United States Why Do Libertarians Always Lose?

[Doomsought]

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

Its greatest value is as an anti-thesis to communism on moral principle, showing how capitalism actively encourages good even in people who have only selfish motivations. It is not a good way to organize your life, but it is a great way to organize a society to deal with the problem of evil.

 

[FriedCFour]

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.

What’s an actual libertarian?

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

How autistic do you have to be where you think a fucking FPS game with super power drug slugs, diving suit warriors and Loli magical girls makes for good data on the validity of a political philosophy?

 

[Abhorsen]

What’s an actual libertarian?

An actual libertarian, at the basic level, believes something along the lines of the Non-aggression principle, including it's major corollary, free market capitalism.

 

[Aaron Fox]

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

It never has a valid point in the slightest. It should be only remembered as a horror-show-in-waiting and not something that you should even suggest in a civilized setting. It's reaching the level of anarcho-capitalist in terms of how dumb it is.

An actual libertarian, at the basic level, believes something along the lines of the Non-aggression principle, including it's major corollary, free market capitalism.

Actual libertarians assume that people have rights, you are to be forced to respect everyone's rights unless they're trying to fuck other people's rights, the government has a place in ensuring that these rights are respected, that sort of thing.

How autistic do you have to be where you think a fucking FPS game with super power drug slugs, diving suit warriors and Loli magical girls makes for good data on the validity of a political philosophy?

It is simply the endpoint of Objectivist 'philosophy'. Shit turns into a hellhole for everyone not at the top of the food chain. The snippets of how Rapture fell and the prelude book Rapture show just how bad Objectivism really is in practice.

Its greatest value is as an anti-thesis to communism on moral principle, showing how capitalism actively encourages good even in people who have only selfish motivations. It is not a good way to organize your life, but it is a great way to organize a society to deal with the problem of evil.

That never has been a thing under the current version of capitalism. This version of capitalism has only rewarded the ruthless and the most willing to fuck everyone but themselves in the short term even if it hurts them in the long run. That is why regulations and laws were created to combat capitalists because they're willing to burn the whole house down to get a quick buck.

The original version of capitalism by Smith actually outright stated that the Government exists to ensure that everyone involved doesn't fuck with each other to get an advantage.

 

[FriedCFour]

It is simply the endpoint of Objectivist 'philosophy'. Shit turns into a hellhole for everyone not at the top of the food chain. The snippets of how Rapture fell and the prelude book Rapture show just how bad Objectivism really is in practice.

Enlightening. What are your opinions on Handmaids tale and Harry Potter and do these also reflect real life?

 

[Abhorsen]

Actual libertarians assume that people have rights, you are to be forced to respect everyone's rights unless they're trying to fuck other people's rights, the government has a place in ensuring that these rights are respected, that sort of thing.

No, that's too limiting of a definition, and also not specific enough. A libertarian does not need to believe in a government, for example. Also, what rights are you talking about? Libertarians generally don't believe in positive rights, for example.

 

[Aaron Fox]

Enlightening. What are your opinions on Handmaids tale and Harry Potter and do these also reflect real life?

Here's the funny thing, fiction has always been a methodology to bypass attempts to stifle change or discussion. The Jungle bypassed the controls of the meatpacking industry that led to the creation of the FDA. Jane Austen used her writing to basically point out the hypocrisy that was common during her time.

The Handmaid's Tale is a look into a world where the Evangelicals manage to take power and enforce their religious doctrine on everyone else... a sickening world by practically every measure for a sane person.

Harry Potter is a look into a changeling fantasy and (some) commentary on governance where looking good is seen as good governance with a hate-boner for bureaucracy and how schooling isn't as good as it should.

The manga series and anime Jin-Roh: The Wolf Brigade shows a period of time in the 1950s that the elder Japanese people and portions of the government want to be forgotten.

No, that's too limiting of a definition, and also not specific enough. A libertarian does not need to believe in a government, for example. Also, what rights are you talking about? Libertarians generally don't believe in positive rights, for example.

