United States Why Do Libertarians Always Lose?

CarlManvers2019

WHAT DID YOU SAY ABOUT MY HAIR!?!?
Joined
Aug 22, 2019
Reaction score
11,635
Location
Philippines
Well, who holds these institutions? Marxist SJWs. You seems to be equating them with Conservatives who are fighting against the degradation of men and women and the family. They are not one and the same. It is normal for conservatives to push back until it's slowly accepted. It keeps the truly vile stuff away.
SJWs, meanwhile, criminalize people for being normal.
No, I meant I’ve met people with those views who’d have lots of stuff like GTA banned so that they can force people into the stuff they want society to go that involves people being made to have families and force themselves into socialization because even if people don’t become serial killers/rapists they don’t force themselves into those nuclear familiar or stepford suburbs

Those guys even wanted to ban rap and hip hop

I dislike SJWs more than Moral Guardians, mostly because they’re more successful at taking over things and not simply subtracting but also adding their own weird AF ugly stuff

There are two stages of censorship can’t say/show this and the next which is you have to say/show this, SJWs do the latter more

You know what, let’s stop, and thanks for reminding me of how much this place isn’t an echo chamber with you Religious Right types around
 

Fleiur

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2019
Reaction score
740
I mean, that's an argument that things would be better if your God exists, not an argument that God exists. And quite simply, I cannot with any honesty believe in God. At which point, I have to build a morality, but I have little to no framework to put it on. I wish I could believe in a god, and just have a reliable source of knowledge about morality. But as it is, I don't.

In light of this, I know that Capitalism, which is the respect of private property, does increase prosperity. I also know that the morality of an Ancap and basic 'evolutionary/instinctual' morality (for lack of a better term, what humans default to) line up fairly well in what actions one should do. So I'll go with Private Property being the basis of my morality, and build from there. Maybe I should read some metaphysics and see if I can connect my foundation to some sort of reality, but I haven't had the time to do that yet.
Yet, you are building on the assumption that prosperity is good. There is no way to claim that without putting value on human life or on collective good.
 

Abhorsen

Local Degenerate
Osaul
Joined
Jan 9, 2020
Reaction score
2,947
Yet, you are building on the assumption that prosperity is good. There is no way to claim that without putting value on human life or on collective good.
Yeah, I get I need to start building a castle in the sky somewhere if I don't have God. I try to build it as low to something like the ground as I can, but there are limits to how good I can get.
 

liberty90

Evil Neoliberal Cat
Joined
Apr 12, 2020
Reaction score
78
Location
Poland
Yet, you live as though there is objective truth, namely that people cannot perform aggression against you and your property. Without objective morality, this isn't the case your beliefs are mere beliefs, valid as long as you can enforce them. If you can't, you have no inherent right to complain. You lost the evolutionary race.

Without God, morality is just opinion. Backed up by guns.
But complaining is also evolutionary strategy, just as use of violence (guns). Social games of intelligent social animal are kind of subtle! No God needed.

Look, I think that...:

Humans are built to be hypocritical, i.e., to give lip service and soft thought to high ideals, while mostly acting to achieve low practical personal ends. We manage this disconnect both by being stupid, and so not noticing our hypocrisy, and by being insincere, and so caring less when we notice.

Now human characteristics vary quite a bit, and so some folks are both unusually smart and unusually conscientious about their ideals. More than most people, these folks notice their hypocrisy, and try to avoid it. And since far ideals tend toward incoherence and impracticality, this has led smart sincere folks to invent a wide range of “ideologies” to substitute for their jumbled intuitions, with matching actions that range far from the norm.

(...)

Now a modest dose of smart sincerity, limited by time, topic or temperament, is a good sign, as it indicates the positive qualities of intelligence and conscientiousness, qualities most any organization can put to good use. So everyone wants to seem ideological to some degree. And even a large dose of smart sincerity, if bundled with complements such as beauty, stamina, or charisma, can bring success as a “movement” or spiritual leader. But without such complements, an overdose of smart sincerity tends toward evolutionary failure, typically achieving less success relative to ability.

Today, a common solution to this dilemma is libertarian axiomatics, a simple coherent ideology supporting most, but hardly all, ordinary practical actions. Another common solution is to embrace a particular successful person, profession, or institution as the key to achieving global ideals; full loyalty and support of such a thing may, if reciprocated, help one achieve standard measures of success.

However, pity the simply smart sincere, who try make sense of their inherited incoherent impractical far ideals, via more coherent if idiosyncratic ideologies, that encourage unusual, and usually unadaptive, behavior. (...)
 

liberty90

Evil Neoliberal Cat
Joined
Apr 12, 2020
Reaction score
78
Location
Poland
So, no matter what a person believes or whether they are right or wrong, their conclusion is part of evolution?
Beliefs are usually tools to assume higher social status and position. There are exeptions, "smart sincere syndrome" ;) as Robin Hanson ( Robin Hanson - Wikipedia ) calls these, and I think that we may have a few such people in this very thread. Such honest ideological consistency without hypocrisy feels admirable (perhaps because it signals reliable allies, and while I disagree about morality, I agree about free markets) but it's... really not something natural for human species as s whole.
 

Fleiur

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2019
Reaction score
740
Beliefs are usually tools to assume higher social status and position. There are exeptions, "smart sincere syndrome" ;) as Robin Hanson ( Robin Hanson - Wikipedia ) calls these, and I think that we may have a few such people in this very thread. Such honest ideological consistency without hypocrisy feels admirable (perhaps because it signals reliable allies, and while I disagree about morality, I agree about free markets) but it's... really not something natural for human species as s whole.
So, whether something is true means nothing. What matters is how it gains the proponent power. That's a Marxist way to approach beliefs.
 

liberty90

Evil Neoliberal Cat
Joined
Apr 12, 2020
Reaction score
78
Location
Poland
Well, "more true" beliefs about engineering can create bridges that can stand longer, and "more true" beliefs about economics can create economies that can generate more wealth, so in this sense truth exist. I value these goals, because these sounds nice to me and thus generate positive emotions in my mind.
 

