Hat tip to F. Stupidity, Jr. for the brilliant idea.
jesse.in.mb
Leaning, not doctrinaire. I’ll keep a bug-out bag handy for the next round of purity purges.
Swiss Servator
Minarchist. I previously wielded government power over other people’s life, liberty and property. The experience was…enlightening. Now I shun any dominion over my fellow man, and would hope to see government power limited, severely, over everyone’s life liberty or property.
Brett L
I have an idea of what is Good for me, I have no way of proving it is Good for anyone else. I believe that every human is equally valuable and there is no “fair” way to determine which individuals or groups “deserve” something from our society (whether that be help or to be on the wrong end of the “Trolley Dilemma”). Being a somewhat social animal, people are eventually going to contend in their quest for their Good. I believe that: strong protections of property are vital, people can’t be property, intentional or negligent taking of life is the worst rights violation, and a small, impartial, rigidly process bound entity for settling rights disputes is probably necessary. I have resigned myself to the fact that taking principled stands on this will forever put me on the side of assholes and bigots — so long as they are doing so in a way that doesn’t harm anyone physically or defraud another person. I don’t know what that makes me.
Heroic Mulatto
Recognizing that in current usage the term encompass several different but related schools of thought, I do identify as libertarian. Indeed, much like a Gold Star Lesbian, from the age of 13 when I first developed some semblance of a political conscious, I have never been outside of the libertarian umbrella. My journey has taken me from Objectivist, to card-carrying member of the Libertarian Party, to where I sit now: the Voluntaryist school of anarcho-capitalism.
SugarFree
Small-l libertarian, for lack of a better term. The LP is like watching clowns slapping each other with their own dicks, but I do support them out in The Normal World because, once again, there is a lack of a better alternative. I don’t think of myself as an anarcho-whatever because I don’t believe anarchy is truly self-sustaining–some form of government is inevitable because of The Irritating Asshole Problem–so you better constrain it as long as you can, keep it weak and beaten-down. Like Nietzsche, I look for reasons not to be an out-right nihilist but often fail and slip into the blackest sort of cynicism about the nature of man.
Riven
I consider myself a libertarian. Turn-ons: property rights, contracts, limited government, free market solutions, incentives. Turn-offs: drug and firearm laws, meddling foreign policies, government contracted infrastructure, taxes, preemptive and violent action.
Old Man With Candy
Let’s see… Bill of Rights absolutist, check. Delimited government powers, check. Free market economics, check. No special privileges or restrictions on unions, check. Anti-intervention and antiwar other than defense, check. Freedom of association, check. Freedom of contract, check. No desire for “leaders” and an attitude that elected officials are the hired help, check.
Yeah, I guess I’m a libertarian.
Gojira
Far be it for me to disagree with my esteemed colleague Heroic Mulatto, but I personally don’t consider voluntaryist anarchists (which I am) to fall under the umbrella of libertarianism. I consider anarchism to be aspirational, an overarching philosophy to guide moral decision making, even if it quite possibly can never be perfectly/completely realized.
That having been said, drawing any attention to or harping on the differences between us all is like the leftists and rightists within the CPUSA duking it out in…1901. The distinctions between all anti-government thought are so slight in comparison with the differences we have with the 97% of humanity that believes passionately in CONTROL that infighting is pointless right now. Anyone who wants less government is a potential ally. We can worry about these other details after the Tsar has been overthrown.
Sloopyinca
Yeah, I think I am, in principle. I’m probably leaning a lot more conservative than most of today’s libertarians because I’m probably a little more religious than most libertarians are. And certainly more than most Libertarians are. I hate pubsec unions. I hate compelled participation in government programs. I hate the “progressive” tax system. I hate the welfare state. I hate any government spending that’s not related to protecting life and property (both militarily and police-wise), or for operating our criminal and civil court systems and jails. I’m not a big fan of drugs but don’t think it’s “society’s” business to regulate what someone puts in their own body. I don’t think we should have a federal government that regulates markets or negotiates trade policies. I believe in the natural rights of self defense, freedom of expression, free association, private property and due process and think they’ve been all but demolished by the state.
I’d be open borders if the above were implemented but realize it will continue to create massive problems if not curtailed until then.
So before I ramble on too long, I’ll just say yes, I’m as libertarian as I can be in the current climate. And if certain things our government does with its money were ended, I’d be even more libertarian.
No, I’m a social and fiscal conservative. I’m here because there are few places where I can indulge in ranting free speech and not get any more of a sidelong glance than the rest of the oddities.
SLAVER
Heretic.
BULLY!
When’s the sequel to that coming out, Rockstar?
Same day as Half-Life 3.
I’m a libertarian, mostly, but not a Libertarian because I agree with SugarFree about the LP being like clowns slapping each other with their own dicks.
I fail to see how that is a bad thing.
/crustyjuggler
We do not speak that name here.
Oooh is it like Candyman where we say his name three times to summon him?
The opposite. We said his name many times and he never came.
Our hearts are broken.
I’m a (small l) libertarian. I don’t see any other ideology to which the NAP and the Principle of Self-Ownership could apply. It’s as mathematical as you can get when talking about philosophy, I guess. All I need to do is ask myself “How does [issue X] apply to theses principles?”
you do know without big government skiing would not exist. winter sports and the welfare state cannot be separated.
Libertarian is easier than having to explain what Constitutional Property Rights Minarchism is. And I don’t like to talk to people, so libertarian works fine.
private property is theft. unless it is personal property that is different.
You’re trolling hard
I would never
Nonbody’s a libertarian except for me.
(I’ll just copy and paste what OMWC said, because I can’t say things good and he can)
As well as he can.
PROBABLY TOO LATE – hover over links warning, should you be at work…or trying to keep your orphans in line.
I am at work – most of the people here are consultants. (No PTO for consultants, at least, not on our dime).
If you need to be told not to click a SugarFree link, you’re not a libertarian.
I am trying to protect the new and the innocent. We regulars are too far gone…
I thought clicking Sugar Free links was part of the initiation.
Correct.
And a life changing event.
“Are You a Libertarian?”
No existing state throughout the world is legitimate, as every state denies, in part, the full inalienable natural rights guaranteed to individuals. The US comes the closest to guaranteeing individual rights, far better than other supposedly ‘enlightened countries’, but it wages counter productive wars and murders with revenues that it has stolen from its populous. My problem with the term ‘Libertarian’ is that so many who identify as such believe in smaller government only with regards to fiscal matters or social matters, but rarely both.
I am sympathetic to the Old Right, from which most 20th Century libertarian thinkers came from, though I also believe in generally liberalized immigration and trade polices (which puts me at odds with the Old Right).
Above all- I hate everyone
The US comes the closest to guaranteeing individual rights – meh maybe on the balance closest, but the difference aint that much.
Significantly better with regards to free speech, religious liberty, and gun ownership, to name a few. Europe is a reactionary continent
yes and worse with all the vice stuff and some regulation. and police brutality. and sometimes civil asset forfeiture. and sometimes eminent domain.
You’re talking about Europe here, right? Because in most parts of Europe imminent domain and civil asset seizure isn’t even an issue because there are literally no protections against it.
And I’d put American police brutality against Europe any day of the week.
Your only argument here is vice and even then only with regards to prostitution, drinking age, and gambling. The same drugs illegal in the US are illegal in most of Europe.
I’m not trying to ‘Europe-splain’ to the guy who literally lives there, but I have relatives there and I lived there for a bit. My family still owns property there and one of the biggest concerns that they have is someone squatting on their property and then just seizing ownership (which is becoming more common). And they don’t want to rent the property to someone, because after a few years the renter can claim ownership, as well. Such things are so uncommon in the US that the average American cannot even comprehend of the concept.
Obviously, Europe isn’t some monolith and there are differentiation, but on the whole, the US is a virtual paradise of property rights and individual rights in comparison to the old world
meh eminent domain is not used as badly in several European countries. I will take police brutality in Europe any day of the week.
-drugs illegal- enforcement is much less strict in Europe which makes all the difference.the drug wore is less enthusiastically fought.
Yes, I remember how restrained the police were in Spain when they beat people for voting when they told them not to.
I suppose the relative freedom that people enjoy in Europe is why the US remains the most sought after place of immigration in the world
One of the problems with European laws in general is that they’re irregularly enforced, if not ignored. This is a problem they have in common with proto-‘fascist’ states in general – because all it takes to become a fascist state is for someone to gain power and then demand that all those unenforced laws are consistently and rigorously enforced.
remember how restrained the police were in Spain – very few people were shot. And no dogs. And no schizophrenic homeless guys were beaten to death. And no children shot for carrying PlayStation controllers. I am sorry but if you are way off
One of the problems with European laws in general is that they’re irregularly enforced – just like the US?
I suppose a little beating for voting in a non-binding election is of no concern to Europeans.
Well then I guess we shouldn’t even discuss the bigotry that permeates European society where if you aren’t of the correct ethnic background you will always be relegated to the status of second class citizen.
Do you ever wonder why Muslims don’t riot in Dearborn, MI, but they do in the suburbs of Paris.
