Asperger syndrome and Libertarianism idea

Post Reply New Topic

I don't want to seem mean but... Whut?

I find your post very insulting towards Aspies. It's one thing to(somewhat falsely) try and connect libertarianism to Asperger's, but you made a lot of stereotyping and offensive statements about Apies in general, especially in saying that we have no empathy.

I can see why you're upset. I'm surprised more people haven't jumped on the thread creator.

I'm having a hard time getting what he means. There's huge jumps in logic in his argument and I don't think he actually knows the definition of 'Socialism' or 'Libertarianism'.

This is a false premise. Everything in politics is about self-interest. Socialism is entirely as much about self-interest as libertarianism. Libertarianism isn't particularly any more about self-interest than any other political perspective at all--this is just its obnoxious mythological narrative. The thing that uniquely characterizes libertarianism is a pessimistic mistrust of democratic government, and a preference for laissez-faire capitalism and corporatism. Anyone living in our current time in America, or any western democracy, who would hold such a belief, is certainly a very disconnected and low-information citizen.

Libertarian is in fact anti-democratic. The basic democratic idea is that the people ARE the government: through their representatives they direct policy. Libertarianism like other forms of right-wing politics is based on the idea that the voice of the people ("government") is something to be feared, slandered and subverted in favor of oligarchy and kleptocracy. What such fascist thinking has to do with autism is beyond me. This really stretches credibility.

As with any misunderstood and often marginalized minority, the greater perspective on and sensitivity to the abusive nature of of stratified and corrupted power is something that would tend to make autistic people far more amenable to political perspectives that are based on egalitarianism, fairness, and the responsibility of society to the vulnerable. This would be the opposite of libertarianism. And this is entirely based on self-interest.

The enlightened view is that self-interest is ultimately non-distinct from what is beneficial for the society as a whole. The view that "I'm going to get everything I can and screw the rest of the people" is ultimately delusion--because ultimately it comes back to bite one, and shapes society in a way that is more cruel, negative, treacherous and hostile, and ultimately difficult to live in for everyone (one's self included).

This is really a wild statement. Socialist countries like China and India? India is somewhat socialist. China was a former authoritarian communist dictatorship that has transitioned into an authoritarian capitalist dictatorship. China has much more in common with fascism and capitalism than it does with any socialist model. And again, the keywords here are "authoritarian dictatorship"--something that squelches individualism regardless of the economic model. I fail to see how the example of China has any relevance to anything being discussed. Socialist countries would include Denmark, Norway Sweden, Finland. Expression of individuality is not possible in these places? Really?

Moreover the idea that individual expression is not permitted in India is kind of nonsensical. The number of expressions of diversity in ways of life, identity, and so on throughout India are vast. India is a poster child for diversity. Materially successful businessmen in old age here even sometimes take on the practice (sannyasa) of giving up their family relationships and renouncing their entire material existence to become sadhus and street beggars living on charity, in order to experience isolation and find transcendental peace within themselves. In what other society would you find something so radically self-oriented being accepted? I think you may be referring to the fact that it is largely a traditional society and is late in adopting a more western model of isolation of the individual from the extended family unit. This has nothing to do with government or socialism. This is a cultural thing.

You are wrong
the truth is countries like China, North Korea, Burma, Venezuela, Cuba, and Uni Soviet are Socialism.while countries like Denmark, Sweden, Norway are Libertarian Monarchy as well as Great Britain.you can look it from Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denmark

Denmark and Sweden are Libertarian and not Socialist. but India is somewhat socialist,you are right

Bravo!! !!

+1.

I disagree with your assertion that Libertarianism is corporatist by it's very nature. I have found that most of the Libertarians that I have had the opportunity to interact with fear corporatism as much as government. We tend to realize that all powerful entities are by their very nature evil as they seek their own power and survival over the good of humanity. China is a good example of corporatism. It is a public private partnership on an extreme scale that cares little for the plight of the individual and cares only for the good of the corporate state. The US, likewise, has become an example for the evils of this way of thinking. In the US, you have politicians from both of the two major parties who are bought and paid for by campaign donations and then in turn sell the people out for the good of their donors. When these large donors falter, they are propped up with money that comes at the expense of the tax payers, thus socializing corporate losses through deficits and expansion of the monetary base. In a more Libertarian system, they would be allowed to go through the process of creative destruction that is capitalism. GM would be no more and most of the large banks would have failed too. It would have caused much initial pain, but the end result would have been a stronger, more robust financial system and manufacturing sector than the one it replaced. However, what we have now is a system balanced on a needle just waiting for the slightest blow to topple it.

Whut? Really?

Do you understand that Monarchy is not an economic system and that socialism is an economic system?

