demagogue on 26/5/2024 at 19:14
What strikes me about libertarians is that they often speak as if the slightest restriction on their personal space is the same as a Stalinesque totalitarian hellscape, no matter the justification, which might be reasonable to most people, it's not restricting any fundamental right, and we're in a democracy after all.
I also oppose Stalinesque totalitarian hellscapes as much as the next guy, but some problems can't be solved without some kind of social coordination or regulation, and it's no good pretending a problem doesn't exist or will just go away on its own if people close their eyes and trust everything will be okay because "we're the greatest country in the history of history" or whatever... as if the earth's climate or a pandemic care.
But it is bizarre for Trump to be a posterchild for libertarianism for some people, although I still think the Christian right supporting him is even more bizarre... thinking the anti-abortion candidate is the one that I'm about ready to bet has paid for more abortions than every other US president combined.
Nicker on 26/5/2024 at 20:25
Quote:
But it is bizarre for Trump to be a posterchild for libertarianism for some people...
Some people perhaps, but not card carrying Libertarians, it seems.
Apparently Trump tried to stack the convention by getting MAGAts to line up early and steal reserved seats from the actual attendees. That didn't go over so well. I bet the Libertarians were happy that there were laws and rules protecting them, and police to enforce them, if necessary.
[video=youtube;c8gkY1k-Fz0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8gkY1k-Fz0[/video]
Just had to add this priceless picture. It's worth a thousand garbled, shouted words.
Inline Image:
https://media.breitbart.com/media/2024/05/trump-libertarians-640x480.jpgWe could not have achieved what we have as solitary creatures. That's the thing that "rugged individualists" don't get. Their bug-out bag is stuffed with clever devices they could never make and their SHTF cabin is stocked with goods which only sophisticated factories, coordinated supply chains and regulated economise can produce.
Humans are social carnivores. We don't eat each other. Humans who behave like solitary carnivores are called sociopaths and their behaviour ranges from arrogance through parasitism to serial murder.
At this point in history, the moderate and far-right seem to attract sociopaths, either as overt members or as clandestine predators.
lowenz on 26/5/2024 at 20:51
Quote Posted by Nicker
At this point in history, the moderate and far-right seem to attract sociopaths, either as overt members or as clandestine predators.
They think they can use "law&order" model to impress people full of rage and fear and than manipolate them for their own good, because there'no more gullible man than the one full of rage and fear.
It's just that: they're predators as you put it and really proud to be so.
They know "law&order" model can't never guarantee anything other than this kind of easy prey, in fact if it will work they'll be the ones enraged.....
Cipheron on 26/5/2024 at 22:59
(
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/trump-doesnt-submit-paperwork-libertarian-party-nomination-soliciting-rcna154132)
Quote:
When reached for comment, a Trump campaign spokesperson pointed to the former president's post to Truth Social.
"The reason I didn’t file paperwork for the Libertarian Nomination, which I would have absolutely gotten if I wanted it (as everyone could tell by the enthusiasm of the Crowd last night!), was the fact that, as the Republican Nominee, I am not allowed to have the Nomination of another Party," Trump said in the post.
Trump's such a predictable giant baby. He can't deal with anyone else having anything he can't have, so if there's a Libertarian nominee who's not him, Trump needs to make it about himself and how "if I wanted it" he could totally have been their leader, with a very obvious passive aggressive tone.
DuatDweller on 26/5/2024 at 23:34
Quote Posted by lowenz
That's the problem, they think selfdom is the same of mindless selfishness. And so they evolve to embrace a "tailored around personal property" Pinochet-like authoritarism.
For this kind of people libertarian principles are just a good ideology to push politically because "freedom!!!1111" but they're rotten to the core (see Milei in Argentina)
I think I might prefer Pinochet authoritarian attitude than Fidel Castro planning on sinking another country (see Cuba woes right about now) back then.
Fidel? No thanks, sure some people died, but there were Cuban soldiers around the country at that time.
And about Milei, can't you see that Cristina Fernandez and Kirchner sunk the country into a massive debt ordeal?
Milei is having to stop the internal waste of money on a gigantic obsolete state machine paying for people "working" doing absolutely nothing all day but living at the expense of the government.
He might be uncanny but he is right in doing so, with the internal state promoting that money sink hole.
Not even the CCCP/USSR government paid people to do nothing all day, that is what latin american commies believe (wrongfully I might add) they did.
SD on 27/5/2024 at 01:03
Quote Posted by heywood
If I could, I would redefine libertarian to mean pursuing maximum overall liberty, the most liberty for the greatest number of people. Not freedom from governance, which produces maximum liberty for only a privileged few.
That sounds pretty much like the actual meaning of libertarian, which I suspect has been contaminated over the years by Libertarians.
lowenz on 27/5/2024 at 07:25
Well, libertarians typically have a very strong darwinist mindset, so it's where they merge into aristocratic conservatism, they're just not interested in the next person if not a tool for their interests (where cons see the next person as a tool for the status quo maintenance).
They like to think and say that IF everyone has the same self-centered attitude the system would eventually reach an equilibrium point that can satisfy all.....the survived ones.
Nicker on 27/5/2024 at 12:54
Quote:
They like to think and say that IF everyone has the same self-centered attitude the system would eventually reach an equilibrium point that can satisfy all.....the survived ones.
That anarchic equilibrium, if it were ever actually achieved, would quickly decay into feudalism, which is the natural political structure of human societies. Escaping feudalism was what the War of Independence was about. And protecting that victory is what this moment in history is about. Not just for the USA. The warlords want the return of the king, hoping to either be or to control that king.
If Libertarianism had real viability it would be a much larger movement with a cohesive platform (which would require more centralised decision making and authority). If it stays true to its principles, it cannot do that. But even when it shows a modicum of popular support, corrupt elements will try to infiltrate and use it, like the MAGAts did at the convention.
While all political movements are not created equally, they will all be equally subject to criminal exploitation. How well they resist, is the real measure of their strength.
lowenz on 27/5/2024 at 14:31
Yes but the particular, specific problem of the libertarian model is the darwinistic approach to the anarchy: in fact it's the polar opposite of socialist anarchy where there's no need of competition - or elimination - to select the best elements for an aspect of society.
Cipheron on 27/5/2024 at 23:57
Quote Posted by DuatDweller
Wasn't Hitler and Maduro voted in to power, and them bang, surprise, dictatorship.
You know one thing I can never discern is politics, they're way to messed up.
That or they (politics) give me gasses.
Hitler never won an elected position, he was appointed as Chancellor.
So it was basically like a cabinet post in the USA - you don't "vote" for Secretary of State. In the US context it would in fact be like the Secretary of State somehow wrangling things to turn themselves into a dictator.
Also keep in mind while the Nazis did win the "most" seats in the previous election - they only got about a third of the total seats in 1932.
So neither Hitler not the Nazis actually needed to win an election to get into power. They exploited a fragmented situation and used intimidation to be awarded power, which they then immediately used to eliminate everyone who could oppose them.