What? The Italian and French police, which are a branch of their armed forces, mind you, routinely beat “confessions” out of suspects. And they’re “1st World” Europe! I can’t even imagine the shit that goes on in, say, Bulgaria.
he Italian and French police, which are a branch of their armed forces, mind you, routinely beat “confessions” out of suspects. – yes that has never happened in the US…
I never claimed there is no police brutality in Europe. But you are less likely to be murdered and similarly likely to be beaten would rather not get shot or stomped to death.
I suppose a little beating for voting in a non-binding election is of no concern to Europeans. – I suppose a little murder of innocent people, a little swat raid on the elderly, a little child assassination is of no concern to Americans
“You” as in general you? Or “You” as in “me” and my swarthy could-be-confused-for-North-African ass to be chased by the Gendarmerie until I either electrocute myself on a transformer or reach a dead end and get sodomized with a baton? That does matter when gauging the perception of the overall climate. Both climates I don’t have much comfort in.
Besides, it’s a trivalism to point out that one is more likely to be shot in the US as compared to Europe. I don’t really see the difference in dying from blood loss from a gunshot wound and dying from a swollen brain due to cranial trauma. What I would say is that the lack of protections for its citizens, like the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th Amendments, emboldens Euro police to treat suspects worse than in the US.
Pie, you are exaggerating the police problems in the US (though there are many) and downplaying the lack of any semblance of individual rights throughout Europe.
Europe is the Nick Gillespie of the West. I didn’t want to go there, but you left me no choice.
I grew up in an ethnic ghetto of European immigrants and you will never meet anyone more willing to praise the US and denigrate Europe (while still rejecting American culture on the whole) than immigrants.
And I’m not even a jingoist
ok does anyone have some reliable numbers on police killing civilians? how many people die of brain trauma from police beatings in France? I could not find it, still looking, but i suspect per capita killed by police to be significantly lower in Europe, although I am not sure reliable numbers are available. I will look.
Disaggregate by race and ethnicity if you can. I would wager a brown, semitic-looking guy would likely have a better outcome in the US than in Europe. Rotherham, notwithstanding.
[i]What I would say is that the lack of protections for its citizens, like the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th Amendments, emboldens Euro police to treat suspects worse than in the US.[/i]
I wouldn’t necessarily be too sure of that.
The 4th and 5th have been reduced in protection through the 3rd party doctrine, the drug war and now ‘terrorism’
The 6th and 8th are rather on the decline as well between plea bargaining and absurdly lengthy prison sentences for pretend offenses.
@dorvinion
Oh, I agree. But at least we Americans still keep up the pretense.
In France the police are regularly armed, however, there is no official record of how frequently firearms are used.[8] An independent group A Toutes Les Victimes has tracked the number of deaths and injuries by police which have been published in the media since 2005.
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Number of deaths 1 6 10 19 11 6 9 10 14
so no official data
“I hate everyone.”
I think that’s most of us, really.
I don’t hate you guys.
We have to try harder, I guess.
I forgot about you.
Proud member of the Ancap militia checking in
We’re legion.
I identify as libertarian, but I think deep down I may be an ancap due to my inability to reconcile the NAP with the state.
States will emerge either by way of warlords or cartels. Anarchism in its various flavors is as blind to human nature as socialism and its flavors. Since we can’t change human nature, we’re better off harnessing it.
or as tribes as clans as whatever. Humans organize. Anarchy is not an option.
Anarchism is a moral philosophy that says coercive power is illegitimate. The fact that government exists and will likely always exist in no way refutes the above proposition. All ancaps are saying is that inevitability is not an argument for moral rectitude.
coercive power is illegitimate- not always.
Example – Two parties originally agreed to a contract, then disputed it. Arbitration rules, one party refuses to accept the ruling. At what point do you corerse compliance so that the value of the contracts and the ability of the people to have faith that contracts have force can continue?
Party refusing to accept the ruling of arbitration that they agreed to is an outlaw. No one would trust that person again. You will get as much money from that person as you will blood from a stone. Coercion at this point would only provide psychic value to the aggrieved party as punishment for the outlaw.
Coersion at that point has deterrant value to other parties in the future. Otherwise there’s no penalty for violating contracts. And when you deal with anything larger than a village, reputation for smaller players becomes harder and harder to rely on for any deterrant value, and they’d have to really work up a bad one to have any impact (and even then could just keep operating under new names)
Lots of people value “psychic value” and will pay to see cheaters get punished. Its not illegitimate to want justice when a person is wronged.
I’m not speaking against it. The person is an outlaw and you can do whatever you want with him.
Also I find little use beyond academic curiosity in debating untenable utopias.
I agree with you guys that anarcho-capitalism is untenable in the real world, but at the same time it’s the only system I can truly justify in my mind from a moral (NAP) standpoint. Hence why I identify as libertarian, yet remain internally conflicted.
meh a government that covers law order and defense with minimal taxation mostly based on services rendered (like fees and such) is not breaking the NAP. Institutions to mediate conflict must exist, and cannot always be freely chosen. So if you go a government like kritarchy – judges and police with certain fees/ taxes can be non nap violating.
A government that exists only to protect individual rights would not necessarily violate the NAP, true, but expecting such a state to exist and never expand it’s authority seems just as unrealistic as anarchy.
In other words, if I’m going to engage in utopia-idealization I might as well go all the way.
limited government existed for sufficient years to generate a lot of prosperity. Anarchy not so much. It is hard to keep a government limited, but anarchy won’t happen. the difference between highly unlikely and impossible
We aren’t just talking about “limited government” though, we’re conceptualizing a government that does not violate the NAP. I don’t think such a state has ever existed, nor will exist at any point in the future. But who knows, maybe I’m just being cynical.
To put a button on this discussion, you are correct that this is nothing more than academic navel-gazing on my part, and I agree that limiting the state as much as possible is the best for which we can hope.
Anarcho-capitalism sounds great philosophically, but I find most of its adherents to be remarkably conservative
Wait Libertarian? I though this site was Glesbians. Damn it I really thought I was getting somewhere with this group.
Geriatric Lesbians?
If that’s what floats your boat…
*contemplating a Google search.
I had mentioned to my friend that there was this cool new site that split off of the Reason.com comments called Glibertarians. He jokingly asked if “Glibertarians” was a portmanteau of “gay” and “libertarians”.
Then when I showed him the site for the first time, the top post was “Manly Monday”.
I am now having a very difficult time convincing him that this is not in fact a gay libertarian site, but rather a libertarian site with several notable and esteemed gay members.
+1 Pink Pistol
I too see myself as libertarian although I considered myself classical liberal a good bit of my life. I am of the minarchist but not excessively so bent of libertarians. I find anarchy untenable to be honest. Also land tax > income tax.
I do generally believe in liberty as much as possible. And I also acknowledge that unless living alone on an island absolute liberty is not possible, as different peoples liberty comes in conflict. So i see an individual sphere – things that are not in conflict like what you eat or who you fuck (as long as xem agree to be fucked) – and a common sphere where people intersect and where I see a role for government – fucking someone who do not want to be fucked or some environment rules (in which i probably break with some glibs). Also healthcare and education and retirement and charity are individual sphere.
I guess you won’t find two libertarians with the same exact views so I see it as an umbrella term. Off course I am he one who is right about things, but I accept others who are not too wrong.
Also I found this in the dank corners of the internet and it made me think of Heroic M for some reason
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HR31RxtbILU
I have at least one of you on my side.
A silent Georgist caucus
If we colonize other planets, I fully support the land tax for settlers there, and a ban on all other forms of taxation.
If we ever get around to colonizing Earth, I support the exact same thing.
No two libertarians agree on everything. Everyone agrees with libertarians on something.
UCS claims you are depriving me of my compensation, but I am cool with it.
As a Russian financed bot I have no discernible economic or political philosophy of my own, unfortunately.
*feeds 10 rouble notes into slot*
Bot harder!!!
A christmas miracle has happened! I WROTE A FIREARMS FRIDAY!
You’re welcome. Please post it. I don’t want my firing to have been in vain.
(kidding, mostly)
“This is a review of water pistols!”
Glock bless us! Each and every one of us!
Bench rest ye merry gentlemen
Let’s shoot tight groups today!
The firing, the article or that its a miracle?
Wait…what?
I was making a joke cause I spent all morning at work writing it instead of working. I didn’t actually get fired.
yet.
I clearly misread that, because I thought you were discharging firearms in the course of writing your article, and din’t want that firing to have been in vain.
Someone call bender, we have a legitimate case of irony here.
I don’t think that libertarians reject the term libertarian, but rather “Libertarian”, aka the LINOs. I’m a pro-life libertarian myself, with 90% overlap with constitutional conservatism until you get to “blow out the military spending!!!!!1!!!!!!1!!”
We don’t need to increase the budget, we just need to get rid of congressionally-mandated earmarks. For instance, let the army stop buying more Abrams tanks. We’re overstocked.
You’re showing your forum age, whippersnapper.
if you do not support mandatory vaccination you are not a true libertarian.
Ok, Gay Jay
if you do not support mandatory gayness you are not a true libertarian.