A problem in this thread is that there is a lot of conflation of political systems and economic systems (and even cultural traditions).

Democracy, fascism, dictatorship, monarchy etc are political systems. As an aside, "monarchy" is a ridiculous word to use for countries like Britain, Denmark etc. These are clearly vestiges in which a powerless figurehead is maintained as essentially a national "mascot". The king or queen in these countries is essentially like the Statue of Liberty, or Uncle Sam. They have a couple of ceremonial duties to justify their ridiculous continuation as an institution, but essentially they are cartoon characters for the country to rally around. Actually, they may serve one slightly more useful purpose in this role, which would be to keep stupider far-right elements of society from "going rogue" or off the deep end, and instead in a way "tamed" and kept on a leash by their love and reverence for these institutions. So in that regard maintaining these institutions as vestiges does make some sense. This should not be confused with the actual political system in these modern Western democracies though.

Socialism, capitalism, etc. are economic systems You can have a democracy that is economically capitalist, or a democracy that is economically socialist. Personally, I think it's pretty clear that a socialist system enables a purer form of democracy, because it is continually demonstrated that unregulated capitalism corrupts it and renders it un-democratic.

Libertarianism is nothing but far-right politics with lipstick on. It's not something serious--it's a messaging game that is about nothing but shifting the political stage to the extreme-right. It seems attractive to low-information voters precisely because they have been brainwashed to accept the right-wing, anti-government (=anti-democratic) narrative. It has nothing to do with being politically independent or free-thinking. It is seductive precisely because of the anti-democratic corruption within the political system that refuses to present a socialist alternative in order to keep the money flowing in, the corruption going at full steam and the anti-democratic oligarchy in place. In the lack of real alternatives, the libertarian line appears at first glance to have remarkable integrity to people desperate to address systemic corruption: "Wow, they actually want to protect civil liberties; avoid foreign entanglements; not engage in job-outsourcing 'free trade' deals". Here's what else they want: No Wall Street regulation of any kind; no environmental regulation of any kind; no FDA; no public education; no public roads; no social safety net; no commons of any kind; no fire-department; no police department; no emergency services; a complete Robber Baron free for all: Serfdom, essentially. There is nothing to do with freedom, honoring the individual, or progress about any of this. Libertarianism is not reform at all--it is the system, fully-corrupted, and with all protections to the individual removed.

It would be interesting to see some of these libertarian-lovers experience life in a feudal society. This would give them a great perspective on how free, unfettered and individuality-respecting such a society would be. This is a myth. A game to lure unthoughtful people to politically supporting their own exploitation. I would wager that few politically-interested Aspies would have any interest in it at all. This would be a system that would appeal to sociopaths as a class of people--not to non-social, conscientious deep-thinkiers.

You are correct...

Having been a member of a state Libertarian party platform committee some 40 years ago - I can assure you that Libertarianism is anathema to the corporatist. In a Libertarian society - present day corporations could not exist. In a Libertarian society you are free to act - but must bear the responsibility of that action. If you act through a corporation YOU are still responsible for that action.
Corporations and Governments could not shield you from the consequences for your willful actions.

Many tenants of Libertarian philosophy are not well understood by if at all by most people. Some of the greatest errors are...

Libertarian Laissez-faire Capitalism is some how related to the present mess we now have in any way at all.

Enlightened Self-interest is the same as unthinking selfishness.

or "I am from the Government and I am here to help you." Has any meaning at all.

I long ago gave up on trying to explain a simple straight forward concept to the great vast majority of people who were too busy trying to steel, bully, force and/or stupid their way to "paradise on Earth" at no mater what the cost to even listen let alone think about what is going on. Today, I do what I can to protect my family and myself from as much of the stupidity going on around me as I can. I in my enlightened self-interest have applied my time, money and effort to aid as is reasonably possible to do.

Corporations don't fear Libertarians or Libertarianism. It's an inherently unstable and unsustainable system that no one in their right mind wants. Such a crazed society would just collapse under the weight of its own ego.

Please explain how you can make entirely unsubstantiated statements like this, say that you refuse to substantiate them, and then expect people to just accept them?

You are essentially saying that laissez-faire capitalism--a notorious example of which would be the deregulation of Wall Street--is unrelated to the economic collapse(?) "But I'm tired of talking about it, so I won't bother to try to explain how that makes any sense to anyone". HA!! ! I could be wrong, but I don't imagine they meant "Wrong Planet" quite as you seem to be taking it as evidenced by the sense of this.

