pnelson Posted January 28, 2016 Posted January 28, 2016 In light of Donald Trump's rise in popularity (which I support) I've noticed a lot of my politically plugged in friends on the libertarian end of things are vehemently against him for some bizarre reasons and attack him more harshly even than Hillary. I've found previously very rational people to lose their collective minds over the Trump issue and seem to almost take it personally if you question there assertions (many of which are based on the false rumours Stef dealt with). I guess my question is, from a psychological viewpoint, is this pull-back from Trump right on the cusp of his victory a sort of panic induced by actually succeeding at advancing a non-mainstream candidate and being on the verge of a non-politician, successful, intelligent guy winning a popular election without having to sell his soul to the machine? Personally I think yes. There is a weird perfectionism in Libertarianism that makes it impossible to support anyone in concrete terms (only abstractly).
Will Torbald Posted January 28, 2016 Posted January 28, 2016 Most political Libertarians (associated to the party, not the philosophy) are open borders cucks. They're the same as any other globalist statist. Of course they would have a seizure with Trump. They're not afraid of success, they are afraid of reality.
Thomasio Posted January 28, 2016 Posted January 28, 2016 The word libertarian is by definition the opposite of authoritarian. On the political stage Trump vs Clinton or whatever, that's authoritarian right vs authoritarian left. They differ only in how much they want to steal and who shall get the stolen money. That's why I don't support either of them.
dsayers Posted January 28, 2016 Posted January 28, 2016 There is a weird perfectionism in Libertarianism that makes it impossible to support anyone in concrete terms (only abstractly). You need to define your terms. I don't know what you mean by support, but if you're referencing a political candidate, you're not talking about liberty at all.
Worlok Posted January 29, 2016 Posted January 29, 2016 You need to define your terms. I don't know what you mean by support, but if you're referencing a political candidate, you're not talking about liberty at all. A political candidate can't work only towards removing any and all laws preventing freedom? Anyway, as somebody already put forth, Trump is authoritarian to a degree. Anti-immigration is, in certain situations, an opposed position. Personally, I don't find anything particularly wrong with Trump. He's playing the game and his positions are generally ones that fix some significant problems without necessarily replacing them with other problems. He's also hilarious. Watch Stef's video "The Untruth About Donald Trump" on YouTube. Better yet, also have your friends watch it and then have a discussion.
Jer Posted January 29, 2016 Posted January 29, 2016 In light of Donald Trump's rise in popularity (which I support) I've noticed a lot of my politically plugged in friends on the libertarian end of things are vehemently against him for some bizarre reasons and attack him more harshly even than Hillary. I've found previously very rational people to lose their collective minds over the Trump issue and seem to almost take it personally if you question there assertions (many of which are based on the false rumours Stef dealt with). I guess my question is, from a psychological viewpoint, is this pull-back from Trump right on the cusp of his victory a sort of panic induced by actually succeeding at advancing a non-mainstream candidate and being on the verge of a non-politician, successful, intelligent guy winning a popular election without having to sell his soul to the machine? Personally I think yes. There is a weird perfectionism in Libertarianism that makes it impossible to support anyone in concrete terms (only abstractly). Penn Jillette said on his podcast that he'll campaign for Hillary if Trump gets the nomination. I don't think people are afraid of winning, but agree that Trump makes people lose their minds.
dsayers Posted January 31, 2016 Posted January 31, 2016 A political candidate can't work only towards removing any and all laws preventing freedom? How would they accomplish this? By first accepting that they exist is a different, opposing moral category. Also, describing a unicorn doesn't mean one exists.
tasmlab Posted February 5, 2016 Posted February 5, 2016 I don't get how supporting a political candidate or even wanting to win an election libertarian 'success' by any means. Esp. this monster. Trump feels like the guy Hayek describes. After the politics and economy are so ruined from central management, the population looks to an immoral monster who claims that they have the knowledge and the willingness to fix everything.