I call myself a classical liberal. I don’t believe that all tax is theft. I believe all tax is tax, a distinct and separate bad thing but one that is, objectively, different than theft. I don’t have a problem with the state per se – I just think that it should be small, efficient, and limited to the point that it is not one of the major organizing principals (or is it principles) in our lives.
But if I was blasting off on The Elon Musk Mark VI to our new moon base (or hitching up with a wagon train to settle in Oregon), I would be an Ancap as long as the rest of the colonists felt the same way (as many wagon trains were). But I know that’s just a pipe dream that will never happen. Except all the times it did.
objectively, different than theft – but not by much
Taxation is closer to theft than copyright violations are to piracy.
*closes BitTorrent* yeah agree
You’re still deriving the benefit of their work without compensating them.
that can be said of many things though.
But I am not wearing a horned helm while doing it.
Also, if I photocopy one of your novels, the photocopying **IS** my work.
You could put in the same amount of work photocopying anything, but what gives that copy value is the content, and it is the content you are stealing.
No, what gives it value is the light bouncing off the paper in such a way that it causes ink to stick to the new paper.
Copyrights are still a monopoly which would not exist absent force of government. Even accepting the legal construction of a monopoly, its still a leap to call it ‘theft’ because those who take the reproduced work were never going to buy in the first place unless the cost of buying was lower than the cost of taking.
Agreed, but every good analogy has its limits. The internet is not *actually* a series of pipes. Physical objects don’t *actually* follow Netwon’s laws all the time. The stock market isn’t *actually* efficient. Taxes aren’t *actually* theft.
In some cases, you can make the generalization, and I have (training my 3 year old to tell his Marxist preschool teacher ‘power dynamics aren’t real and all tax is theft’ was a project of mine a few years ago) But sometimes the difference matters. Thinking about public policy as though taxes were theft, or as taxes as though it all just “our” money, are both equally wrong. Looking at the deductions in your paystub? That’s a great place for the analogy.
Depends on the form of the tax. Consumption tax less egregious than Income or property tax. One usually sees a consumption tax as nothing more than a line-item on a receipt. Failure to pay income tax leads to men with guns killing you or locking you in a rape cage. Failure to pay property tax leads to men with guns taking the property from you. Those two things qualify as theft to me.
Except that enforcement of consumption taxes falls on the merchant, and failure to comply still results in the merchant bearing the same penalty of men with guns locking them in a rape cage. The fact that the payor is no longer the one with the gun to their head does not change the formula much. For ease of compliance, sales taxes are actually harder to prove if the middle man is willing to fudge the books, and with no income tax, the incentive to fudge goes up.
As a merchant, I understand this well.
Setting fire to your neighbor’s shed leads to men with guns killing you, locking you in a cage, or taking your property. That doesn’t make arson theft. It makes it law enforcement.
Your examples are why taxes are a bad thing, but not all bad things are theft.
PS – better than a consumption tax is a pigouvian tax on the side-effects of operations or transactions. There is no argument for wanting more of it out of energy generation. Therefore, since you get less of what you tax, and there’s no particular downside to less carbon, we can tax it with minimal distortions. And if it is a bad thing, mores the better.
Should have said “that doesn’t make arresting you for arson theft”
The arson example has nothing to do with my examples. My examples are essentially, “Your money or your life” situations. Your example is just someone burning a shed; killing the arsonist is justified as self-defense,
The arson example has everything to do with your examples. You said that it was the fact that the cops come to drag you or your stuff away that makes it theft. My point is that that’s too narrow a view of things. Theft is theft because there is no good reason before or after to justify the men with guns taking your stuff. But you have to look backwards in time to figure out if that’s the case.
In the arson case, you have to look back in time and see that the guy committed arson. There is a good reason for the me with guns to come take the stuff.
In the tax example, you have to look backward from the men with guns and see…. the funding of the government. I get that a lot of people don’t here may not agree with me, but I did say
I do think a “small, efficient, and limited” government can levy taxes. You can add non-arbitrary, non-discriminatory, etc, etc, etc on top of the other requirements. Punitive, arbitrary, disproportional, and targeted taxes would not apply.
Also, note that when i say “government can levy taxes,” I’m taking a purely utilitarian view of this. I think that the best society, in the most humans flourish, and the most opportunity is provided to the least-well-off, is on in which a small government levies small taxes. If I thought that a larger government with higher taxes, or an anarchist society with no taxes led to better outcomes, all this would change.
That still doesn’t make taxes a good thing. They still go in the bad column. We could have zero theft in society, but we would have to turn ourselves into a dystopian police state and that’s not worth it.
So the optimal level of theft in a society is “little” not “zero.” I think the optimal level of taxation is “little,” not “zero.” So in that way they are very much alike. But still not the same thing.
I hate the whole “taxation is theft” thing. I see it all the time on reddit.
Taxation is mafia extortion by another name, but extortion isn’t technically theft.
Point taken.
This is a good point. Historically, at least in Europe, theft evolved into extortion as the thieves got civilized. Extortion evolved into taxation as the extortioners got civilized. Taxation moved into user fees as the taxman got civilized.
So while I still maintain extortion and taxation are different, they are much closer.
So, what happens when the users become civilized?
Help desks hit hardest!
Can’t happen any more than you can make something idiotproof. Once you do it, the universe finds a way to spin out a new and moar powerful idiot.
Could someone let Trashmonster know that I’m interested in the crypto-mining pool he’s been mooting about?
I’m not going to be around much… wifey had surgery today (it went well and that’s all I’m going to say on the subject) and I’m running around taking care of her, acting as her factotum, doing the stuff she normally does (badly) and taking care of the final holiday preps that didn’t get done because of our sudden diversion into the world of needing medical services.
The (badly) applies to how I do her stuff, not how she does her stuff.
Best wishes tarran. Surgery sucks. So does being a husband that has to simultaneously pick up all the wife’s tasks in the family while grappling with the helpless fealings of knowing your wife is laid up and there’s nothing you can do. Been there. Done that. 2/10 would not recommend.
Glad she’s ok, t.
I got ya. Hope your wife’s recovery goes well!
If and when I move forward with the pool, it will be announced loudly and often on here, so you shouldn’t miss it. I doubt I will move on this until next year sometime, anyway.
Are you actually writing code for the pool or are you tossing machines together? Because I might know some investors.
At this point, I’m still in the investigation phase. I’m not gonna custom write a pool algorithm, but I’ll probably pull from a github repo and customize it to do what we want (based on future conversations with interested parties). At this point, it’s more about getting some machines together for the fun of it. If we happen to make a few bucks along the way, great! If not, so be it. I think that we probably wield enough collective computing power here to make some beer money.
Are you on signal? Because we should chat.
What are your Signal particulars to get in contact? I have recently purchased some ASIC hardware and have around 9TH/s capacity on hand.
All the best, tarran.
Good to hear your wife’s surgery went well. I hope she heals up quickly.
Tarran, hope your Mrs. recovers swiftly and you both enjoy the holidays.
Best wishes to your wife, and for everyone surviving your attempts to handle everything else. 😉
Best wishes for a speedy recovery.
If I were place a label on myself, probably. I am a true believer in the concept put forth in the creation of this country and the Constitution. I think the Bill of Rights was unnecessary IF the People were principled and actually adhered to it.
Tried the Big-L game for a while but dick-slapping clowns showed me the light. I figured out that all politicians are somewhere on the scum spectrum, including the LINOs. Now I am primarily a property rights voluntaryist (I just made that up, I think).
BUT WHAT ABOUT THE ROADZZZ??? if you people are so smart
We’ll just pile up the corpses from the tax cut to make roads. Easy peasy.
Buy a Jeep. If you have the means and are a pretentious snob, buy a Land Rover.
Road problem: solved.
Libertarian – yes.
If I want to explain my political philosophy in my detail that that it would be:
Deontological Libertarian Realist.
Deontological + Realist? How does this work?
Morality is reality.
Poorly, at times.
Serious answer, it isn’t really a conflict. Morality has to work within reality. Its why I am a minarchist and not an ancap. I don’t think anarchy can actually exist, but the deontological side says that government must therefore be small as possible.
I would say my Georgist views on land fit with both…there is no natural law right to land (deontological) but property rights are necessary (realist).
You’re either bad at articulating what you think a “natural law right” is, or youengaged in willful doublethink to separate land from property.
Defining terms for this post to articulate clearly:
Land is land.
Property (in this post only) excludes land. I could make up a new term, but I am lazy. In every other postof mine, property is probably inclusive of land.
Property is the creation of a human, and natural law ownership of the property comes from the creation. It may be transferred via trade, but that is property for property or property for action (which is a form of property itself) so that doesn’t change anything.
Land, on the other hand, with rare exceptions, is not created. It may be improved, and those improvements would be property as I defined above, but for the “raw” land itself no one has a natural law right to claim ownership. At least not from any natural law theories I have ever heard. It would make things a hell of a lot easier if I could accept one. But I don’t (yet).
So why am I opposed to intellectual property when it is clearly the creation of a human mind? I am not, I am consistent. Your thoughts belong to you, not for a limited period, but forever. However, if I have the same thought, I own my thought, and my thought is no less my property because you thought it first, even if the only reason I thought it is because you thought it first.