From what I understand, true Libertarians believe in a mixture of positive and negative rights. Some rights (like the right not to be murdered or to have your livelihood stolen from you, among similar other rights) -from the few non-Lolbertarians I've met- are considered positive, others are negative... at least that is what they tried to explain to me.

 

[Abhorsen]

From what I understand, true Libertarians believe in a mixture of positive and negative rights. Some rights (like the right not to be murdered or to have your livelihood stolen from you, among similar other rights) -from the few non-Lolbertarians I've met- are considered positive, others are negative... at least that is what they tried to explain to me.

The right not to be murdered is a negative right. It's about not being interfered with. A positive right is more like the 'right' to healthcare, or the 'right' to a living wage, or the 'right' to housing. Basically, these rights create a duty to act on another, as opposed to negative rights, which just impose a duty to not interfere.

From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

2.1.8 Negative and Positive Rights

A distinction between negative and positive rights is popular among some normative theorists, especially those with a bent toward libertarianism. The holder of a negative right is entitled to non-interference, while the holder of a positive right is entitled to provision of some good or service. A right against assault is a classic example of a negative right, while a right to welfare assistance is a prototypical positive right (Narveson 2001).

Since both negative and positive rights are passive rights, some rights are neither negative nor positive. Privileges and powers cannot be negative rights; and privileges, powers, and immunities cannot be positive rights. The (privilege-) right to enter a building, and the (power-) right to enter into a binding agreement, are neither negative nor positive.

It is sometimes said that negative rights are easier to satisfy than positive rights. Negative rights can be respected simply by each person refraining from interfering with each other, while it may be difficult or even impossible to fulfill everyone’s positive rights if the sum of people’s claims outstrips the resources available.

In general, libertarians all value negative rights, and only occasionally give some thought to positive rights, depending on the libertarian. Penn Jillete, for example, generally gives roads, schools and healthcare, then cuts positive rights there. Others disdain any positive rights, and basically say they shouldn't/don't exist.

Personally, I'm between these two. On a moral level, I'm an AnCap. On a political level, I know that America is the closest to AnCap there has ever been, and one of the reasons it can get close is a number of programs that keep social cohesion along with stopping invaders and people who would do the US harm. Consider me more of a freedom-based utilitarian when it comes to politics. I want to maximize freedom (as a libertarian sees it) throughout the US.

 

[S'task]

The Handmaid's Tale is a look into a world where the Evangelicals manage to take power and enforce their religious doctrine on everyone else... a sickening world by practically every measure for a sane person.

Actually, no, it really isn't. Speaking as someone who grew up deep within the very right wing Evangelical movement of the 1980s and 90s, what is portrayed in "A Handmaiden's Tale" in no way, shape, or form actually fits with the philosophy or ideals of that movement. Ironically, the society it shows has a LOT in common with fundamentalist Islam as seen in ISIL, but there is not significant overlap between fundamentalist Islam and Evangelical Christianity.

What it WAS was an opponent of Evangelical Christianity's horror story of what she thought a society as ordered by Evangelical Christians would look like. While outside criticism can often be useful for a movement to improve itself, that's not what a Handmaiden's Tale was seeking to do, rather, it was attempting to scare people into thinking that dystopia is what Evangelical Christians actually wanted for society. I would argue that is also what Bioshock does, it is a story created to critique and scare off people from an ideology that the creators disagree with.

You know, there's a term for a story told to influence people's ideas: propaganda. That's all a Handmaiden's Tale and Bioshock are: propaganda written by left wingers to scare people away from ideologies that they disagree with. So stop pretending they are in any way ACCURATE portrayals of those ideologies in action, they're not, they're just plain old propaganda.

 

[Big Steve]

Wasn't Handmaiden's Tale also kind of a "It Could Happen Here" story, but with fundamentalist Iran as the model instead of totalitarianism?