grithin Posted February 5, 2016 Posted February 5, 2016 r/K Selection Theory helps explain this... r/K would explain the leftist response, but let us take a theoretical "libertarian" or a "liberty minded" individual for analysis. There are a few primary factors that contribute - idealism or, "there can be no solution if it is not perfect" - failure of intellect to analyze chains of consequences. In this particular case, it is a failure to see that - the statist/elitist agenda has been rather smooth sailing, with very little (little in consequence) push back - Trump will likely cause a significant disruption to this agenda, and in that disruption is the opportunity to counter that agenda - this disruption will occur regardless of the specifics of Trump's actual plans except, in the very unlikely event, Trump gets on board (reagan) or is on board (nearly everyone else) - but, primarily, envy. Any this could be considered generally as envious of his financial success, his popular success (some anti-establishment leftist guys have gone nuts, calling Trump worse than Hitler), but, for our theoretical libertarian, it tends to be: - the envy of the hypocrite. And, this hypocrite tends to: - like Ted Cruz who is as snakish as the hypocrite is - profess liberty but avoid all hardships required to effect it - profess morals but be amoral and secretly have the notion that: - there are two classes of people: people as snakish as they are, or unsuccessful moral sheep The polarized response does not make sense as a consequence to the factors of idealism or failure of intellect. And, so, it seems the polarized response, by "libertarians", is a consequence of envy. 1
WasatchMan Posted February 5, 2016 Posted February 5, 2016 I don't think it is too hard to explain. All it is the age old balance of principles vs. pragmatism. Libertarians have fought the political battle on the side of principles for so long they have a hard time rationalizing something based on pragmatic ends, and probably justifiably feel they are weakening their own arguments by doing so. 1
grithin Posted February 6, 2016 Posted February 6, 2016 You're mistaken if you think r selected behavior is limited to those who openly identify as leftists or liberals... The concept of my reply was that there are additional factors to consider; it was not to exclude the possibility of 'r' natured people who do not openly identify as leftist or liberal. The luxury of excess and efficiency provides the capacity to be 'r' in nature and profess 'K' (the competition of the free market). And, I intended to include that under "hypocrite": - "profess liberty but avoid all hardships required to effect it"
Guest Gee Posted February 7, 2016 Posted February 7, 2016 ....today we need to understand the forces of darkness among us and that force of darkness is the very government we have elected and empowered to impose the darkness upon us, the better we understand it the more we understand it the sooner we can be free from it's shackles. I expect that when I die I will do so peacefully in my bed surrounded by people that love me and faithful to first principles. That will not happen to everybody in this room, some of you, particularly the young people, must be prepared to die in a government prison and some of you, particularly the young people, must be prepared to die in a town square to the sound of government trumpets blaring. When the time comes you will know what to do because freedom lies in everyone's heart. Judge Andrew P. Napolitano: Natural Law vs Tyranny. I do not possess the eloquence required to effectively communicate the disgust I felt when I heard this.
terk Posted February 10, 2016 Posted February 10, 2016 What I find diffuclt to convey from a libertarian point of view when trying to bring the libertarian idea of freedom and individuality, it is understood as being left alone and forgotten with no help . And then comes a socialist giving out free health care, free education and all sorts of freebies who knows how they will be paid for (of course nun other than the tax payers) . So how can libertarian idea overcome this dilemma?
GailG Posted March 7, 2016 Posted March 7, 2016 There are at least two kinds of Libertarians. There are the neo-libertarians, like Rand Paul. Then there are the Libertarians. I'm a Libertarian and all my libertarian friends support Bernie. That sounds strange to many, but it doesn't if you think it through. Until we establish equality, we can't establish libertarianism, so he's at least a baby step in the right direction. 2
dsayers Posted March 7, 2016 Posted March 7, 2016 Until we establish equality, we can't establish libertarianism The State is the institutionalization of inequality. Stealing from the productive to give to the lazy is the opposite of equality. 1
Guest Gee Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 There are at least two kinds of Libertarians. There are the neo-libertarians, like Rand Paul. Then there are the Libertarians. I'm a Libertarian and all my libertarian friends support Bernie. That sounds strange to many, but it doesn't if you think it through. Until we establish equality, we can't establish libertarianism, so he's at least a baby step in the right direction. Until we can establish equality, we can't establish libertarianism therefore Bernie is a step in the right direction? So you've said we, you are accepting responsibility establishing equality. So, have you donated yet?
