Are Libertarians afraid of success?

[Guest Gee]

Deleted.

[Guest Gee]

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?

 

My response disappeared, whatever.

 

Put up or shut up. I'll pay you $60, the cost of  a 1 year bronze membership, for not consuming FDR and not posting on the boards for 1 year.

 

Just post a response below with payment details, or, would you prefer to not have the cost of a one year bronze subscription but get to consume FDR?

[AncapFTW]

My response disappeared, whatever.

 

Put up or shut up. I'll pay you $60, the cost of  a 1 year bronze membership, for not consuming FDR and not posting on the boards for 1 year.

 

Just post a response below with payment details, or, would you prefer to not have the cost of a one year bronze subscription but get to consume FDR?

I think your response is proof that I shouldn't go.  You are willing to pay to shut up those that believe differently than you, and call you on those beliefs, or even try to convince you otherwise.  Getting you and others to wake up from your self-imposed mental breakdown is more important to me than the money.  After all, if I didn't want people to open their eyes and learn to use logic, I wouldn't be complaining in the first place.

[Guest Gee]

I think your response is proof that I shouldn't go.  You are willing to pay to shut up those that believe differently than you, and call you on those beliefs, or even try to convince you otherwise.  Getting you and others to wake up from your self-imposed mental breakdown is more important to me than the money.  After all, if I didn't want people to open their eyes and learn to use logic, I wouldn't be complaining in the first place.

 

Ok, so I've offered you the opportunity to transition to a state of +$60 and no FDR which you have for declined in favor of a state of not having an additional $60 but continuing to consume FDR.

 

Therefore you have revealed a preference for consuming FDR over having an additional $60 dollars or restated, you have objectively demonstrated that you value consuming FDR more than you value a bronze donation package.

 

Not a perfect comparison because a bronze donation would be -$60 dollars + FDR as apposed to +$60 dollars and - FDR but close enough I think to then reasonably conclude that if you hold to your assertion that FDR holds such little value that if you had to pay anything you would not continue to consume FDR, which is to say the value of FDR is to you less than the value of 1 cent, then you are in fact stating the the value of 1 cent is greater than the value of $60 (0.01 > 60).

 

But it can not be true that the value of 1 cent is greater than the value of 60 dollars so your not being honest.

 

If your going to be a freerider, at least be honest about it instead of trying to convince me (and yourself) of something that is objectively not true.

[AncapFTW]

Ok, so I've offered you the opportunity to transition to a state of +$60 and no FDR which you have for declined in favor of a state of not having an additional $60 but continuing to consume FDR.

 

Therefore you have revealed a preference for consuming FDR over having an additional $60 dollars or restated, you have objectively demonstrated that you value consuming FDR more than you value a bronze donation package.

 

Not a perfect comparison because a bronze donation would be -$60 dollars + FDR as apposed to +$60 dollars and - FDR but close enough I think to then reasonably conclude that if you hold to your assertion that FDR holds such little value that if you had to pay anything you would not continue to consume FDR, which is to say the value of FDR is to you less than the value of 1 cent, then you are in fact stating the the value of 1 cent is greater than the value of $60 (0.01 > 60).

 

But it can not be true that the value of 1 cent is greater than the value of 60 dollars so your not being honest.

 

If your going to be a freerider, at least be honest about it instead of trying to convince me (and yourself) of something that is objectively not true, or restated, if your going to be a suitcase then spare me the rationalizations.

No, it's just worth more than $60 to me to try and teach someone to think instead of accepting everything an authority figure, IE Stef, says without questioning it.  The fact that you are willing to bribe your opposition into shutting up means that you are quite dedicated to the idea, but the fact that you prefer bribery to logical discussion means that you value logic and reason far less.

 

Because of this, I think you need to learn to do one of the things this site is supposed to be about, which is thinking logically.  At least you haven't tried to use violence to shut up your opposition, and instead chose bribery.  That's a step in the right direction.

[Guest Gee]

No, it's just worth more than $60 to me to try and teach someone to think instead of accepting everything an authority figure, IE Stef, says without questioning it.  The fact that you are willing to bribe your opposition into shutting up means that you are quite dedicated to the idea, but the fact that you prefer bribery to logical discussion means that you value logic and reason far less.

 

Because of this, I think you need to learn to do one of the things this site is supposed to be about, which is thinking logically.  At least you haven't tried to use violence to shut up your opposition, and instead chose bribery.  That's a step in the right direction.

