Libertarianism

[Seth]

Well that was easy, so, where were we?

Trying to have an adult discussion while the monkeys in the peanut gallery fling poo I'm afraid.

But I'm still game. Your serve I believe.

[Woodbutcher]

I think that small communities would do OK. There would be anarchy for quite some time in a larger community- factions would form rather quickly. Finns started many idealized communities in the early 1900ths, in South America and North America. They always fell apart due to infighting rather quickly; none survived past the second generation. Or is it just we Finns? In this area we have a saying: "Two Finns is a co-op, three Finns is a fight". Everybody seems to have a slightly different ideology, and everybody is pigheaded about their own view. Would it be any different with civilized folk? We are all different, and even communist rule did not change that in Russia. I wonder about North Korea. Is their fanaticism just skin deep or does the ugly go to the bone, so to speak? I see that Libertarianism would appeal to a lot of folks, but will it not create factions within itself due to individualism? The Doukhobors in Canada split up and fought, would Libertarians as well? The more freedom you give to individuals the less likely they are to agree on small things to start out with, culminating in "Fuck You!", "NO!, Fuck YOU, I'm not playing with you any more!" Cue shotguns at dawn, clusterbombs, flamethrowers, all-out battle and some survivors crawling out from underneath the rubble saying "What the fuck just happened?" I know this is rather pessimistic, but the inability to conform seems to be ingrained into our psyches from ever since the first ape quit the tree in disgust because the other apes wouldn't see things his way. Also, have our brains stopped evolving? Could it be due to our advances in medicine allowing the less desirable traits to survive and carry on?http://discovermagazine.com/2010/sep/25 ... -shrinking Maybe we are derailing evolution!

[Seth]

I think that small communities would do OK. There would be anarchy for quite some time in a larger community- factions would form rather quickly. Finns started many idealized communities in the early 1900ths, in South America and North America. They always fell apart due to infighting rather quickly; none survived past the second generation. Or is it just we Finns? In this area we have a saying: "Two Finns is a co-op, three Finns is a fight". Everybody seems to have a slightly different ideology, and everybody is pigheaded about their own view. Would it be any different with civilized folk? We are all different, and even communist rule did not change that in Russia. I wonder about North Korea. Is their fanaticism just skin deep or does the ugly go to the bone, so to speak? I see that Libertarianism would appeal to a lot of folks, but will it not create factions within itself due to individualism? The Doukhobors in Canada split up and fought, would Libertarians as well? The more freedom you give to individuals the less likely they are to agree on small things to start out with, culminating in "Fuck You!", "NO!, Fuck YOU, I'm not playing with you any more!" Cue shotguns at dawn, clusterbombs, flamethrowers, all-out battle and some survivors crawling out from underneath the rubble saying "What the fuck just happened?" I know this is rather pessimistic, but the inability to conform seems to be ingrained into our psyches from ever since the first ape quit the tree in disgust because the other apes wouldn't see things his way. Also, have our brains stopped evolving? Could it be due to our advances in medicine allowing the less desirable traits to survive and carry on?http://discovermagazine.com/2010/sep/25 ... -shrinking Maybe we are derailing evolution!

Well, we are almost certainly derailing evolution because we insist on protecting the weak and less intelligent and giving them all the tools they need to reproduce en masse even as the supposed intelligentsia decide to not-breed themselves into extinction through the anti-evolutionary application of "reason" and "science" to the environmental issues we face, which cases them to decide not to have children.

Then again, it may be that intelligence is only a positive evolutionary survival trait up to a certain level, and beyond that it turns negative, causing the species with too much intelligence to extinct itself one way or another.

As for the rest, well, Libertarianism closely describes the first 150 years of the United States. Small central federal government and people minding their own business and engaging in free-market capitalism. It wasn't until the Industrial Revolution and then the Progressive era beginning in 1912 that things really started to go downhill, after the federal government seized power for itself that it was not granted by the Constitution.