The principle of self ownership DEMANDS opposition to intellectual property laws.
That argument regarding copyright shows a gap in understanding of copyright.
Ideas are not subject to copyright. Copyright applies to the expression of the idea. The words on the page, the way the idea is turned into something communicable, not the idea.
You can go write your own story about superheros dealing with government regulation of heroing, and nothing in my copyright can stop you.
If I write words on a page, they are MY words, even if you wrote them first.
My understanding of copyright matches with the Founders. They realized that there wasn’t a natural law right as real property, hence the specific exception they made for it in the Constitution. The fact that they made that exception for a limited time is another proving point.
The pragmatics of whether copyright and patents are a good idea is another argument entirely. As I said on TOS when this has come up, eliminating them is literally the last thing on my list.
If I write words on a page, they are MY words, even if you wrote them first.
What if you intentionally copy my words and pass them off as your own? Considering that copyright has an independent creation exception, I don’t see how copyright is antithetical to self-ownership.
We can talk patents another time… even as a patent attorney, I don’t know where I fall philosophically on them.
I had to think them to write them. I had to labor to write them. That makes them mine.
However, it is tacky to put my name on them. I own the copy and would keep the profit if I sold it, but I should put your name on the cover.
As I have said before, Intellectual Property law is not a species of law discoverable from the principles of Natural Law. It is entirely a creation of Statutory law and I oppose the existence of the field on those grounds. That intellectual property laws are positively enabled by a recitation of powers in the constitution proves this point.
meh land is rather unique. As of now strictly limited by supply and was not created by humans.
You could apply the same rationale to any mineral resource, at which point you could subsequently apply it to anything made using that mineral resource. If the binding point to become property is that labor was enacted upon it, then the moment a shovel turns the sod, that land is property.
same rationale to any mineral resource – maybe. there is a lot more of these than land going around.
anything made using that mineral resource. – not really.
I have no problem with some taxation for extracting a mineral. But after the extraction tax is payed, then the government looses any claim on what happens. I do not support government taxing the added value you get from land by your work, Just the land in itself. Tax on unimproved value of land. So if you keep an empty field and I grew pumpkin and make money we pay the same tax. on the land. not the pumpkins.
Why should the government have claim to your land or your minerals?
Unimproved land has no value – all of the value to be gleaned from land is in its utility and how it may be put to use.
That is Locke’s argument, and it doesn’t work. The land doesn’t become property when labor is mixed with it, the improvement is property.
Obviously, I have made my opinions clear on the LVT in article form in the past, but I think the biggest two things that stick in my craw about the LVT are 1) the assumption that intrinsic value exists; and 2) the assumption that anything not privately owned
isshould be communally owned.Why should the government have claim to your land or your minerals? – because it guarantees your property title.
@robc – How can I have property rights to a drainage ditch but not to the land in which it is cut?
My know most authors write more than they read, but try the latter a bit.
You have no NATURAL LAW right to the land. You have a NATURAL LAW right to the ditch you dug on the land.
Hence my 11:55 post:
The property is THAT post, as I made abundantly clear in my 12:12 post includes land. Its a government created and enforced property “right”, because it is necessary. George came to the exact same conclusion (I got it from him, but see, I am claiming it as my thought).
You could make a very legitimate argument that the same applies to intellectual property, and I wouldn’t disagree with the form of the argument at all. Both are exceptions to natural law. I think the first is necessary and the second isn’t, but I’m not overly concerned about the second either.
1. It doesnt
2. It shouldnt
See, we are in total agreement, I don’t understand why you don’t support the LVT.
I guess my full answer should have been:
1. It doesn’t, but we have to pretend it does sometimes.
2. It shouldn’t, but we have to pretend it does sometimes.
Edit to above. Just like we have to pretend there is a property right to land.
As with all other forms of political realism, apparently my realism also requires ignoring reality.
Good to know.
This makes sense to me.
robc’s rules of libertarianism (seemed like a good time to reiterate these):
1. Everyone agrees with libertarians about something.
2. No two libertarians agree about anything.
So just like (((us))).
Libertarians are the ((()))s of politics.
Dammit.
You need a peg leg and a parrot.
Becoming more libertarian daily. Redneck Conservative type in high school, lots of trucks, guns, and American flags. Went to an exceedingly liberal college in Boston, became even more curmudgeonly conservative. Never liked authority or anyone telling me what to do, so started getting skeptical of a government telling people what to do even if it was something I agreed with. Found Reason last year as something to read during work (damn cube jobs). Followed you all over here and have learned a whole lot. Looking forward to reminding people to get off my lawn when I’m in my late 20s.
lots of trucks, guns – nothing unlibertarian there
They’re still around. My reasons for having them are just a bit more principled. I think.
Except for the truck. That’s just there because it can pull my toys around.
I’m a libertarian and I like to come here and look at Q’s daily gallery of pulchritude.
I really like Gojira’s answer. I will work with anyone fighting for less government and more liberty.
libertarians are like chili lovers. Some think if has beans it’s not chili. Some think if doesn’t have beans it’s not chili. Some think chili is a soup. Some put noodles in their chili. But to everyone on they are all people who like chili, and to each other… I dunno I kind of lost the metahor
At least you didn’t mention pizza.
Free deep dish and circumcisions at PE’s house!
I am a libertarian because I believe that our rights arise naturally as choices–an aspect of our agency–without any input from government, because I believe that people should be free to do anything so long as it doesn’t violate someone else’s rights, because I believe in free market capitalism, because I believe that market forces are actually people making choices, because I believe that we’re all obligated to respect each other’s rights, because I believe that people are better at making choices for themselves than experts are at making choices for them (especially when qualitative considerations are taken into account), and I’m a libertarian because I don’t believe that politicians are the solution to our problems–not even libertarian politicians. I’m also a libertarian because I believe that if government has any legitimate purpose at all, it is only to protect our rights.
‘
I’m also a libertarian because I believe that all these conclusions are arrived at with reason and logic including ethics and because I’m willing to take on all comers on a rational basis. I’m libertarian because I’m willing to become a communist–if someone can just convince me that’s the way the world works using reason and logic including ethics.
Oh, also, I’m a libertarian because I understand that the true purpose of libertarians has always been to make more libertarians, that our mission is to spread the libertarian gospel–not seize the levers of power and use the government to inflict libertarianism on the unwilling. Non-libertarians have nothing to fear from me but that I might change their minds–unless they work for the government.
All that stuff makes me libertarian as fuck.
that all these conclusions are arrived at with reason and logic including ethics – reason and logic are white supremacy.
make more libertarians, that our mission is to spread the libertarian gospel – or you know go sloopys route
That is much preferable wording to the usual “…so long as it doesn’t harm someone else” which gets into arguments about what constitutes harm.
Great wording. I bet Rand Paul even approves.
right to housing, right to healthcare, right to a provided job, write to not have ones feelings hurt, right to cake… lotsa rights recently
^^ Ken gets it.
Oh, I couldn’t tell. TL,DR
/jk
Well said, Ken.
Shit, what’s a libertarian? I despise restrictions of any type placed on free individuals, provided the don’t violate the NAP. That opens a whole other can of worms; what counts as aggression? It’s pretty clear that unprovoked physical damage to life, limb or property qualifies. What about psychological abuse? Are there cases in which preemptive aggression are acceptable? No clue. I like voluntaryism. But it’s hard for me to believe that a purely voluntaristic society wouldn’t eventually form committees to get things done, which would then devolve into rule making bodies backed by force, so maybe government and coercion are part and parcel of human existence. I also think any extreme solution tends to be utopian and unworkable. As some of you may have noticed, I have a tendency to go into paralysis-by-analysis navel gazing when faced with big questions. In practice, I guess I’m kind of night-watchman state guy, not that I believe a night-watchman state would stay that way. Decentralization of power is very key to respecting individual freedom. Therefore, the only label I wholeheartedly accept is boob-man.
https://thechive.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/flbp-for-the-watch-45-photos-31.jpg?quality=80&strip=info&w=600
To all my utopians in the crowd!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05V4CgSL0lw
Alternate version. With boobs.
God Bless ’80s music videos
For you, then.
back atcha
One for Kristen.
what counts as aggression? – I would say non-aggression would imply the government making sure all the poor girls with bad backs get taxpayer funded breast reduction surgery
You’re off my Christmas card mailing list.
Decentralization of power is very key to respecting individual freedom. Therefore, the only label I wholeheartedly accept is boob-man.
Hear Hear!
Could we get more of that blonde?
OT: From JS, bacon and Ken’s dustup over a TSTSNBN:
“Next you’re going to tell me it’s not full of sexism and xenophobia.”
-Hail Retaxas
Well, he’s sure right about that. I fucking hate those 4th gender Zenobrians from Epsilon Ceti. They’re filthy and they’re stealing all our jobs!
Mi zorkfriend is from Epsilon Ceti. You take that back.
You need to start linking this shit.
https://reason.com/blog/2017/12/21/new-year-new-logo-at-reason#comment
I liked this one.
