United States Why Do Libertarians Always Lose?

Abhorsen

Local Degenerate
Moderator
Staff Member
Comrade
Osaul
He then talks about what economic growth actually is. He examines the assumption that people spending more is good for the economy. "Why do we think this?", he asks. His answer is that we're assuming that money spent = desires being met and maximizing pleasure is good. He then explodes the logic of this worldview before substituting his own: rather than focusing on meeting people's desires, we should focus on the state ruling the people effectively. All citizens are assets of the government - in other words, they are the slaves of the government. The government is just a money-making corporation and wants to make its slaves a better asset. This, he claims, is reality.
So looking at your summary, he doesn't seem to understand what economic growth is, which lines up with him liking Sam Altman's blog post. His talk about 'actual' GDP being the nominal and not the real GDP is similarly stupid. Any more on this topic should probably be in a new thread (ping me if you make one), but I'll finish my thoughts on it here:
From there, Moldbug talks about whether 1953 or 2013 would be a more preferable society and comes to the conclusion that, minus the technological advancement we have now, 1953 was noticeably better. Our civilization has declined, he says, because there are less places Sam Altman would feel safe walking around with his iPad in. This is another point that Moldbug reiterates time and again in his essays: that technological progress is a mask for social decay. Civilization produces technology, so technological progress is a lagging indicator of a declining civilization. The civilization will start declining before technological progress does.
The fact that he thinks 1953 is better than 2013, factoring out technology, is an actual example of privilege. For a straight, white, male, (can't believe I'm saying that unironically) 1953 is great. Now those don't matter. To examine this, we should use Kant's Veil of Ignorance, so he doesn't know what his race, sex, or sexuality will be in either society. There is a chance he ends up black in the Jim Crow South, a gay man being arrested for dancing, or a woman who has no real choice but to be a housewife (the problem there is the lack of choice, not the housewife part). Suddenly, 1953 doesn't look so great compared to 2013.
Another thing which I think contributes to Libertarian losses in elections is that they've never managed to put forward a decent candidate; I cannot think of a single one which stuck in my mind for more than a few minutes, and I was desperate to find alternatives to voting for either a Democrat or a Republican for decades.
For state positions they have. In MA (my state), they ran Dan Fishman for auditor, given that both the dem and the republican were corrupt. We even got the Boston Globe's endorsement. Then we did worse than the Greens, because the campaign was anemic. Larry Brown is a similar story.

The LP is an absolute joke. I want it to die so another one can be made, but it won't.
 

The Name of Love

Far Right Nutjob
So looking at your summary, he doesn't seem to understand what economic growth is, which lines up with him liking Sam Altman's blog post. His talk about 'actual' GDP being the nominal and not the real GDP is similarly stupid. Any more on this topic should probably be in a new thread (ping me if you make one), but I'll finish my thoughts on it here:
You didn't read the article, so you don't know what he's talking about or why he thinks that way. I just summarized it. I'm of the opinion that the GDP is useless, straight-up.

The fact that he thinks 1953 is better than 2013, factoring out technology, is an actual example of privilege. For a straight, white, male, (can't believe I'm saying that unironically) 1953 is great. Now those don't matter. To examine this, we should use Kant's Veil of Ignorance, so he doesn't know what his race, sex, or sexuality will be in either society. There is a chance he ends up black in the Jim Crow South, a gay man being arrested for dancing, or a woman who has no real choice but to be a housewife (the problem there is the lack of choice, not the housewife part). Suddenly, 1953 doesn't look so great compared to 2013.
There's so much laughable here, I don't even know where to begin.

First, there's not really any reason why we should assume a veil of ignorance. You'd have to argue for that point. Moldbug certainly doesn't believe in a veil of ignorance as part of his philosophy. He starts with an idea - Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs - and looks at all the ways in which society has gotten worse at meeting those needs. And when it comes to the second level, safety? It's gone down by a lot. Keep in mind that Moldbug is a Jew living in San Francisco at that point in his life. Not exactly an ideal circumstance.

Second, if I were a black, I'd be rather unimpressed with the "progress" we've made in our society. As Moldbug said in one of his other essays:

Heck, for the last 50 years, one of the central purposes of American political life has been advancing the African-American community. And over the last five decades, what has happened to the African-American community? I’ll tell you one thing—in every major city in America, there’s a burnt-out feral ghetto which, 50 years ago, was a thriving black business district. On the other hand, there’s a street in that ghetto named for Dr. King. So, there’s that.

One could make the argument that, from a veil of ignorance perspective, I'd rather be black in 1953 than black in 2013. Yeah, I'd lose some self-esteem, but is self-esteem worth being dead? I don't think so.