 

[Abhorsen]

You know, there's a term for a story told to influence people's ideas: propaganda. That's all a Handmaiden's Tale and Bioshock are: propaganda written by left wingers to scare people away from ideologies that they disagree with. So stop pretending they are in any way ACCURATE portrayals of those ideologies in action, they're not, they're just plain old propaganda.

Just because something has a political view doesn't make it propaganda. Or maybe more accurately, just because art is critiquing an ideology doesn't necessarily discredit the message. You pointed out what was wrong with the Handmaid's tale, but not what was wrong with Bioshock. I haven't played Bioshock, but I've watched a let's play of one of the sequels, and it seemed pretty good at critiquing all types of ideologies, so does it do a bad job of describing Objectivism? and if so, how?

 

[S'task]

Just because something has a political view doesn't make it propaganda. Or maybe more accurately, just because art is critiquing an ideology doesn't necessarily discredit the message. You pointed out what was wrong with the Handmaid's tale, but not what was wrong with Bioshock. I haven't played Bioshock, but I've watched a let's play of one of the sequels, and it seemed pretty good at critiquing all types of ideologies, so does it do a bad job of describing Objectivism? and if so, how?

I'm not a student of Objectivism and in fact count myself an opponent and critic of it (since it's an inherently Atheistic philosophy, as the most detailed description of what I am is probably something like "Conservative Nationalistic Evangelical Christian"), and will admit to not having played Bioshock; however, the same studio went on to make Bioshock 2 which was, well, basically a variant of a Handmaiden's Tale just with "nationalism" tacked onto "Evangelical Christian" and it was just as inaccurate and stupid a criticism of that worldview while showcasing basic misunderstandings of everything listed from Nationalism to Christianity. As such, I have no good reason to believe Bioshock is an accurate representation of Objectivism in action anymore than Bioshock 2 is an accurate representation of Nationalistic Evangelical Christianity. Perhaps it is, but even if it is, the entire point of the work isn't to engage with and debate the ideas in an honest fashion, it's to scare people away from the ideas of that philosophy without a detailed study of them, they are just emotionally driven to reject the philosophy due to it being portrayed as bad in that story they know. That is propaganda.

 

[LordsFire]

The Handmaid's Tale is a look into a world where the Evangelicals manage to take power and enforce their religious doctrine on everyone else... a sickening world by practically every measure for a sane person.

You know, having grown up among Evangelicals, it's strange that if that's what they want, they make a habit of sending their daughters to college, teaching them how to shoot, etc, etc.

My father got up and made my mother coffee before she got out of bed, even though he didn't drink the stuff himself, for decades. Eventually he did start drinking it too. The only time my father ever came close to striking me in anger (something he never actually did), was for disrespecting my mother.

I knew an Evangelical man recovering from Cancer, who set up a heater in a hunting blind for his wife, so she could enjoy deer season in comfort. He also practiced pistol shooting with her; they'd compete as a team.

Ravi Zacharias, one of the most famous Christian theologists of the last 30 years, publicly states that his wife has final editorial authority over the (many) books that he has written and published. Last I checked, one of his daughters runs one of the organizations he founded.

But yes. Tell me about these terrifying Evangelicals, because I've never met one of the sort 'Handmaid's Tale' proposes in my life. I've met fringe 'christian' groups that have actual patriarchal authoritarian practices, but they tend to be highly exclusionary and isolationist by nature, the exact opposite of Evangelicals.

 

[Deleted member 88]

There is RJ Rushdoony, and Christian dominionism as well as seven mountains theology.

The mountains being science, culture, government and the like. That must be conquered for Christ to return.

However these elements of the Christian Right were always overblown and not that influential.

The sort of militant dominionism that people like Rushdoony preached was always highlighted by liberals and secularists.

When that brand of Calvinism just was never that popular.

Same thing with the neo charismatic seven mountains stuff or the ordus dei Catholic order.

All of these movements did exist and still do to some extent, however they were never going to take over the government or anything like that.