Sorry but this is entirely too convenient. Politics isn't like sports "I like this team! They wear green uniforms and I really like green! They are based in my hometown! A lot of people around me seem to like them!" It is about shaping the nature of the world we inhabit, the society we build based on our ideals and aspirations, and the world we leave for posterity. It is the civic responsibility of people in a democratic society (or those who aspire to live in one) to conscientiously participate in for the sake of these things. And it's the kind of thing you have to actually have the willingness to explain to people the sense of your statements if you have any hope of having your values or ideas taken seriously or by anyone else.

The problem with Wall Street is indeed corporatism, but not Libertarian free market economics. If these banks had been allowed to fail with no intervention of the government then you would have had the complete Libertarian economic cycle ideal. People would have lost their jobs and their fortunes. Bad mortgage paper would have become worthless. However, had we been going by Libertarian economics from the start, these bad mortgages never would have been written to begin with. They were written because Barney Frank (D. Mass) wanted everyone to be able to have a house and put into play legislation that forced banks to lend to people who were bad credit risks, the so-called NINJA loans (No Income, No Job, No Assets). In order to get out from under these bombs before they exploded, they were financialized into exotic financial instruments known as derivatives. These derivatives were then sent to credit rating agencies on the take that then rated them as A rated financial instruments. These in turn were sold off to pension funds, municipalities and other large scale investing interests, thus polluting the whole of the financial system, including people who never realized they were invested in them. Thus, when the unsustainable Ponzi scheme did what all Ponzis eventually do, it endangered the entire world. Had the US government never forced the banks to loan to low income people, this never would have happened. Thus, the problem was the government, NOT laissez faire economics.

Of course, much if what is going on right now would never be possible with a exchangeable gold standard to back our currency. Without that, the Federal Reserve is printing money to exchange with the treasury for newly minted bonds. In fact the vast majority of the deficit has been funded this way for the last 4 years. In essence, it is seen as being sterilized because the debt is not being allowed to enter the financial system. (In fact, JP Morgan Chase (if memory serves) front runs the Fed, buys up the bonds from the Treasury to sell them to the Fed...for a modest 3% fee. Thus, JP Morgan is making a fortune for shifting a few papers, and then taking that fortune to buy political influence with both major parties.) However, that new money all has to go somewhere when it is spent, so is it really sterilized? Of course not. It enters the economy in the form of inflation. Inflation is sort of like an unseen tax because the government still takes your purchasing power but leaves you with the same quantity of paper money. Thus, you don't see that you are being screwed.

Another Wrong headed Idea!! Someone else that has never bothered to learn about libertarian philosophy before speaking out about it. It always amazes me when some unthinking person accuses Libertarians of being right wing -- when in fact we have as much in common with the left as we do with the right... and oppose both of them in as many was also. In my days as an active Libertarian I would say that most of the activists I hung out with came from movements not from the right - a fair number were from hippie groups - others left wing or anarchists - yes, there were some that came from the right wing - though most right wingers just could not get past our drug and personal freedom stands.

As for right wing economics and the libertarian philosophy man have you got it wrong - right wing is in love with the corporation - in love government making it easy to build structures for monetary profit while shielding these practitioners from the consequences of their actions. This is totally beyond libertarian philosophy. As an example lets look at the housing bubble burst... How would it have been different in a libertarian world.... First off --- The burst would have taken out all the companies in building the bubble - and it would have wiped out the finances of all the leaders of those companies - not for fines paid to the government but to make whole the victims of those institutions as much as possible. Think up a stupid idea to make money in our society - you get the money someone else pays - do it in a libertarian society - and lose all your money. Which society is going to be beset with idiots trying to defraud their way into wealth.

H**l in a strongly libertarian society my best guess is that the man who though up the idea of default credit swaps would have almost instantly found himself completely alone as everyone with even a smidgen of brain would have rushed to get away from him. The real problem here is that Wall Street was Regulated running up to and during the bubble burst - the problem from your point of view was it was not the regulations you wanted - but unfortunately the people that won the democratic election you so revered won by 50% plus one vote by the method of counting accepted by the Government in power at the time. Too bad, so sad, you lose - its a democracy just like you wanted. Me, I like the idea of a republican form of government with a strong central law base that all must obey. (Strong in the sense of a simple clear easy enforced law base, my preference libertarian based) that run some of its daily business democratically.

Now just a quick tour of some of the "public services" that can't exist at all in a libertarian society!!