Torero Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 That sounds strange to many, but it doesn't if you think it through. Until we establish equality, we can't establish libertarianism, so he's at least a baby step in the right direction.It doesn't "sound strange", it is directly contradictory. "We" establish nothing; statists do that, using their power over us, the sheeple. That contradicts libertarianism. And "solve inequality"? Hacking off some inches of black men's penises and fitting it to the less hung Asians? Sounds pretty cruel to me...
AncapFTW Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 Until we can establish equality, we can't establish libertarianism therefore Bernie is a step in the right direction? So you've said we, you are accepting responsibility establishing equality. So, have you donated yet? Whether they have or haven't is immaterial to the conversation. One can support Freedom and not support Freedomain radio, and one can support Freedomain radio and not support Freedom. 1
dsayers Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 Whether they have or haven't is immaterial to the conversation. Not really. The subtopic was "establishing equality." The null hypothesis is near infinite. Donating to the show is just one element.
Guest Gee Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 Whether they have or haven't is immaterial to the conversation. One can support Freedom and not support Freedomain radio, and one can support Freedomain radio and not support Freedom. Please reread the post. The support is of equality, not freedom. But hey, 371 posts? That is a lot of posts, probably a lot of podcasts as well eh? Have you donated?
S. Misanthrope Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 More and more I'm seeing how true it is that the r's are everywhere. In libertarianism, in Objectivism. It's one thing to intellectually praise success and business and individualism from afar. It's quite another to face a specific successful businessman in your immediate reality. The feelings you have then reveal the truth of your convictions. My working theory is that Trump triggers people because he's a concrete reminder of reality not being fair. He was born into a good family. He was born into a wealthy family. He was born with good genes supporting intelligence, health, vigor, and hair. The part where he took all of those advantages and did something with them rather than wasting them gets overwhelmed by the envy many people feel when looking at a "natural alpha male." A few friends have admitted to me in private that Trump "feels like" the guy who bested them in high school, socially or in debate club. They remember the feeling of having better arguments than the alpha guy, but they didn't matter because he was a better communicator for the audience of their peers. Only one so far has been able to process and then set aside this emotional response in order to apply reason. r/k theory in action! 2
AncapFTW Posted March 9, 2016 Posted March 9, 2016 Please reread the post. The support is of equality, not freedom. But hey, 371 posts? That is a lot of posts, probably a lot of podcasts as well eh? Have you donated? What kind of equality? Equality of outcome or equality of opportunity? Equality of opportunity is essentially just another term for Freedom. Would you pay for a full product when the free trial is full of problems? 3
dsayers Posted March 9, 2016 Posted March 9, 2016 What kind of equality? Equality of outcome or equality of opportunity? Equality of opportunity is essentially just another term for Freedom. You continue to miss the self-detonation. People are not equal because they would have to be the same, in the same place (same space) at the same time and think/feel the same about everything always. This is not the case. So any semblance of freedom would come from artificial manipulation, which would include artificially suppressing (violence) some, which is NOT freedom. Would you pay for a full product when the free trial is full of problems? Immaterial. Gail spoke of equality while not living equality. The reason to pay would be because others pay and the espoused value was equality. Thus revealing that the espoused value was insincere and presented for the purpose of manipulating others.
shirgall Posted March 9, 2016 Posted March 9, 2016 What kind of equality? Equality of outcome or equality of opportunity? Equality of opportunity is essentially just another term for Freedom. Would you pay for a full product when the free trial is full of problems? As a software developer, I'm always hoping that potential customers provide useful bug reports. Perhaps if you called in about the problems you are seeing and flesh it out with our customer support representative and development lead? 2
Guest Gee Posted March 9, 2016 Posted March 9, 2016 What kind of equality? Equality of outcome or equality of opportunity? Equality of opportunity is essentially just another term for Freedom. Would you pay for a full product when the free trial is full of problems? If you want to be a suitcase that is fine, but spare me the double think you use to make yourself OK with doing it. I am subsidizing your consumption after all. 1
AncapFTW Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 If you want to be a suitcase that is fine, but spare me the double think you use to make yourself OK with doing it. I am subsidizing your consumption after all. Care to explain what you mean?