Third, and most laughably, you're unironically assuming the morality of the social justice warriors. You agree with them on what you want society to look like, you just think that what we have now is the ideal equal society, whereas they think we should go even further beyond. Neither Moldbug nor myself are part of your particular religion. Moldbug's an atheist who worships Thomas Carlyle, and I'm a Roman Catholic.

Perhaps we could start another thread about the "progress" made in the name of civil rights? I think that's deserving of its own thread.
 

The Name of Love

Far Right Nutjob
Thomas Sowell would disagree about a fair bit of what you're mentioning here:

(Video is about nine and a half minutes, and covers negative consequences for living conditions and family integrity, between 1960 and ~2015)

You seem to be falling prey to more liberal lies about the past.

Dude.

My dude.

What do you think my argument is?

Thomas Sowell agrees with me about the worsening conditions of African-Americans since the Civil Rights movement. Hell, he would largely agree with me about the cause of such worsening conditions (welfare state + lax policing). Do you even read what I write?
 

LordsFire

Internet Wizard
Dude.

My dude.

What do you think my argument is?

Thomas Sowell agrees with me about the worsening conditions of African-Americans since the Civil Rights movement. Hell, he would largely agree with me about the cause of such worsening conditions (welfare state + lax policing). Do you even read what I write?

Oh, are you talking to me again? There's a reason I was quoting Abhorsen, not you. If you'll actually engage me in discussion, I'll start responding to you as well.
 

The Name of Love

Far Right Nutjob
Oh, are you talking to me again? There's a reason I was quoting Abhorsen, not you. If you'll actually engage me in discussion, I'll start responding to you as well.
Oh, man. I'm so sorry. I'm a bit riled up here. Sorry for snapping at you like that. You didn't deserve it.
 

Abhorsen

Local Degenerate
Moderator
Staff Member
Comrade
Osaul
Thomas Sowell would disagree about a fair bit of what you're mentioning here:

(Video is about nine and a half minutes, and covers negative consequences for living conditions and family integrity, between 1960 and ~2015)

You seem to be falling prey to more liberal lies about the past.

Moved this discussion over to this thread, as it is off topic:
Could you repost there?

But as for the welfare state as it relates to libertarianism, I agree with Sowell a lot, and I do despise the welfare state for the harm it has done. One of the things libertarianism has failed to stop is the welfare state, and this failure is a large one.
 

The Name of Love

Far Right Nutjob
But as for the welfare state as it relates to libertarianism, I agree with Sowell a lot, and I do despise the welfare state for the harm it has done. One of the things libertarianism has failed to stop is the welfare state, and this failure is a large one.
Personally? I think the solution to the welfare state is UBI.

If you think I'm kidding, take a look at this Vox article. The article is essentially complaining about how Republicans are able to gut a lot of the functions of the state by promising to increase UBI. One could see a sort of Machiavellian figure gutting the welfare state to increase UBI spending. It's certainly a promising idea for any clever libertarian politician.
 

Abhorsen

Local Degenerate
Moderator
Staff Member
Comrade
Osaul
Personally? I think the solution to the welfare state is UBI.

If you think I'm kidding, take a look at this Vox article. The article is essentially complaining about how Republicans are able to gut a lot of the functions of the state by promising to increase UBI. One could see a sort of Machiavellian figure gutting the welfare state to increase UBI spending. It's certainly a promising idea for any clever libertarian politician.
I very much agree with this. UBI seems to be the only solution.
 

S'task

Renegade Philosopher
Administrator
Staff Member
Founder
And when it comes to the second level, safety? It's gone down by a lot. Keep in mind that Moldbug is a Jew living in San Francisco at that point in his life. Not exactly an ideal circumstance.
How do you define safety?

Because based on criminal and violent crime statistics, we're at a fifty year or longer low. Based on geopolitical circumstances, there's no real threat of full scale war with a peer power like there was in the 1950s... and the military deployments that the US is involved in are dramatically less lethal for our people than those of the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s (to say nothing of the 1940s). When it comes to natural disasters we've greatly improved our forecasting and response capabilities due to technological advancement.

So you must mean something different by "safety" than what most people think safety is? Because by most measures, everyone is more safe today than they were in the 1950s...
 

The Name of Love

Far Right Nutjob
How do you define safety?

Because based on criminal and violent crime statistics, we're at a fifty year or longer low. Based on geopolitical circumstances, there's no real threat of full scale war with a peer power like there was in the 1950s... and the military deployments that the US is involved in are dramatically less lethal for our people than those of the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s (to say nothing of the 1940s). When it comes to natural disasters we've greatly improved our forecasting and response capabilities due to technological advancement.

