Whats the point of being a libertarian if...

[aFireInside]

This issue has been bothering me lately. 

FDR covers many topics politics, philosophy, self-knowledge, parenting, etc... 

 

For about the last three years I have only focused on the self-knowledge side of things and away from politics/economics. 

 

Not to long ago I have been getting annoyed by most anarchist/libertarians. 

I think this is because they don't seem to understand that the State is a reflection of the home. 

By beating your kids physically or emotionally  you are only conditioning them to be beaten by the State.

Libertarians wonder why most of the population does nothing when the State lies to them. Well what is that a reflection of? 

 

 

Anyways I stopped following allot of Libertarians on Facebook (i won't name any names). 

Some of the reasons are that they are religious, or believe in hitting children and/or praise some form of child abuse. 

 

To me these people seem totally bigoted, because they complain about people being Statist when they support the very thing that causes statism. (Assuming statism is caused by child abuse) 

 

Anyways. What is the point of being libertarian if you are religious or support child abuse????

 

I might be looking at this incorrectly, but when stef talked about Carl Marks and how much of a bigot he was (his beliefs didn't match his personal life) it all of a sudden connected! 

These people are kind of like Carl in a way. 

 

Anyways let me know what you think. I might be missing something.

[James Dean]

I think you are right to feel frustrated and even at these people. Likely they cannot address those things because they are normalizing behavior that has been inflicted on them by violent and abusive or manipulative people. I try to have empathy for them, when I see people like that, I just imagine a sign around their neck that reads, "My past is so painful that I refuse to confront it."

 

It does not absolve them of the corrupt and immoral things they advocate and do, but I find it helpful to know where they're coming from, and to have that empathy for them.

[Tyler Durden]

Well, it's simple really. Most people don't want to confront the people around them and they certainly don't want to confront themselves. Apart from that they're often very rational.

 

So if you've grown up in a certain belief system, such as that of the Jehova's witnesses, where it's fine to talk rationally about the state, you can become an anarchist quite easily. But you'll meet a lot of resistance if you try to talk about God in the same way, so people tend not to do that.

 

Another completely different example would be that almost everyone agrees that it's extremely immoral to abuse pets. But when you talk to them about eating meat they will have no problem defending animals being slaughtered.

 

There are tons of other examples. It's just human nature. We're generally rational beings, but it's scary to deviate from the tribe and most people don't have the balls to do it.

[Honest]

I know exactly how you feel, but if you take that attitude to it's ultimate conclusion you just end up with yourself. I try not to throw the baby out with the bath water, just remember there is a difference between people and ideas, you are just there for the good ideas they might have, it's not like you have to marry them and raise kids. I will say though, one of my biggest pet peeves is people who I agree with that make bad arguments in favor of whatever it is that I agree with them on, it's infuriating actually haha.

[dsayers]

I feel you, Ivan. I think I may be able to put a smile on your face though. For starters, I think it's important to realize that the reason why these people bother you so much is because you are aware of their lack of self-knowledge. Which only serves as a fantastic sign of how far you've come with your own.

 

This is why it's important to keep pushing the moral arguments. To keep pointing out how this all stems from childhood. A video Stef put out recently was one of the mailbag episodes. There was one question he took that seemingly had nothing to do with childhood and he went straight to pointing out that it stems from childhood. This is what we need to do.

 

It's a lot easier to yell "end the Fed" than it is to confront abusive parents and/or go against the societal stigma of relatives being inescapable. Be patient with them; they were abused too. Just don't break yourself upon them. If you're trying to help them, and they refuse to accept the moral argument, move along. It really is triage.

[cab21]

if the person thinks god wants it, that could be the point for the person.

[Iggy]

Why follow anyone? What is the cause of anger?

 

We follow people for the knowledge they have and the guidance they provide, or strength and courage we lack.

 

If one is confident in his or her understanding and possesses the necessary strength of character, to follow someone with lesser knowledge or character would be offensive to ones core self and I would suggest lead to feelings of anger at oneself that may be projected onto those we have been following (through our own free choice).

 

In recognising our error and stopping following others for good reasons, as yours are, you are thinking for yourself maturing you could say. Independence however brings with it self judgement for past choices, and anxiety over a future free from the illusory safety of the pupil or subject. This is the shift from the status of child to adult.

[Daniel Unplugged]

Anyways. What is the point of being libertarian if you are religious or support child abuse????.

If you are religious, you are hardly a true libertarian. God is the ultimate denier of liberty. He rules with an iron fist.If you support child abuse, then you are not a libertarian either, it is a gross violation of the NAP. Most people who call themselves libertarians, do not accept libertarian principles the way a true libertarian does.

[Mike Fleming]

I kind of think of it this way..

 

Most people in this world are still religious.  And that includes statists.  We still very much exist in a world of true believers.

 

Many people who don't like the state, but are religious, gravitate towards libertarianism as a way to get their religion back on top. 

 

We are still in very early days regarding taking the world away from religious beliefs.  You can see this in atheism also, where there are many true believers in the religion of the state.  It's one reason why I have gravitated away from both the atheism and libertarian communities.   Neither are really as free thinking as they claim to be.   They just have different Gods.

 

Stef has mentioned this before that most people are still too damaged.  You can take away one God and they will just search for another one.   The underlying causes need to be treated and that's going to require many of them dying off I think.

[dsayers]

I made this same case in the comments section of Larken Rose's most recent Youtube video. He ended it by talking about how Statism is another religion. This was my post:

 

Government is the family. Most parents raise their children in an authoritarian manner. That's why so many people need religion or statism (which is another religion). Some might denounce one, but for them, this means they have to have the other. It's all they know. It's way more comfortable than facing the reality that their parents were abusive and society coddled them for being so.

[Vuk11]

Great post OP, I also agree with dsayers.

 

The fact that you have come to this basis of the root moral cause of statism is great for you and others that reach that same conclusion. For those that haven't reached the same conclusion the mere fact that they see problems with the current way of doing things is a start.

 

So the best way is to keep up the moral argument, where hopefully people will agree in their own  lives, in their own opinion and that is what's most important. We can debate facts, evidence and logic all day with people but if they agree with the moral argument that is most of the battle won, where I would argue that the only thing left is to calm the "what if" questions on a technical/logical side. That is not to say that evidence/logic is not essential to both the moral and logical argument. 

 

All the best.

[Pepin]

Something that has really stuck with me is Stefan's claim that "we are from the future", in the same way that those who say the immorality of slavery were from the future.

 

A large issue with libertarians is that they are intellectually oriented towards reason and logic, which is great when applied to problems that do not activate their fight or flight response, but when it is activated their reasoning center becomes an over-powered self defensive mechanism.

 

This wouldn't be so much an issue if their emotions were not so distant, but reason and logic are their primary means of existence. Really, I would argue that the reasoning centers attempt to take on the emotional processes.

 

It is so strange to hear libertarians talk about awful acts of immorality in a completely monotone voice. I used to be this way, but now I have an incredibly difficult not getting emotional when talking about this subject matter.

 

It's like, "you are forced at gunpoint by cops and other government officials to hand over your property, if you do not comply they will throw you in rape rooms for 20 years and completely destroy your life... this is scary, this is extremely fucked up", as opposed to "the government takes your money through taxes, which it justifies through the concept of the social contract, but this is immoral according to the non-aggression principal which I will now explain in complete intellectual detail".