any means. The Government is a sh*tty imitation of a natural extended stable family, but in some cases it is better than nothing. The only other alternative is for the entire world to pack up in wagons (or motorized trailer homes) and become Roma (Gypsies). An interesting thought no one lives in a fixed location for very long. Everyone you know and live is either ahead of you on the road or behind you on the road.

ruveyn



Philologos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Age: 82
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,987

04 May 2011, 9:09 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
AceOfSpades wrote:
Objectivism should be called Regressionism since it boils down to appealing to the reptilian brain (cerebellum) rather than the neo-cortex.

Hunh, don't see the part of the brain used as mattering. After all, newer doesn't mean better, it can be better, but there is nothing in evolutionary theory that privileges it so much.


Right.



psychohist
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2010
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,623
Location: Somerville, MA, USA

04 May 2011, 9:20 pm

Vexcalibur wrote:
Living and working for the betterment of all is actually a trait of more advanced species. Humans, dolphins, apes, lions and many others do much better in this regard than ... reptiles which are very primitive.

Humans, apes, and lions also show more territoriality and group aggression towards strangers than to reptiles. None of them, least of all humans, work "for the betterment of all" - just for their in groups. Reptiles have individual aggression; humans have that, and by working together they manage to have wars as well.

It's a difference, certainly; whether it's a improvement is questionable.