So you must mean something different by "safety" than what most people think safety is? Because by most measures, everyone is more safe today than they were in the 1950s...

Alternatively, "most measures" are wrong. See this.
 

Abhorsen

Local Degenerate
Moderator
Staff Member
Comrade
Osaul
Back on topic for this thread, I think one of the reasons that the libertarians are losing the welfare battle is that it is hard to convince people that 'free stuff' isn't actually free. People will always vote themselves stuff.
 

LordsFire

Internet Wizard
Back on topic for this thread, I think one of the reasons that the libertarians are losing the welfare battle is that it is hard to convince people that 'free stuff' isn't actually free. People will always vote themselves stuff.

That's it in a nutshell. It bewilders me that you support UBI in spite of knowing this. Once you implement that, an increasing number of people will just decide it's better to vote to increase UBI rather than try working harder. It's a recipe for further social collapse and economic disaster.
 

CarlManvers2019

Writers Blocked Douchebag
That's it in a nutshell. It bewilders me that you support UBI in spite of knowing this. Once you implement that, an increasing number of people will just decide it's better to vote to increase UBI rather than try working harder. It's a recipe for further social collapse and economic disaster.

As I've said before, look people don't believe that hard work will get them anywhere, especially when they look at some rich guy who inherited his money

Also, the assumptions of nepotism and talk about how people are extremely bigoted & biased so the best jobs and pay won't go to guys with actual merit
 

7 Gold Eye Heals the Wise

The First Weeaboo
Founder
As I've said before, look people don't believe that hard work will get them anywhere,
That is literally why socialism has had such a hard time here in America when they're open about their intentions instead of masking them with double-speak. The average American believes that he's a temporarily inconvenienced millionaire.

Most people believe hard work will get them somewhere, it's why communists fucking hate America so much.
Social Liberalism. As in support for gay marriage, abortion, less or no laws towards sex, and so on. Not to mention legalization of marijuana.

The left now, and the democrat party take the above as axiomatic.
Marijuana is not a Democrat position, first of all.

Secondly, social liberalism is incompatible with gun control.

Thirdly, the Democrats have never not been the party of censorship, and have never passed a single Civil Rights Bill.

Each and every single bit of Civil Rights legislation has been passed with overwhelming or absolute Republican support, as just as strong Democrat opposition.
 
D

Deleted member 88

Guest
That is literally why socialism has had such a hard time here in America when they're open about their intentions instead of masking them with double-speak. The average American believes that he's a temporarily inconvenienced millionaire.

Most people believe hard work will get them somewhere, it's why communists fucking hate America so much.

Marijuana is not a Democrat position, first of all.

Secondly, social liberalism is incompatible with gun control.

Thirdly, the Democrats have never not been the party of censorship, and have never passed a single Civil Rights Bill.

Each and every single bit of Civil Rights legislation has been passed with overwhelming or absolute Republican support, as just as strong Democrat opposition.
Obviously my post was a broad generalization and did not account for every nuance and counter example because that would have undermined the entire point I was making. Strangely I didn't do that.
 

Abhorsen

Local Degenerate
Moderator
Staff Member
Comrade
Osaul
That's it in a nutshell. It bewilders me that you support UBI in spite of knowing this. Once you implement that, an increasing number of people will just decide it's better to vote to increase UBI rather than try working harder. It's a recipe for further social collapse and economic disaster.
I think UBI is a sellable improvement over the current system. At the very least, UBI doesn't incentive earning less, and is a lot more efficient to hand out. I've given up all hope of killing off welfare entirely.
 

CarlManvers2019

Writers Blocked Douchebag
I think UBI is a sellable improvement over the current system. At the very least, UBI doesn't incentive earning less, and is a lot more efficient to hand out. I've given up all hope of killing off welfare entirely.

Welfare is like bandages, you have to replace the ones that have rotten away.

Problem is, aside from necessity, politicians, celebrities and even businessmen with certain ideologies and interests can say and be believed that "It's not enough and there are billions of homeless in each city that need MORE than UBI" or something
 

The Name of Love

Far Right Nutjob
Welfare is like bandages, you have to replace the ones that have rotten away.

Problem is, aside from necessity, politicians, celebrities and even businessmen with certain ideologies and interests can say and be believed that "It's not enough and there are billions of homeless in each city that need MORE than UBI" or something
None of these politicians, celebrities, or businessmen are willing to take on the underlying root causes of homelessness: mental illness and a broken housing market.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top