Chipper Morning Baculum|12.21.17 @ 3:09PM|#
Yeah, how about a porcupine humping a pile of money? Now that would be a bold statement.
I think it’s fucking hilarious that he hate reads us.
I’m more of a Fuck-Off-tarian. I don’t do well with authority telling me what to do, nor do I want to tell other people what to do. I just want to be left alone to live my life the way I see fit. A lot of that, however, does fall under libertarianism. I haven’t, however, made any deep, deep research on my political thought but instead go by instinct. What I have discovered over the years has often come from the commentators at ToS and now here.
So ya curmudgeons have taught me to be anti-war, even more suspicious of law enforcement, and realize the boondoggle of government.
Wait, I thought I taught you about the proper use of CCS and LEDs, not this political shit.
and the best kind of vehicle to buy.
See? I’m a resource.
I’d call my self a Christian libertarian with an authority-based view of rights. (See my “What are rights?” articles for a little bit of an expose into that)
I believe that what an individual can or cannot do is defined relative to an authority. For example, a married person can commit adultery without governmental repercussions, but cannot do so without church and familial repercussions. I also believe that “rights” are tightly linked to “right and wrong.” To the extent that you have a right to do a wrong, it is because allowing whatever authority to prevent you from doing wrong would be sanctioning a greater wrong.
In my view, authority funnels down, and each level of authority derives their bounds from a subset of a higher authority. A lower authority cannot do what a higher authority cannot do. My authority hierarchy is as such:
God > Self > Family > Voluntary Community (Church & Friends) > Involuntary Community (Government)
Kierkegaard meets Confucious?
Having read neither, I’ll just nod and smile. (They’re both on my reading list, but that list is years’ long at this point)
I’m reading Robert Belarmine’s “On Spiritual and Temporal Authority”. Covers these topics.
I agree with your points
*added to reading list*
You might also read ‘The Righteous Mind’
Appeal to Heaven. Natural rights are generally constructed upon the existence of a Divine judge.
I’m just here to meet girls.
Here’s a sign for you
She’s available if you can find her.
https://thechive.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/sexy-flbp-women-59.jpg?w=500&h=866
You’re doing it wrong.
Tundra IWTANFL.
Hayeksplosives likes me.
Who here is a Tulpatarian?
LH confirmed for Tulpa.
Georgists … Georgists EVERYWHERE! ……
and not a drop to drink.
the fuckers are worse than Hitler arent they
Given that the whole argument is based upon the claim that supplies of one particular natural resource are finite, it’s one I find a bit silly – from a practical point of view. Especially since I believe that the state has no greater claim to the tax levied than any other individual alive at the time.
“Living space” in a society advanced enough to create usable space above- and underground certainly is vastly increased to the point where building a million cubic meters of residential housing in any of a number of locations is economically equivalent. We have no practical limit on living space on Earth, although there are some premium locations which might command a premium price for purchasers, but the physical 100m x 100m plot on the surface of the Earth isn’t sufficiently different from a 100m x 100m section of a subterranian chamber to taxing someone for owning the former but not the latter.
True story
My philosophical journey has been all over the place, from a populist Tory in high school, to being a member of the Green Party of Canada, to being caught up in Obamamania, to finally landing solidly in Glibertarianville.
I’ve always had an anti-authoritarian streak in me, but it took a long time for me to universalize that idea and apply it to all forms of government. Philosophically, now, I’m with HM in being a voluntaryist, and I would add ‘radical individualist’; as in, I only care about how you treat other people, and the character you exude; all of the other components of your person are really irrelevant.
If I have some vision of a Nation state that I would like to live in, practically speaking, it would be guided by a Jordan Peterson-esque classical liberalism, allow for the libertine freedoms as espoused by Thaddeus Russell, and the state wouldn’t be any larger than the minimalist military promulgated by Smedley Butler at the end of his book ‘War is a Racket’.
Merry Mythmas everyone, hope you all have an enjoyable time away from work, spent with the most important people in your life. Praise Be, Glibertoids.
I am a pointillist.
There is no such fucking thing as society. There are only seven and half billion souls on the planet going about their individual lives in a generally cooperative fashion. Society is the illusion comes from ignoring the individuals and watching the temporary patterns that emerge in their interactions.
Government is the facade that individuals paint onto the violence they do to each other, both to persuade themselves they are building a better society and to persuade others that they should shut the fuck up and get in line.
There is no such fucking thing as society. there is such a thing, but not the way the left uses it. It is a description of humans living and interacting ion a certain space. It is not an entioty, an organism, a thing, does not have rights, it cannot act, it has no power over humans. But as a descriptive term it exists.
^This.
Fuck forced collectivism.
It is a description of humans living and interacting ion a certain< space.
versus
Society is the illusion comes from ignoring the individuals and watching the temporary patterns that emerge in their interactions.
You say po tay to, I say po tah to.
No, he says cartof, you say potato.
Hear! Hear!
Isn’t that a little like saying physical reality isn’t forces, only energy particles? The ways that individuals interact with one another matter, and they may be materially beneficial or harmful those individuals. Most of what we call “human nature” isn’t about isolated human behavior, but human interaction.
(snicker)
I find the concept of property and self ownership by Locke to be a powerful concept. A truth that I can’t ignore.
I don’t know exactly how to square that with an attainable society or government.
I generally consider myself a libertarian republican (small-l, small-r). But, I think only generally can ever really apply. Mostly, I just don’t like bullies. And government is essentially organized bullying. Now, I get it, some people need to be bullied into not bullying other people. And I can’t say I have a problem with bullying people into not robbing, killing, or raping other people. But, at this point, I think that sort of thing comprises, maybe, 20% of the government’s daily bullying activities. So, a lot of these wars between minarchists and anarchists, for just one example, seem pretty pointless in practical terms. Maybe when stopping other bullies constitutes 70-75% of the government’s bullying, we can have these fights. But, we’re nowhere near there.
For a second I thought this was a Hihn obituary when I saw the picture on the feed. I don’t know if I’m disappointed.
BULLY!
*snickers*
I would say + what sugarfree said.
I don’t know if anyone here follows that looney-tune Molyneux, but his long descent into hypocrisy and statism is complete. He came out with a video a couple of weeks ago extolling the virtues of the nation state, and he finally stopped pretending to be an anarchist anymore.
I think Molyneux is just a whore to his audience for moneyz. He started out pushing the anarchist stuff but he’s transitioned into the more ‘alt right’ perspective with his audience growth in that direction.
Once you start pimping r/K selection theory you’re officially off the deep end.
And not sound like a leftist, but yeah, he’s been all over the racialist bullshit like STEVE SMITH on a hiker. Taking people like Jared Taylor seriously on your show is very telling about your character.
please don’t use this phrase. its a terrible crutch used by people who cynically read-into things. if you add it to a perfectly valid observation, like you do above, it undermines your own position by appealing to some unstated consensus.
e.g. (knowing look) “he’s one of *those* types”
i don’t know who jared taylor is, but i imagine he’s what most people on the left assume Charles Murray to actually be.
Jared Taylor’s the most mellow of the ‘race realists’, he’s basically the top dog of ‘alt right intellectualism’ (although there’s common threads in the alt-right that he disagrees with, like the anti-Semitism).
Mencius Moldbug would like a word.
Also, unlike Murray or The Derb, Taylor never successfully pulled an Asian chick from the club.
i now recall someone citing him as an example that “the REAL alt right has nothing against jews!”
i recall laughing.
Gimore –
Criticism duly noted.
Did he ever claim to be an anarchist? I really don’t know, because as a misophonic, I couldn’t stand listening to his show as he sounded like he was dying of thirst within the first minute and it made me both nauseated and enraged. As I’ve observed before, he always just struck me as a heterodox Objectivist. An ethno-state wouldn’t be a sin in Rand’s (PBUH) eyes per se, but she’d not see any meaning to organizing a state around a shared ethnic identification.
Molyneux was anarchist as fuck back in 2012.
Duly noted.
fwiw, i generally have a terrible reaction to any similarly imputed ‘guilt by association’.
its not that your point isnt’ entirely true: i’ve seen molyneux’s thing and i basically agree entirely with this idea that he’s just a cheap snake oil salesman who will change colors to suit whatever audience he thinks he’s pulling. If he gets more clicks recycling VDare-style rhetoric, then that’s what he’ll morph into.
but saying, “X has the temerity to talk to Y, therefore they are hitler”
….is like the one way to make me want to instantly defend that person, regardless of how shitty they are in actual practice. because simply ‘having someone on your program’ shouldn’t be taken as either an endorsement or instantly-damaging to one’s credibility.
In fact, if someone has uniquely-repulsive ideas, i’d think it makes them a *better* guest for an interview, if anything.
I see this, “X person failed to denounce Y, therefore they’re OK with Y (and probably endorse Y!)” argument being made constantly. It results in… writers like Robby Soave, who compulsively denounce and disavow everything they feel is outside their (often wrongly) perceived ‘consensus space’, and are endlessly trying to re-affirm, “here’s how right-thinking people look at X”.
It feels very ‘soviet’ – like there’s this ever-present fear of an invisible judge who will strike you down if you dare entertain wrongthink without the proper caveats and disclaimers.
