- Joined
- Jan 8, 2010
- Messages
- 72,126
- Reaction score
- 58,861
- Location
- NE Ohio
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
More often than not, it seems that whenever I debate a Libertarian, they often talk about morality and the way things should be, based on that morality, but never talk about how their philosophy would make the world a better place. This, I think, is the source of the common stereotype of Libertarians being preachy.
However, one of the well known aspects of persuasion is that the person doing the persuading should emphasize the positives of whatever they wish to promote. Instead I tend to see negatives (such as, the economy sucks because we are not following Austrian principals, not "if we follow Austrian principals, there would be more prosperity for more people").
I guess my question is, why? Is it that I am perceiving these discussions to be a certain way? Is it because that's how the logic flows, most thought comes from certain core principals and perhaps the end result does not really matter? Or is it something else?
I am truly curious, so if you feel attacked, that was not my intent. I just want to know.
Freeeeeeeeeeeeeedoooooooooom!
This should tell you everything you need to know about libertarianism.Most of the time our policy beliefs aren't meant to positively make the world a better place.
This should tell you everything you need to know about libertarianism.
More often than not, it seems that whenever I debate a Libertarian, they often talk about morality and the way things should be, based on that morality, but never talk about how their philosophy would make the world a better place. This, I think, is the source of the common stereotype of Libertarians being preachy.
However, one of the well known aspects of persuasion is that the person doing the persuading should emphasize the positives of whatever they wish to promote. Instead I tend to see negatives (such as, the economy sucks because we are not following Austrian principals, not "if we follow Austrian principals, there would be more prosperity for more people").
I guess my question is, why? Is it that I am perceiving these discussions to be a certain way? Is it because that's how the logic flows, most thought comes from certain core principals and perhaps the end result does not really matter? Or is it something else?
I am truly curious, so if you feel attacked, that was not my intent. I just want to know.
A great quote by a smart man:
"Those who seek absolute power, even though they seek it to do what they regard as good, are simply demanding the right to enforce their own version of heaven on earth. And let me remind you, they are the very ones who always create the most hellish tyrannies."
But isn't this just as applicable to corporations unchecked by government as it is to government itself?
Well, the problem is that once you get beyond the catchy slogans and feel-good individualism of Libertarianism, you'll realize it's just the bastard child of Randism, and Ayn Rand's philosophy was literally the application of a Sociopath's view of the world to ethics and politics. She took what made him "great' and turned it into an ethic, which Libertarians gobbled up like candy and turned into a political movement only slightly less crazy. THey have no real adult conception of social good, community, or public duty. It's a very naive and childish philosophy based on a very low level of ethical reasoning.
Pure, unadulterated propaganda. Don't waste the time of those who are here to discuss important issues. If you want to be the bully on the playground, go somewhere else.
Corporations do not have absolute power over your lives. Corporations do not have the right to kill, maim, or stea from you...all under the auspices of the law.
Pure, unadulterated propaganda. Don't waste the time of those who are here to discuss important issues. If you want to be the bully on the playground, go somewhere else.
Sounds like a bit of a wanker.A great quote by a smart man:
"Those who seek absolute power, even though they seek it to do what they regard as good, are simply demanding the right to enforce their own version of heaven on earth. And let me remind you, they are the very ones who always create the most hellish tyrannies."
Instead of dismissing than critique, why don't you instead refute it?
I'm not agreeing with him necessarily. I'd just like to know why you think he's wrong.
Well, the problem is that once you get beyond the catchy slogans and feel-good individualism of Libertarianism, you'll realize it's just the bastard child of Randism, and Ayn Rand's philosophy was literally the application of a Sociopath's view of the world to ethics and politics. She took what made him "great' and turned it into an ethic, which Libertarians gobbled up like candy and turned into a political movement only slightly less crazy. THey have no real adult conception of social good, community, or public duty. It's a very naive and childish philosophy based on a very low level of ethical reasoning.
More often than not, it seems that whenever I debate a Libertarian, they often talk about morality and the way things should be, based on that morality, but never talk about how their philosophy would make the world a better place. This, I think, is the source of the common stereotype of Libertarians being preachy.
However, one of the well known aspects of persuasion is that the person doing the persuading should emphasize the positives of whatever they wish to promote. Instead I tend to see negatives (such as, the economy sucks because we are not following Austrian principals, not "if we follow Austrian principals, there would be more prosperity for more people").
I guess my question is, why? Is it that I am perceiving these discussions to be a certain way? Is it because that's how the logic flows, most thought comes from certain core principals and perhaps the end result does not really matter? Or is it something else?
I am truly curious, so if you feel attacked, that was not my intent. I just want to know.
It's not propaganda. It's true. Libertarianism is a shallow, selfish and morally dubious philosophy, and you are angry that the Emperor Has No CLothes. I undersatnd this bothers you, hence the emotional outburst. Libertarians hide the maliciousness of their faith in smiley faces and cleverly worded feel good phrases, but it's bad at the core.
Libertarianism is ethics for Sociopaths. Rand modelled the Objectivist creed, which Libertarians today masturbate over, only less extreme, off a serial killer. Literally. It promotes greed and selfishness as virtues and strives to model a socially-darwinian political system where the weak are cast aside and the strong elite prevail according to a Gospel of Wealth.
And saying pure and unadulturated is redundant, given the latter means the former.
Morally dubious? Please enlighten me as to what is a moral philosophy.
I think you put Ayn Rand on a pedestal few libertarians would place her on.
I say morally dubious, because of their excessive valuation of individualism and egoism without serious regard for the consequences of it for anyone else. Their statements are always prefaced with "my, mine, me, I" and emphasizing their "rights" and "freedoms." They talk a lot about freedom, but the majority of their policies tend to be supported by a rich tiny elite of powerful people very vigorously. When I speak to Libertarians about the suffering their policies cause, they range from "I don't care" to "I am more important." They tend to be people who have a severely unempathetic and sterile attitude, as if it's some natural phenomenon, therefore okay.
Remember Eboneezer Scrooge? Are there no prisons? No work houses? Death will reduce the surplus population. That's the ultimate Libertarian. And he was based off of real people during the height of Libertarian thought.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?