When people are free to migrate to communities that represent their interests, they generally do so. That was the purpose behind the states as sovereigns. People were supposed to find a place that suited them politically, religiously or socially and then be left alone to create a society. The Mormons tried to do just that with Utah, but weren't allowed to do so by the big-government forces they faced.

While individualism is not a perfect system, collectivism is a highly imperfect, and often tyrannical and deadly system, which means that individualism is the best thing we've got.

[Drewish]

Can't I just be a libertarian because I want a party that thinks it's okay if you want to smoke weed OR a cigarette? Can't I just be a libertarian because I want a party that's okay with abortions and gun ownership? Can't I just be a libertarian because I want a party that thinks affirmative action is wrong because they think affirmative action is racist, and not because they themselves are racist? Can't I just be a libertarian because I want a party that will let me order a burger rare, or have fatty, horrible-for-me, tasty-tasty food if I want it? Can't I just be a libertarian because I want a party that doesn't give a damn whether gay people are born gay or not because it doesn't matter and adults should be free to live their own lives and be granted equal rights regardless? Can't I just be a libertarian because I want a party that's for peace, free trade, and diplomacy being foreign policy, and being against violating civil liberties in the name of security, not just on the campaign trail. Can't I just be a libertarian because I want a party that attempts to apply its values consistently, rather than choosing its policy stances in shrewd political fashion in a naked attempt to gain or retain power?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

If we believed any of that, no prob.

[Tero]

Can't I just be a libertarian because I want a party that's okay with abortions and gun ownership?

Them libertarians should get going on a gun that does abortions.

[Drewish]

Can't I just be a libertarian because I want a party that's okay with abortions and gun ownership?

Them libertarians should get going on a gun that does abortions.

I can make a bipod out of a coat hanger. Does that count?

[Tero]

No it has to shoot bullets and rip apart only the fetus. Maybe a slight hole in the mother's skin, no more than 5mm.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

No it has to shoot bullets and rip apart only the fetus. Maybe a slight hole in the mother's skin, no more than 5mm.

And she has to be self-insured.

[Drewish]

No it has to shoot bullets and rip apart only the fetus. Maybe a slight hole in the mother's skin, no more than 5mm.

And she has to be self-insured.

Couldn't the state provide free abortions if it paid for it by selling children from deliveries (that parents couldn't pay for) into slavery?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

No it has to shoot bullets and rip apart only the fetus. Maybe a slight hole in the mother's skin, no more than 5mm.

And she has to be self-insured.

Couldn't the state provide free abortions if it paid for it by selling children from deliveries (that parents couldn't pay for) into slavery?

What? And take away the opportunity for some private business to provide that service? Fuck Big Government Abortions.

[Robert_S]

No it has to shoot bullets and rip apart only the fetus. Maybe a slight hole in the mother's skin, no more than 5mm.

And she has to be self-insured.

Couldn't the state provide free abortions if it paid for it by selling children from deliveries (that parents couldn't pay for) into slavery?

What? And take away the opportunity for some private business to provide that service? Fuck Big Government Abortions.

Which brings up the anti-abortion-business nature of Planned Parenthood giving away free condoms to the poor...

[Drewish]

No it has to shoot bullets and rip apart only the fetus. Maybe a slight hole in the mother's skin, no more than 5mm.

And she has to be self-insured.

Couldn't the state provide free abortions if it paid for it by selling children from deliveries (that parents couldn't pay for) into slavery?

What? And take away the opportunity for some private business to provide that service? Fuck Big Government Abortions.

Which brings up the anti-abortion-business nature of Planned Parenthood giving away free condoms to the poor...

Damn straight. Their children should starve of malnutrition like nature intended!

[Gawdzilla Sama]

It's their fault if they aren't rich enough to afford food, now isn't it?

[Robert_S]

It's their fault if they aren't rich enough to afford food, now isn't it?

Whaddya mean no food? They got babies!!!