Public Schools -- I will assume that you really mean Publicly accessible - and "free" to the user. In fact no school is free!! If you don't believe try to refuse to pay your property tax or even just the portion going to pay for the Government schools. What is more there is a privates schools that locally that easily out preform the public schools - usually on budgets of about half what is spent by public schools. My son spent if first 2 years in a private school on scholarship - then when he transferred to a charter school (in our state they are funded by the state in a block grant method - for about 80% of their funds) but because they are independent of the board of education they run very much like a private school - He thrived in both of these schools when he moved to middle school - we placed him in his local public middle school where he was bullied and picked on and board with the low level of teaching. Now once again in a charger school - he is doing well. -===- real point here is we pay for All schools regardless of who runs them. TANSTAAFL. Now consider this - in a study done in Boston about 30 years ago showed that the literacy rate in Boston during the Revolutionary war was higher than at the time of the of the study. The kicker -- there were not government funded schools in Boston at the time of the Revolutionary war. I am not saying there were no schools - but rather there were other methods of funding schools at that time. Hint -- the homestead act that open up much of the land in America to settlement required sections of land set aside for school use. - Now go to England where even today a good deal of school funding comes from land donated to the schools by patron’s over the years - that is now rented out in the schools name. (Yes, I know if I were a purest I would have stayed with the private school despite distances).

Fire departments -- Even today we have scattered across the United States Volunteer and privately funded fire departments - I will leave you to chase down the information on this.

Police Departments -- In reality this is one place that nearly all libertarians agree that it is legitimate for a government to run -- The primary function of government is to protect the lives, rights, and property of its citizens and to raise funds even yes, taxes to fund. Some libertarians include fire-departments in this area. (other areas that a government has a valid reason for existing are Courts and Military.)

As for things like environmental regulations - mostly right now regulations allow pollution not curb it. Think --- "It too bad that your well water is full of our poisonous fracking chemicals - we have met government regulations - end of discussion" This would never fly in a libertarian society.

I often will not take any drug for at least 10years after FDA approval - because they have let some real nasty drugs through to market. - It really would not be too hard to work out private methods to insure that the drugs and food you consume are safe - I bet we can even make it far less expensive and faster as well.

In the past I have researched many of the "Robber Barons" I never did find a single robber baron that built his great fortune with out the aid of "friendly governments",

To quote an old friend --- "Anarchy is the absence of government - Government on the other hand ...."
now I cant quite buy into his view - but I do know that the more government you have the more you have all the things it brings with it.

Now it is late and I am tired - and I feel I have wasted enough time on trying to educate someone too lazy to read up on what they are attacking. For most of you read up on the libertarian philosophy - not Libertarian Party Planks and look around and think how would that work if government were not involved. Exercise: How would cities run public streets with out taxes - Hint we already do it partly that way now.

Please - Please do try to use your gray matter before engaging fingers on keyboard.

I agree--but this has nothing to do with socialism vs libertarianism--libertarianism doesn't get a free pass on its problems because of something like this. It is a fundamentally horrible, immoral and socially nonsensical proposition. What you're talking about here (above) is corruption. Of course "too big to fail" is unjustifiable. The corruption is caused by the standard of socializing the risks and privatizing the profits--this is NOT a socialist model any more than it is a libertarian one.



HA! It is nice to be able to conveniently ignore that had we been going by libertarian economics from the start, we would also be living as indentured serfs--and thus home-ownership would be less likely to be at the top of the list with us all as tenants of our wealthy overlord.

I take it when you identify Barney Frank (D Mass), you're referring to George W Bush (R Tex)? Or any of the corrupt Wall Street insiders who lobbied for this kind of thing for that matter? The point, trying to politicizing this thing in this way to tie it to what you perceive to be "the left" (ha!) is really absurd and entirely untenable. I don't even like Frank. He doesn't represent me or the politics I would advocate.

Finally on this point OF COURSE all people need homes. "Shelter", along with food and water, would be one of the requirements of human living. The fact that at least people you criticize are trying to do something to address this in some way does nothing to advance your thrust that ignores these absolutely essential priorities. Clearly the house of cards that was built up on the basis of this greed and abuse by this system was incredibly stupid--and worse, criminal. However even after you address this, you still have to address the problem of putting everyone in a home. This doesn't mean that you don't have to look at this fundamental problem anymore--it is not going away.



OF COURSE you are right about derivatives. However you're making the same argument all over again. It is nonsense the conclusions you're putting forward. Clearly the government SHOULD HAVE REGULATED DERIVATIVES TRADING. The fact that it DID NOT do this is a huge part of the problem. I'm sorry, you can't just say, "I had to pay my taxes, so it's 'the government's' fault I murdered my neighbors to steal their gold in order to do it! Taxes are evil, they make us murder our neighbors! We should never have to pay them again!" That is pure nonsense. These corrupt criminals in this industry have the power and $ to CONTROL THE ENTIRE SYSTEM. They LOBBY TO GET WHAT THEY WANT--and they GET IT. This is a problem of libertarianism, because the lack of control of economic standards and stratification is exactly what creates the power dynamic that allows such corruption to take root in the first place. So yes, this crisis is clearly the direct fault of this nutty libertarian/fascist impulse.