 

Well in this you are a success, you are a shining example from which others may learn a great deal about rational consistency.

[jrodefeld]

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). 

 

I don't post much here, but I'd like to start by responding to this.  I frankly don't understand how some libertarians could support Donald Trump.  I am an anarchist, but I don't oppose voting or participating in the political process at all.  I voted for Ron Paul in 2008 and 2012 and supported Gary Johnson in the general, even though I don't agree with either man completely.  

 

But Trump?  He is not remotely libertarian.  I understand that the media and the political establishment hates him and are working to sabotage his candidacy but I don't think that is sufficient to support someone.  How often in human history have revolutions resulted in greater human liberty instead of less?  Simply because someone is trying to overturn the established order does not mean that their victory will mean progress towards a libertarian future.

 

There are a few things Trump has said that are encouraging and, frankly, I hope he does as much damage to the Republican Party as possible.  But I don't root for his ultimate election as president and I fear greatly for what he might do in such a position of authority.

 

Walter Block has set up a group called "libertarians for trump" and his reasons for doing so amount to his belief that Trump is less militaristic in comparison to the other GOP candidates and since military policy is ultimately more important than domestic policy in terms of which allows the greatest expansion of State power, this justifies a libertarian effort to support Trump as the nominee of the Republican Party.  I couldn't disagree more.

 

In the first place, Trump's "ideology", if it can be called that at all, is so half-baked that I am not at all sure that his relatively anti-war rhetoric can be trusted.  There is every reason to expect that, once elected or close to ultimate victory, he will make peace with the GOP establishment and military industrial complex and support policies that are very status quo.  

 

I think some libertarians are so enamored with the idea of the establishment taking a loss that they lose their critical faculties and project libertarian intent onto Donald Trump where none exists.  Among the remaining viable candidates who actually have a prayer to win the general election (thus excluding the Libertarian Party and all third party candidates), there really is no telling which one would be objectively worse for liberty in the long run.  To my mind, there is just as strong a case for a Sanders of Hillary victory as there is for Trump.  Not to say that Sanders or Hillary are even remotely libertarian, only that they'd make such weak candidates that a strong opposition and general unpopularity could make them lame ducks for a large extent of their presidency as the Federal Government is mercifully mired in gridlock.  On the other hand, with an overwhelming victory and a mandate, not to mention the personality of Trump which lends itself to executive power appropriation, a Trump victory could lead to greater loss of liberty and expansion of State power.

 

Trump is an unknown in many ways, I grant that.  But should libertarians spend ANY proactive effort to support his candidacy?  I don't think so.  Perhaps his candidacy would be good for liberty ultimately or maybe not.  I just think there is a certain threshold that a political figure must reach in regards to their advocacy of pro-liberty positions to be worthy of a conscious libertarian's support.  

 

For me, an anarchist is a person who understands that aggression is not and cannot be justified.  That the only completely moral system of human organization is one where a consistent moral standard is applied to all people.  That does NOT mean that a libertarian who holds this view cannot participate in the political process.  

 

If we concede that at this particular moment in human evolution, the State is unfortunately supported by most people, then can we not work to limit it's harm?  I think we certainly can and should.  If and when a good libertarian candidate is available to us I think we should support those people.  I wholeheartedly supported Ron Paul even though he is not an anarchist because I believed that this collective show of support by libertarians would do more to advance the cause of human liberty than all the internet blogging and ghettoized self-reinforcing "philosophizing" on internet forums would ever do.  I am quite sure that history has borne out this truth.  

 

But IF we choose to use politics as a means towards promoting liberty, we ought to be VERY careful and selective in who we choose to support.  Trump's candidacy makes this election season far more entertaining and unpredictable than most, if nothing else.  We ought to be using this opportunity to educate our fellow citizens about liberty and supporting Trump surely does not do this.  

[labmath2]

I can give my two cents on why i cannot get on board the Trump train. If you want to solve a problem, solve it. Half measures at best just delay the problem and more likely just cause it to pop up in other places (like wack a mole). Trump is at best a half measure. It seems many libertarians think a half measure is better than nothing (any action is better than inaction). Maybe it is, but i am not convinved. I would rather we all close our eyes and grit our teeth and let the homeless man die than help him continue the cycle of helplessness (i know it sounds callous but you get rid of the problem once and for all).

[B0b]

jrodefeld, you did not talk enough about Sanders and Clinton, therefore, we are asked to choose between bad and nothing. What if nothing is worse than bad?