Be fair. He wants to behave *like* an anarchist in a nation state that tolerates his views.
Sounds like a good gig to me.
Sure.
While tolerating his views, I’m also going to point out that his long history of hypocrisy coupled with shameless self promotion bundled with his Orwellian talking head videos make me regret ever listening to the guy, back in the halcyon days when he was a unique voice in the wilderness.
I was never much of a fan; I think what put me off most was how he managed his call-ins/Dear Prudence sessions. Always struck me as someone who had memorized 48 Laws of Power and made sure he used half of them on every single day.
Agreed. I used to refer to them as ‘Banged Up Teenager Repair’, aka, Moly uses kids legit problems to go on rants about whatever in his head that day.
Yeah, to me, it looks like TDS hit him in a very unusual way. Like it didn’t necessarily hit him in the balls because he was wearing a cup at the time.
I expect to find out he also spanks his kid despite all his talk against violence to children
Yeah. That was actually a big part of the video I mention below.
His “Why I Was Wrong About Libertarians” video was fucking ridiculous.
Stefan Molyneux’s Eight Hour Christmas Spectacular
With @Gavin_McInnes, @RoamingMil, @JamesOKeefeIII, @DiamondandSilk, @michaelmalice, @jordanbpeterson, @michellemalkin, @Lauren_Southern, @Cernovich, @JLPtalk, @KayaJones, @JackPosobiec and many more!
Sounds fabulous
Who the fuck wants to have an actual conversation with Jack Posobiec or Cernovich? They’re both legitimately morons.
You know your problem?
You just lack the Gorilla Mindset, whatever that is. Probably something about bananas,
The new hire got everyone 6oz bags of jerky from a local place rather than the usual assortment of cookies. Good job, new person.
What an excellent idea. We have been deluged with junk food over the last couple weeks – it sure would be a nice change to get something healthier but tasty.
I did get some wine from a vendor, so that’s cool.
I used to work for St. Gobain, who has a near-monopoly on wine bottles in France. We always got Champagne for Christmas.
There is no such fucking thing as society. There are only seven and half billion souls on the planet going about their individual lives in a generally cooperative fashion. Society is the illusion comes from ignoring the individuals and watching the temporary patterns that emerge in their interactions.
An inability to see the trees, for the forest, you might say.
I am a Golden Rule libertarian.
Leave me the fuck alone, and I’ll happily reciprocate.
And- the desire for office and authority is clear evidence of unsuitability. Nobody ever ran for office so he could leave me the fuck alone.
I’m libertarianish, but mostly I’d prefer that we get back to the Constitution as written and subsequently amended, especially the 10th Amendment. If politics were more decentralized I think a lot of the shrieking we see today goes away, because the stakes would be much lower.
That’s one of my most frequent arguments with the proggies in my world. Let’s move the decisions back to the local level and we will hash them out here. Sort of like ‘buying local’.
but what if some local levels choose the wrong policies huih? what then? what if a place taxes and regulates less and created unfair competition to the one taxing more.
You’re making me hot.
Then NYC declares war on Dallas?
Re-release of origin’s Strike Commander?
I’d buy that.
Hahah. That guy – Chris Roberts – a seer, I tells ya. A True prophet.
I’m not really sure what I am. I believe, given that humans are social animals we will form some form of government regardless of what you call it. It is in short a necessary evil. But it is an evil and as such the government that governs best governs least. I see finding the right amount of government as something of a discovery process. Unfortunately the people in power never seem to see that less power for them is better governance and I don’t have an answer for that. So libertarianish.
You may be a classical liberal.
I’m o.k. with that label.
Short answer: I spent the first ten years of my professional career working for the federal government. Hard not to find libertarianism after witnessing that much waste, inconsistent logic, indecisiveness, sloth……
Longer answer: I approached it as a conservative. I went to school in a part of Phoenix known for rich residents and my parents were entrepreneurs. All of my family comes from a rural area in Southern Arizona and I’m also Catholic, so that about sums up where I was socially for a time. It probably helped that I didn’t particularly care for inconsistency. Everything seems to be much easier to contemplate when you are simply applying the same principles to different situations. This sort of hit me early on during the run up to the Iraq war. I didn’t care for the arguments that justified it, nor did I really see any benefit in going through with it–but I signed up all the same. This is why I like to laugh at people who claim the Civil War was exclusively about slavery, because that was exactly what was on the mind of every soldier who signed up to fight. Every. Single. One of them. Anyways, after that I wound up with a job at the Veteran’s Administration. Even though I agreed for the most part with it’s mission, the effects of decisions made (or not made) seemed to impact others at a level that I questioned. Especially with the indifference these decisions were often made–and none of these people were elected, of course. Why give people that don’t give a damn, that kind of authority?
Why give anyone that kind of authority? At some point they’ll affect something you do give a damn about. Of course, this often made me conflicted professionally, faith, upbringing, etc. I spent some time drinking, shooting empty bottles, reading John Stuart Mill, watching Firely… Like I said, I never liked inconsistency so I had to find something that fits everywhere.
Semi-OT, but am I the only one who thinks “thick libertarianism” is essentially just a Trojan Horse to foist progressivism onto libertarians? I mean, I’ve never heard anyone advocating a “thick” libertarianism that invoked belief in traditional, Western, Judeo-Christian values and perspectives as essential to libertarianism, even though as strong or a stronger case can be made that these value and perspectives are essential to liberty as that of the egalitarianism being pushed by those calling themselves “thick libertarians”. Moreover, aren’t most of those now calling themselves “thick libertarians” essentially the same players who were pushing for “liberaltarianism” a decade ago?
I think most people here like thicc libertarianism.
I prefer leaner posteriors. Most of what gets touted under the heading of ‘thicc’ just looks fat.
So do I, hence ‘most’.
That “first” gif of the butt being adjudged a winner is close to ideal for me.
The ass in that gif is a nice ass.
belief in traditional, Western, Judeo-Christian values and perspectives as essential to libertarianism- maybe some libertarians do not believe this is the case. Some may even have written a post on this
I don’t think that’s necessarily true. But, I think the claim that progressive egalitarianism is somehow essential to libertarianism is no less risible.
If you remember, you and I mentioned that Deist seemed to be trying to do just that in his “blood and soil” speech.
As opposed to “thicc” libertarianism, amirite?
I’m not aware of Jeff Deist’s particular preferences when it comes to a woman’s figure.
If only I had a link to that Libertarian Party apparatchik talking about eating ass in the sixties.
Point taken. In my defense, Deist never claimed the title of “thick libertarian” (actually my point, that “thick libertarian” is only ever from one particular ideological perspective, in contrast to its more general claims) and Deist, at least what you quote, isn’t saying that his values are essential to libertarianism, but that they should adopt it as a tactical or strategic maneuver.
Of course, I’d say that all right-thinking libertarians should encourage as much thicc libertarianism as possible.
I thought it might have been on HM’s post, but at some point I too observed that “thick libertarianism” seems to be “libertarianism plus something else”, but in practice that something else is almost always progressive/left-wing values.
Regardless, there are two problems with this formulation, one is that on its own “thick libertarianism” seems to eventually lead to the libertarianism getting swallowed by the something else. We’ve seen this happen with many voices in the soi-disant libertarian establishment sounding more like progressive leftists and less like libertarians over time. Although, there have been some libertarian voices that have ended up sounding more like conservative rightists over time, with the extreme example being the erstwhile anarchists who are now virulent ethnostatists.
The other is that if two versions of “thick libertarianism” (i.e., libertarianism+X and libertarianism+Y where X != Y) conflict, then it defeats one of the key purposes of libertarianism, which is to have people free to make their own decisions (i.e., “you’re not free unless you’re free to be wrong”). It is curious that many “thick libertarians” like to say that “the government isn’t the only problem”, because that is a sword that cuts both ways (i.e., if your cure for the ills of racism/sexism/homophobia/whatever is to elevate victimhood/identity/intersectionalism/whatever then you’ve just replaced one stifling unfree culture with another).
Well said. I think you identify the big problems with “thick libertarianism”. To me, one of the really great things about libertarianism is that it obviates a lot of conflict between people with differing values and perspectives. If coercion is off the table for resolving conflicts between people with differing values and beliefs, the fundamentals of the discussion change. Neither side poses an inherent threat to the other. That, in and of itself, dials down the intensity of the conflict between the two factions. If the SJW knows that there’s no possibility the Bible-thumping fundamentalist can impose A Handmaid’s Tale on her, then there’s no need to stomp out their “backward thinking”. Likewise, if the Bible-thumping fundamentalist knows that there’s no possibility the SJW can force them to cheer on transsexual orgies, he can leave her to her Godless ways. Imposing progressive egalitarianism on the libertarian formulation destroys the fundamentals of that bargain. It says that bargain itself is morally suspect because its the good giving way to the bad. It’s saying you have to take one side of that fight to believe the government shouldn’t get involved.
It’s saying you have to take one side of that fight to believe the government shouldn’t get involved.
And this is, to my mind, anathema to libertarianism. You cannot open the discussion by conceding that people you don’t like don’t have the right to be free and then claim to wear the mantle of freedom for all.