Fleiur

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2019
Reaction score
740
Well, "more true" beliefs about engineering can create bridges that can stand longer, and "more true" beliefs about economics can create economies that can generate more wealth, so in this sense truth exist. I value these goals, because these sounds nice to me and thus generate positive emotions in my mind.
And traditional morality creates societies that are more stable and last longer.
 

Lanmandragon

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 19, 2019
Reaction score
3,569
Honestly, as much as people try going on about religion being better than non-religion, while there's much talk about intelligent-design, whatever

You gotta realize that much of religion in the end is made up by different cultures/peoples around the world trying to explain the world, long before science significantly advanced

And the morals and "rules" that come with them may not necessarily adapt or be that nice or even smart

I'm pretty sure Muhammed kept slaves and didn't ban them for one
Sure but you've also got to accept that things like socialism are a relgion. Even if they won't admit to it see also feminism, Intersectionality, and Nazism. All these things are secular religions that have been formed. To fill in the gap left by christanity because like it or not. Human beings are predisposed to belief and thus will believe in something.
 

CarlManvers2019

WHAT DID YOU SAY ABOUT MY HAIR!?!?
Joined
Aug 22, 2019
Reaction score
11,635
Location
Philippines
Sure but you've also got to accept that things like socialism are a relgion. Even if they won't admit to it see also feminism, Intersectionality, and Nazism. All these things are secular religions that have been formed. To fill in the gap left by christanity because like it or not. Human beings are predisposed to belief and thus will believe in something.
I know, it's all one variant of collectivism


"You must tell people they’ll achieve a superior kind of happiness by giving up everything that makes them happy. You don’t have to be too clear about it. Use big vague words. ‘Universal Harmony’ – ‘Eternal Spirit’ – ‘Divine Purpose’ – ‘Nirvana’ – ‘Paradise’ – ‘Racial Supremacy’ – ‘the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.’ Internal corruption, Peter. That’s the oldest one of all. The farce has been going on for centuries and men still fall for it."
 

Aaron Fox

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2019
Reaction score
624
Because Libertarians in the US are less comparable to Libertarians and more LoLertarians, worshipers of Ann Rand (someone who was part of the 'shittiest people' club). Most party systems tend to have anything not the two major coalitions/parties be basically made up of crazies (although, in the US, a major political shakeup happens when one of the main parties goes crazy)...
 

FriedCFour

PunishedCFour
Founder
Joined
Aug 11, 2019
Reaction score
5,096
Location
Mother Roof
Because Libertarians in the US are less comparable to Libertarians and more LoLertarians, worshipers of Ann Rand (someone who was part of the 'shittiest people' club). Most party systems tend to have anything not the two major coalitions/parties be basically made up of crazies (although, in the US, a major political shakeup happens when one of the main parties goes crazy)...
The only lolbertarians are the left wingers who call themselves such.

Ie lolbertarian: I’m a libertarian that will shoot if you want to own private property or otherwise do not conform to the collective.

a good example of this would be the Chaz police, who in the span of three weeks were more brutal than any police department in America and killed an unarmed black teen execution style as they protested cops.
 

Aaron Fox

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2019
Reaction score
624
I always thought lolbertarian were fake libertarians who call themselves such but act nothing like one.
In the US, they're Ann Rand worshipers and have been part of the GOP for decades.
The only lolbertarians are the left wingers who call themselves such.

Ie lolbertarian: I’m a libertarian that will shoot if you want to own private property or otherwise do not conform to the collective.

a good example of this would be the Chaz police, who in the span of three weeks were more brutal than any police department in America and killed an unarmed black teen execution style as they protested cops.
Wow, you are rather ignorant in these things, aren't you? Lolbertarians are right-wing idiots who are everything that actual libertarians aren't. They're Ann Rand worshipers pure and simple.
 

Aaron Fox

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2019
Reaction score
624
Perhaps you could elaborate on the philosophy of Ayn Rand for the uninitiated? I've heard quite a bit but never actually read Atlas Shrugged.
Objectivism is... stupid. We're basically talking about a sort of anarchy where there is practically no government, practically no rules, where the ethically challenged rule and there is no recourse for change, that sort of thing. It's the same sort of mentality that effectively created the Gilded Age of the US. At least that's my read of the 'philosophy' if you can call it that.

If you've played the first Bioshock, then you've seen where that road will end...
 

almostinsane

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 20, 2019
Reaction score
1,315
Objectivism is... stupid. We're basically talking about a sort of anarchy where there is practically no government, practically no rules, where the ethically challenged rule and there is no recourse for change, that sort of thing. It's the same sort of mentality that effectively created the Gilded Age of the US. At least that's my read of the 'philosophy' if you can call it that.

If you've played the first Bioshock, then you've seen where that road will end...
Objectivism is an understandable overcorrection due to the author's experiences with Communism. Unfortunately, like Communism, it misjudges human nature and economic reality. Where they believe that the "producers", (i.e. people who work and innovate) will naturally rise to the top, reality has shown that people who succeed will come to the point where they sabotage others to preserve their power and wealth.

This is not say that Objectivism is not without its valid points. Its critique of the welfare state and emphasis on individual autonomy and capitalism are both spot-on. Ayn Rand is someone whose work deserves to read, acknowledged, and critiqued where necessary.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom