JeanPaul Posted November 19, 2014 Posted November 19, 2014 After having spent a few weeks on this board, I went from supposedly libertarian, to a true statist. The arguments I was exposed to and the experience I had made me realize that the state, as an abstraction, not the way it is implemented, is far preferable than dealing with individual libertarians. This whole experience was an eye opener.
Ken Cotton Posted November 19, 2014 Posted November 19, 2014 Sure. All systems have pros and cons. All systems have exploitable weaknesses. We can try and make lasting change, but invariably the success or failure of a system is in the hands of the people alive in that moment. In their personal and communal interactions with others. The state might be the answer for some, but not for others.
Alan C. Posted November 19, 2014 Posted November 19, 2014 What do you hope to accomplish that you believe a statist society would be more effective at achieving than a libertarian society?
NotDarkYet Posted November 19, 2014 Posted November 19, 2014 Ken/JeanPaul, Present an argument already. Waiting...
PGP Posted November 19, 2014 Posted November 19, 2014 What a coincidence. I have recently realised that jumping out of the 50th storey of a high-rise and flying (in abstraction) is much more preferable to the reality of falling to a power-hose-necessitating-cleanup death. Damn stairs are hard, all on my own.
shirgall Posted November 19, 2014 Posted November 19, 2014 After having spent a few weeks on this board, I went from supposedly libertarian, to a true statist. The arguments I was exposed to and the experience I had made me realize that the state, as an abstraction, not the way it is implemented, is far preferable than dealing with individual libertarians. This whole experience was an eye opener. More importantly, how does that make you feel?
Mister Mister Posted November 19, 2014 Posted November 19, 2014 After having spent a few weeks on this board, I went from supposedly libertarian, to a true statist. The arguments I was exposed to and the experience I had made me realize that the state, as an abstraction, not the way it is implemented, is far preferable than dealing with individual libertarians. This whole experience was an eye opener. So an abstraction is far preferable to an experience? That's a fascinating sentiment, and worth exploring, but doesn't really have any bearing on political philosophy. Unless you think that your feelings and preferences are binding on everyone else.
dsayers Posted November 19, 2014 Posted November 19, 2014 He made this claim already, complete with threatening to abuse children. I guess it didn't get the fanfare he was expecting, hence this thread. I guess blaming people that understand that Santa Claus isn't real helps him not hold his parents accountable for modeling subjugation for him.
J. D. Stembal Posted November 19, 2014 Posted November 19, 2014 Libertarians have their own political party and vote, so I am confused by this assertion that the state is preferable to dealing with individual libertarians. Go read Practical Anarchy. Libertarians still want a state for practical reasons, but want to take orders from gods instead of politicians.
J-William Posted November 20, 2014 Posted November 20, 2014 That's odd, the heading for this post promises that there will be a description of how this guy became a statist.... and I'm not seeing the how, I am most disappointed I give it a 1/10 maybe the writer can sell his experience to salon.com and make some quick cash.
growler76 Posted November 20, 2014 Posted November 20, 2014 http://www.techtipsforall.com/2012/03/show-youtube-video.html?st=27&et=30&vId=aOnKCcjP8Qs&l=no&lnf=10&ap=yes
Agalloch Posted November 20, 2014 Posted November 20, 2014 I think it's worth mentioning that you were never a Libertarian JeanPaul. A Libertarian is someone who accepts the moral/philosophical validity of the Non-Aggression principal and who acts with moral integrity in their personal lives. It's not a position on the existence of the State, that's simply a consquence. And anybody who talks about giving up the consequence without mentioning the principles, clearly never had the principles. What you've come here to say is that you were always in support of immorality and violence, and that you don't believe a lack of State fits that vision.
shirgall Posted November 20, 2014 Posted November 20, 2014 I think it's worth mentioning that you were never a Libertarian JeanPaul. A Libertarian is someone who accepts the moral/philosophical validity of the Non-Aggression principal and who acts with moral integrity in their personal lives. It's not a position on the existence of the State, that's simply a consquence. And anybody who talks about giving up the consequence without mentioning the principles, clearly never had the principles. What you've come here to say is that you were always in support of immorality and violence, and that you don't believe a lack of State fits that vision. To be fair a "Big L" Libertarian is merely a member of the party, and a "small L" libertarian is someone lives and supports the principles. Speaking as a former Membership Director of a state party, I know these two sets intersect, but are not equal. The party is a bigger tent in that it accepts the disaffected from other parties and hopes to introduce them, shape them, or persuade them to reason.
dsayers Posted November 20, 2014 Posted November 20, 2014 This is why such labels aren't really of any use. The word means different things to different people. If you really want to be technical, people who scoff at libertarians are themselves libertarians as evidenced by their enjoyment of having agency over various aspects of their own lives.
Recommended Posts