You cannot open the discussion by conceding that people you don’t like don’t have the right to be free and then claim to wear the mantle of freedom for all.
That’s a more extreme version of what I think they believe, but it gets to the heart of the problem. If I understand correctly, they think those those terrible people should be free to be awful, terrible people. But, they think that, to be a libertarian, you have to think those people are awful, terrible people. Even when the only coercion taking place is against them. They provide no basis for assuming that libertarianism requires you to think that. It’s just something you’re supposed to assume.
I suppose such a position is theoretically sustainable. It just never works out that way. You’ve denied the libertarianism of anyone who doesn’t agree with you about those other values. So, the only “true libertarian opinions” are the ones that agree with you on those other values. And you’ve downgraded actual liberty to just one of a number of competing values within libertarianism. To the honest “thick” libertarian, there’s no rational reason to assume that, say, Tom Woods or Rand Paul is any less a deviation from libertarianism than Jared Polis or your average SJW on Everyday Feminism. They might choose to pretend otherwise, but that’s, to me, just obvious reality trumping this ideological principle. The implication of the principle is still just that.
I thought this was supposed to be for january. Oh well, Christmas it is.
You want it in place before Jan 1 so you can have a complete tax year under the same code.
I’m not objecting, I had just been commenting on how the President had previously said January.
A good example of this was 2010(?), IIRC. Some new tweak to taxation of trusts was introduced in mid-December that resulted in a LOT of year-end transfers from our high net-worths IRAs into joint trusts. It was all hands to the pumps for 2 weeks (1.5, really, what with Xmas and New Year’s inefficiencies) to ensure that the older, tax-inefficient investor accounts were gone, gone, gone before COB 12/30.
Those accounts had to be fully divested and liquidated to avoid a tax liability for 2011(?). I doubt that this tax change will trigger that kind of need, but that won’t have been the last time an investment fund had to put out a fire at the last moment.
all hands to the pumps
Now that’s a euphemism.
Probably a Royal Navy-ism. British English is full of them.
I like these kind of threads, I learn things about myself and refine my position.
I just like to argue. Debate drives more mental activitiy than agreement. I may not be the best at composing my argument, but that won’t stop me.
Ditto and all points.
on, even.
Debate makes my typing worse, I have noticed.
I rush to get my thought out, and rapid typing leads to rapid submission leads to overlooked errors.
Especially when I think I have a response to get out there this false urgency wells up and I’m both typing faster and posting faster, when it really doesn’t make a difference – except more typoes get in.
Bullshit, you do not in fact like these posts and your crippling fear of the typo will stop you from saying so.
You’re half right.
I don’t like anything.
It says so in some of my article titles. I need to have a good rant again, just haven’t found the right topic.
Let’s move the decisions back to the local level and we will hash them out here. Sort of like ‘buying local’.
If the federal income tax were five per cent (preferably less) it wouldn’t matter so much if local taxes were deductible. Also, an end to federal mandates, whether funded or not, would be a good thing.
Hedonistic nihilist with misanthropic tendencies.
Power will always be abused.
Metaphysics and epistemology are solved, for any usable definition of solved.
Attempts to live by or to organize like-minded individuals around a self-consistent philosophy will always fail.
There are many, many fun things in life.
Didn’t realize there was a distinction between “classical liberal” and “libertarian”.
I just assumed true American liberals called themselves libertarians because Democrats stole the name liberal (socialism being a dirty word in America at the time).
That’s what I kind of assumed, although when people like Sargon of Akkad call themselves classical liberals and then support the NHS, I’m confused again.
I’ve been a libertarian for a long time. I was in high school and heard about Andre Marrou running for president. He wanted to repeal the income tax. That was about when I got my first job with a paycheck. I saw how much I lost to taxes. “Oh, you mean I’m not really making , I’m making .” While my views have evolved and changed a bit, “Leave me the fuck alone” has always been there as a base.
I’m middle aged now and try to minimize politics in my life. Unfortunately, sites like this keep dragging me back.
I got my first job with a paycheck. I saw how much I lost to taxes – see this is why it is important for employers to fully withhold taxes and have all sort of employer portion taxes that are not directly visible, otherwise it makes gullible kids turn on the dark roadz to libertarianism.
I helped my daughter do her taxes the first year she worked full time. She was utterly shocked she didn’t get all her withholding back at the end of the year like she did with her part time jobs. I told her to vote Republican. 😉
My first job I didn’t make enough to have income taxes out. But I do remember asking one of the older scouts that had worked at the camp for a couple of years “What the fuck is a FICA and why are they taking so much of my money?”
Because you don’t care enough about your grandmother to help her out. If you did she wouldn’t take the money. Unless of course the government does it for her. Then she’s happy to take your money.
I’m still waiting for the pushing grannies off cliffs plan I was promised under Ryancare.
I consider myself a libertarian because I believe that the silver rule should be guidance for anyone with common sense.
Don’t do unto others as you would not have them do unto you.
A simple principle that is generally ignored when it suits folks.
N.B.: I’d read all of Heinlein’s works by a pretty young age.
I discovered Heinlein while I was an undergrad and wondered what was wrong with me that it took so long for me to discover his works.
Don’t do unto others as you would not have them do unto you. – the issue with such rules is that tastes differ
“Oooooh yeah, that’s it baby…. TAX ME HARDER!!!!”
Long as they don’t violate the NAP, that rule works just fine.
I’m still trying to work out exactly where I stand, philosophically. At present, it’s somewhere between rational anarchy (h/t RAH speaking ex cathedra as Bernardo de la Paz) and minarchy a la Swissy.
Just when is it moral for a group to do that which is not moral for a member of that group to do? Best answer I can see to that question is, never.
Apparently bitcoin is plummeting a bit today.
profit taking
I buy $10 worth of bitcoin every time this happens. Its worked ok so far.
Everyone who trades collects their winnings at the end of the year.
Hedgies especially, who are busy calculating their 2018 bonus based on 2017 performance.
the trading patterns from mid-December to mid-January are driven almost entirely by this whole, “profit taking and rebalancing” stuff.
you see a similar seasonality in the pre-summer months (may-june), which is a bit different in style, because its more involving ‘correcting strategies’ and de-risking slightly so that there is lower exposure during the slow-trading summer months.
you see the most consistent periods of secular aggressive bullishness or bearishness in spring and fall.
Another comment thread full Trumpf fallating! TOS commenters have this place pegged.
Only with consent, I hope.
Minarchist
Another comment thread full Trumpf fallating!
We’re winning the War on the Poor! Yay!
I’m always amused by the “There has never been a workable anarchic zone. Anarchy will never work.” when a cursory glance at history will show that it has worked time and time again. From Zomia to the Republic of Cospaia to Pirate Republics, and depending on how loosely you want to use the term, Kowloon Walled City and the Icelandic Commonwealth.
My knowledge of anything east of Christendom is woefully lacking. Any books you would recommend on Kowloon?
KWC was a giant ghetto that sprung up in Hong Kong during the early 1950s and was demolished in 1993. As you can see, it looked like something out of a Mad Max movie. Yet, despite the police refusing to step foot in the place (outside of Chow Yun Fat movies), it was a functioning community. People worked out their own economy, infrastructure, kept the peace, etc. without need of outside enforcement. It was a prime example of spontaneous order made manifest in the world that led to a community based on voluntary interaction.
…kept the peace…
See? Not *real* anarchy.
Not enough space for tribal wars over guzzoline supplies.
Obviously, *fettered* capitalism
Real anarchy has never been tried. All those other places were anarchying wrong.
What always amazed me is that they kept that one space near the center as a park (I think near the yamen iirc)…that’s something thought always warmed my cold malevolent heart knowing that pseudo-anarchism like that still resulted in conservation.
I think there are two problems with that view. One, is that those societies still had archons (e.g. the Triads in Kowloon, tribal leaders in Zomia). Two, is that those societies are/were vulnerable to outside powers. Kowloon was bulldozed by the Hong Kong government. If present trends continue, Zomia will eventually be forcibly annexed.
To respond,
A.) Someone is always going to take a leadership role. Even when kids form teams for playground sports, someone emerges as the captain. The question is, is the font from which the leader claims authority one based on mutual consent?
B.) All societies are vulnerable. I don’t insist an anarchic society be eternal and utopian. Yet even the most authoritarian regimes also fall to outside powers eventually. Sic transit gloria mundi and all that jazz.
A) At first, perhaps. Then the roles get established and the question of consent stops being asked. The key differences between these anarchic zones seem to be a lack of bureaucratic formalism and adherence to Westphalian/Wilsonian conventions about states and sovereignty.
B) True enough, but the trend goes towards, rather than away from, statism. States tend to get replaced with, or subsumed by, other states. Anarchic zones tend to get replaced with, or subsumed by, states.
Should read:
The key differences between these anarchic zones and “recognized” states …
Only if the populace gets lazy with being armed. Scott’s observation about Zomia is that for so long, the hill tribes (of which my wife hails on her mother’s side) were such crazy, head-hunting, cannibal motherfuckers that it wasn’t worth climbing up the mountains to claim tribute for all the men that would get slaughtered on the way.