AncapFTW Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 You continue to miss the self-detonation. People are not equal because they would have to be the same, in the same place (same space) at the same time and think/feel the same about everything always. This is not the case. So any semblance of freedom would come from artificial manipulation, which would include artificially suppressing (violence) some, which is NOT freedom. Immaterial. Gail spoke of equality while not living equality. The reason to pay would be because others pay and the espoused value was equality. Thus revealing that the espoused value was insincere and presented for the purpose of manipulating others. I don't think you understand the concept of freedom. It doesn't required that everything be exactly the same, only that we have the option of being different without violence being used against us. The product/service is offered for free, and if it required payment I wouldn't use it because its numerous problems would result in it having a negative value to me at that point. Just because one person chooses to pay for something doesn't mean that everyone else is using violence against them or oppressing them by paying less or nothing. Because you are willing to pay $5 for an apple doesn't mean that I am doing something wrong by taking an apple that was offered to me for free. That's a very basic concept which anyone with even a basic understanding of the free market should understand. 2 1
dsayers Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 Obfuscation. Gail claimed equality as a standard. Gail does not adhere to that standard. The end.
Torero Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 I don't think you understand the concept of freedom. It doesn't required that everything be exactly the same, only that we have the option of being different without violence being used against us. The product/service is offered for free, and if it required payment I wouldn't use it because its numerous problems would result in it having a negative value to me at that point. Just because one person chooses to pay for something doesn't mean that everyone else is using violence against them or oppressing them by paying less or nothing. Because you are willing to pay $5 for an apple doesn't mean that I am doing something wrong by taking an apple that was offered to me for free. That's a very basic concept which anyone with even a basic understanding of the free market should understand. I agree and your example is valid imo. I also do not think you are obliged to pay as indeed the FDR vids are offered for free. But I am curious to know what you found problematic or "the free trial was not good enough to pay for the product". If you've explained your thoughts on that it would be nice if you could give a link, also to not derail this topic...
Cornetto97 Posted March 11, 2016 Posted March 11, 2016 On the original question, it is quite interesting, because you see the very same thing happening with stefan. I continuously notice people saying on stefan's videos that they stopped watching when stefan did x or y or because he used to do x or y and has changed. Now when i try to conceptualise why this happens i find myself using my own experience when first happening upon stefan's videos. It was a time when i began to be extremely curious, and even negative about the state of the world i was slowly being intergrated into. I found one of his videos extremely insightful, i immediately subscribed and almost unconsciously my perception of stefan cganged into this beacon where i could go to confirm my prejudices, and guide my views. I began to think 'what would stefan think of this issue', and almost attempt to match my views with stefan's, and retrospectively i almost always thought how would stefan approach this, or would stefan agree with my views on x. I remember now one day i saw stefan's video 'the truth about gun control'. I saw this and immediately clicked on it waiting for a seathing philosophical dismantling of the NRA, i was very dissapointed to say the least and was frustrated by his support of gun laws, but i persisted, and managed to watch it all (completely flipped my views in this and many other issues) This happened in other subsequent videos, and i was frustrated at my previous ignorance, almost unconsciously, and in my imperfection to the standard of stefan. I began not so long ago to become conscious of my comparing to stefan, and hunt for almost perfection to the standards i had created around stefan, and my constant hunt for stefan's confirmation. Very recently i have thought about this, and seen it occur on stefan's video comments, in the examples i gave avove. However many people appear instead to ignore stefan, like a child would ignore a parent in protest of not getting an ice cream. This appears as though it is an attempt to avoid the feelings they get when stefan doesn't confirm their prejudices, and their endeavour to mirror a perfect model they build around stefan is obstructed. Now the way this translates to the question at hand is well, many libertaraians may have unconsciously built this blemish free image of perfection around their own models, and when they see trump, instead of seeing what he actually should represent, a step very much in a far more positive direction, they focus on the traits and policies of trump that oppose this unconscious model they strive to perfect. Thus resulting in discomfort, and either persistance, and critically analysing trump further, or (in most cases i've observed) a complete avoidance and rejection of trump. As to the question of r/k theory, i haven't read into it as in depth as alot of you on this thread appear to have, but would I be right in saying the latter is very much an r selective response?