But the fear of Christian theocracy was an effective bit of rhetoric from the left and it’s allies in the 1990s and 2000s. By the time of Obama’s second term, you didn’t see such frantic concern over the alleged Christian taliban.

Because the “Religious right” was no longer the best scary bogeyman out there.

 

[FriedCFour]

From what I understand, true Libertarians believe in a mixture of positive and negative rights. Some rights (like the right not to be murdered or to have your livelihood stolen from you, among similar other rights) -from the few non-Lolbertarians I've met- are considered positive, others are negative... at least that is what they tried to explain to me.

I think it’s absolutely fucking hilarious that you think yourself the arbiter of true libertarianism when you don’t even believe in that, and your not certain on what libertarianism even is. It shows a lot about how over confident and how much more intelligent you think you are vs how you actually are.

 

[Jaenera Targaryen]

In Asia libertarian ideology always struggles because it's up against thousands of years of cultural and social inertia. Sure, academics, religious figures, even fresh-in/out-of-university students preach liberal values (sometimes violently), and politicians juice up their campaigns and speeches with it, but libertarian ideology has to make room for the previously-mentioned weight of history, and not the other way around.

Long story short, Asian values. That's not to say they're incompatible, as Japan's postwar economic miracle, China's rise to become the world's second largest economy and nascent superpower, plus the tiger economies of South Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore prove that free market economies and their values of competition, innovation, creativity, etc. are something the socially-conservative bent of Asian societies can assimilate. But the libertarian focus on the individual, placing him or her above the community they're part of, is just something that is fundamentally alien to the Asian psyche.

No matter how much noise is made from inside or outside, Asians tend (and likely will continue for the foreseeable future) to favor social stability and collective prosperity if at the expense of diminishing the value of the individual, as well as maintaining a deep-rooted respect for seniority and figures of legitimate authority.

Just my two cents on the OP's question, don't mean to offend anyone.

 

[Witteric of the West]

Snip

That's actually somewhat similar to the situation in Latin America, with one caveat. Hispanic Culture is much more family-oriented than Anglo culture in general, and it is expected that families will support its members throughout their lives -including extended family-. And due to our own long history of economic protectionism of different flavors -a habit that existed since Colonial times, and only very recently started to be reconsidered-, neither the Free Market ideals nor the Individualist mindset resonate with Latin Americans in general. Adding to that the fact that Hispanics tend to be more socially conservative, means that Libertarians are either unheard of down here, or considered these strange obnoxious guys talking about Rand in a café.

 

[CarlManvers2019]

That's actually somewhat similar to the situation in Latin America, with one caveat. Hispanic Culture is much more family-oriented than Anglo culture in general, and it is expected that families will support its members throughout their lives -including extended family-. And due to our own long history of economic protectionism of different flavors -a habit that existed since Colonial times, and only very recently started to be reconsidered-, neither the Free Market ideals nor the Individualist mindset resonate with Latin Americans in general. Adding to that the fact that Hispanics tend to be more socially conservative, means that Libertarians are either unheard of down here, or considered these strange obnoxious guys talking about Rand in a café.

I remember there being a small riot by feminists in Mexico, it ended up getting cleaned by local women

 

[ATP]

They use good,solid,logical arguments - but in RL in politics win emotions.So, they must change their style.
For example,instead of taking about economical arguments, start naming their adversaries fasctist,antysemites, bigots etc.
Leftist win many times using that tactic.

 

[CarlManvers2019]

They use good,solid,logical arguments - but in RL in politics win emotions.So, they must change their style.
For example,instead of taking about economical arguments, start naming their adversaries fasctist,antysemites, bigots etc.
Leftist win many times using that tactic.

TBF, much of those accusations towards the Left probably are true

That DeBlasio guy wouldn’t let the Jewish Community do their religious thing because social distancing whilst having big favor for the Muslims around instead

They also don’t like East Asians, or BLM and the “black Community” very much dislikes them