I’ll concede that is true, but I don’t view that as evidence that the societies didn’t “work” when they were free.
Only if the populace gets lazy with being armed. Scott’s observation about Zomia is that for so long, the hill tribes (of which my wife hails on her mother’s side) were such crazy, head-hunting, cannibal motherfuckers that it wasn’t worth climbing up the mountains to claim tribute for all the men that would get slaughtered on the way.
That does kind of rub against the “anarchy is not lawlessness” problem, though. I don’t know anything about your wife’s ancestors or their still-hill-dwelling descendants, but I doubt cannibal head-hunters reserve their violent tendencies for solely defensive acts.
By “worked”, i presume you mean, “a voluntary order emerged”, which is probably the same evidence the critics use to mean that it wasn’t really anarchy.
Correct. Polysemy is a bitch. Though if we are to use the term “anarchy” in any sort of meaningful way in political discourse, it should be distinguished from anomism. The schwerpunkt of anarchism is voluntary association, not lawlessness.
my argument may have been wrong phrased but I do not say anarchy will not work because it hasn’t in the past, but due to human nature. Icelandic Commonwealth was not anarchy if you ask me., Republic of Cospaia lol 3 guys that were left alone for as while and probably got a lot of things from the surrounding states… Zomia didn’t really work as such and surely has some tribal governance. Maybe we define anarchy different.
I would say anarchy is human nature. It is human nature to cooperate in a non-coersive way. It’s only when someone decides to short-cut that through force that we get some other sort of “archy”. As noted above, if you’re defining anarchism as a society based on voluntary association, I would argue that the IC, as a historical example of polycentric law, was more anarchic than not. I see neither the size of a community nor its economic self-reliance as arguments against anarchy. Indeed, based on Dunbar’s number, I would say the prime example of an anarchic community would be a village of 150 people. I’m not sure why you’re demanding a putative anarchy to be a North Korean-like Juche state either. In a fully free-market of small anarchic communities you’d see comparative advantage like a motherfucker. Villages of silversmiths, an entire cruise ship of accountants that travels from port to port trading math for butter.
It is human nature to cooperate in a non-coersive way – maybe but there will always be some coercion. For me tribal is not stateless in the sense that often you cannot just decide not to join a tribe and be left alone. Decentralized, polycentric , etc for me still means some state like organisations, not huge or centralized but still, be it a court of law or a council of elders or the chief. And the more populous and densely populated and industrialized a country, the need for conflict resolution increases beyond what those anarchic states can offer.
Why not? That’s basically what the Shramanic tradition of early Buddhism and Jainism was all about. You shaved your head, renounced your clan, and went to go live in the middle of the jungle. The mores of greater society gave you the expectation that you’d be left alone and perhaps even supported through alms.
Again, if you believe the defining characteristic of anarchy is anomism, then you’re correct, but, if like me, you believe it to be voluntary association, then that’s not a strike against it.
Maybe yes, maybe no. Technology is a double-edged sword that way. It can promote larger, more authoritarian societies or it can promote more decentralized, free societies. What if I told you 15 years ago that millions of people would be interested in using a currency that is NOT backed up by the gold reserves of a nation’s central bank?
wait there are currencies backed up by gold?
By way of petrodollars.
Before I leave for the weekend, I have trivia.
This January is going to have a blue moon. The 1st is a Full Moon, and so is the 31st.
Just as long as you don’t put that fucking orange slice on it, I’m ok.
Limes and cerveza?
Damn straight. I can’t stand when I get a wheat beer with a slice of orange or lemon. I don’t like it when I get Dos Equis and it has a slice of lime on it. Yuck. If I wanted fruit in my beer, I’d have a beer brewed with fruit, like this.
Just as long as you don’t put that fucking orange slice on it, I’m ok.
YES!!
The full moon on the 31st will also feature a total lunar eclipse for the western US and points west.
So….New Year’s smoking a cigar by the fire pit? I’m down.
Truth!
OT: I can’t decide if this is for SF or HM
“Doctor SugarFree, we have a call on line 2”
REDS then.
My dreams are all dead and buried
Sometimes I wish the sun would just explode
When God comes and calls me to his kingdom
I’ll take all ya sons of bitches when I go.
“Don’t touch the trim!”
Definitely a small “l” libertarian.
Well, only Hihn is a real libertarian. So, since none of us can be, I guess I’m a classical liberal. People should be free to do with themselves as they wish, and should only be stopped when what they do directly harms someone else’s life/property that didn’t willingly choose to participate with that person’s actions. As a Christian, I want to stick with what Christ said was the second most important commandment. Love your neighbor as yourself. I’d like my neighbor to leave me alone, so I’ll leave him alone.
At the risk of sounding like a Bannonite, for now anyway I’m more anti-progressive than I’m pro-anything. I don’t have great hopes for a conservative resurgence, much less a libertarian insurgency, but progressive collectivism is a cancer.
Identifying as an anti-progressive is at least better than pretending to be a ‘conservative’ like 90% of anti-progressives.
I got into a dumb argument on another forum with a guy who claimed to be a ‘conservative’ who spent the entire time shrieking about ‘net neutrality being banned’ because the internet needed ‘fairness’ and how evil business was.
Got an email the other day from my Republican rep Stivers shilling for this new “net neutrality” law.
http://radio.wosu.org/post/rep-steve-stivers-co-sponsors-bill-replace-net-neutrality-critics-say-its-not-enough#stream/0
Progressives are consistently horrible. I can definitely see that it’s possible to be both anti-progressive and libertarian*.
*using most of the definitions brought up in this thread
I hate them so much. I can tolerate their sheer stupidity, but not when it’s combined with patronizing sanctimony.
This.
The lecturing.
Jesus the lecturing.
Speaking of dummies, Jemele Hill is still screaming Trump is a racist and ain’t taking it back.
She seems to think ignorance is the same as holding principles.
Their favorite strategy is to repeat a lie over and over until it becomes common knowledge. Unfortunately it works pretty well for them but only because of MSM complicity.
For sure. I still consider myself a libertarian, but I’m less driven by a philosophy of politics than I am horror for Marxism.
I’m libertarian because FUCK YOU.
/spins propeller on beanie.
(((Chesty)))
https://itsmyhardknockslife.wordpress.com/
Was expecting something a like more USMC.
She’s quite the institution. I’m surprised she’s still around, if that *is* her.
Don’t step on the motherfucking snake.
That is all.
I arrive as the link turns into a Norwegian Blue Parrot. But I try to follow a “small L” libertarian life and with my interactions with others.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vuW6tQ0218
Basically what Gojira said.
The fact that I’ll never have a Lamborghini doesn’t mean there would be some sort of virtue to my aspiring to have an Alfa, instead.
And extreme authoritarians exist, so it seems to me there is some call for the existence of their complement.
Life is short; it’s your choice alone whether to die still standing for what you believed in, whatever that might be.
Alfa-Romeo. Fucken-A.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JeWeEn_sDCQ
I’m somewhere in the minarchist, classical liberal realm. But maybe just maybe I’m the one true libertarian
https://youtu.be/DfwJA0f0UTg
Crap wrong link https://youtu.be/4AoOa-Fz2kw
I’m kind of a “Golden Rule” libertarian with a smidge of “None of your fucking business, cunt-face!” thrown into the the seething crock pot. But I like you guys.
I would consider myself a small-government conservative. I live my life as a SoCon, but it’s unacceptable to use guns to force my views on others. Any power you give to government will inevitably (and quickly) be used against people like me (and the rest of us as well) because any accumulation of power will, by definition, attract the sort of people who want to use (and abuse) power.
While I have a few disagreements with others here, I would be utterly elated to have a society that was so freedom-loving that we were on opposite sides of almost any issue.
From Animal Magnetism:
Animal: n. ˈa-nə-məl 1. Author, lecturer, traveler and woods bum. 2. Your best source for deep thoughts, random tidbits, rough humor, totty, outdoor stories, news of the day, unsolicited advice and discussion of the Manly Arts. (Special emphasis placed on hunting, shooting, camping and fishing.)
Who am I and what do I think? I am an atheist, Objectivist libertarian. For political purposes I am, in most respects, a Goldwater Republican of the old school. I think the government governs best that governs least, and favor low taxes, low government spending and free enterprise. My take on social issues is simple: I really don’t give a damn what people do, as long as they leave me alone.
I am an independent businessman who has worked on four continents and racked up an impressive stack of frequent-flier miles in so doing. Managing to survive without a traditional J.O.B. isn’t always easy and it isn’t for everybody, but all in all I’m having a hell of a good time.
In between all these other things, I amuse myself by being a semi-notorious local political gadfly and general pain in the ass. I’m firmly convinced that the Earth and all its inhabitants were placed here for my personal amusement and entertainment, and I comport myself accordingly.
Late to the party, but I think my ridiculously tl;dr goodbye rant at TOS basically sums it up. The most relevant excerpt:
https://youtu.be/WyJ3R0CS2fc This one is for OMWC. It’s a lovely version of one of my favourite pieces written by Vivaldi.
An-cap fo lyfe
*throws up gang sign*