Guest Gee Posted March 12, 2016 Posted March 12, 2016 Care to explain what you mean?Suitcase, as in you are carried but the will and work of others, you provide not motive force of your own. Double think, as in by virtue of your actions you recognise the value of FDR as greater than the value of all else you could be doing instead of consuming FDR but you simultaneously assert that this is not true. And I am subsidising your consumption, as all those who do work and donate are because without such actions FDR would not exist. I think the difference is I recognise that I owe everyone who has donated and done work for the value I receive and so the very least I can do, and indeed the least of which I shall be doing, is to reciprocate with donations. You probably do too one some level which is why you entered the thread when I asked if Gail donates, it probably made you feel uncomfortable because you recognise that you too owe a debt but you took a position to argue against donating to manage the uncomftable feeling. Hence spare me, as in spare me the burden of using me to try to manage your uncomftable feelings. If you are going to be a suitcase then don't complain because suitcases are inanimate objects, they can't complain. 1 1
AncapFTW Posted March 12, 2016 Posted March 12, 2016 Suitcase, as in you are carried but the will and work of others, you provide not motive force of your own. Double think, as in by virtue of your actions you recognise the value of FDR as greater than the value of all else you could be doing instead of consuming FDR but you simultaneously assert that this is not true. And I am subsidising your consumption, as all those who do work and donate are because without such actions FDR would not exist. I think the difference is I recognise that I owe everyone who has donated and done work for the value I receive and so the very least I can do, and indeed the least of which I shall be doing, is to reciprocate with donations. You probably do too one some level which is why you entered the thread when I asked if Gail donates, it probably made you feel uncomfortable because you recognise that you too owe a debt but you took a position to argue against donating to manage the uncomftable feeling. Hence spare me, as in spare me the burden of using me to try to manage your uncomftable feelings. If you are going to be a suitcase then don't complain because suitcases are inanimate objects, they can't complain. Please stop projecting your own insecurities onto me. This isn't a matter of it being worth more than "all else I could be doing," this is a matter of it having a slightly positive value to me because it is free, and therefore I choose to use it. Maybe you are subsidizing other people's consumption, but you chose to do that when you chose to donate. Simply because you see enough value in something that you choose to donate a large amount to it doesn't mean that others are leaching off of you because they choose not to pay for something that was offered to them for free. Do you pay every street performer you see on the street? By your argument, if anyone gives them money then you are mooching off of them if you don't. Do you pay for wikipedia? Some people donate to it. Do you refuse to use free trials of products or services because that would mooch off them?
HEMPHOPEISHERE Posted March 12, 2016 Posted March 12, 2016 They are not afraid of success they are confounded like so many of us. This thread is a perfect example. All I see are People being divided, conquered and pulled around by their noses. The U.S. Constitution has never been put in place and practiced properly. If it had been we would be closer to Utopia than you think. The blood that has been spilled to create this document might just fill a lake. Those that have died in the name of Freedom are dishonored by our ignorance and spinning in their graves. I know that most folks will fail a simple constitutional quiz including every candidate and many libertarians. We are doomed unless we embrace this document as originally intended.
Guest Gee Posted March 13, 2016 Posted March 13, 2016 To whomsoever gifted me with the -1, could you please drop me a pm to tell me how you think I am out of order or wrong? That would be greatly appreciated. If you don't want a conversation just say so in the PM, but please do provide me with feedback. Thx.
B0b Posted March 13, 2016 Posted March 13, 2016 The word libertarian is by definition the opposite of authoritarian. On the political stage Trump vs Clinton or whatever, that's authoritarian right vs authoritarian left. They differ only in how much they want to steal and who shall get the stolen money. That's why I don't support either of them. It is not about supporting any, but about choosing the one that will implement the solutions that will deviate the least from libertarian solutions.
Recommended Posts