For All You Self-Proclaimed Libertarians on the Board
- Thread starter lavender
- Start date
Dillinger
Guerrilla Ontologist
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2000
- Posts
- 26,152
Actually - whatever our beliefs are - they are "self proclaimed" whether its democratic, conservative, libertarian... whatever.
Now - I think we need to put the question as to what you mean by libertarian... are you talking the concept or what the "self proclaimed" libertarian party thinks it is?
So - let me tell you what libertarianism means to me and others, as I learned it from Robert Anton Wilson...
Human society can be structured either according to the principle of authority or according to the principle of liberty. Authority is a static social configuration in which people act as superiors and inferiors: a sado- masochistic relationship. Liberty is a dynamic social configuration in which people act as equals: an erotic relationship. In every interaction between people, either Authority or Liberty is the dominant factor. Families, churches, lodges, clubs and corporations are either more authoritarian than libertarian or more libertarian than authoritarian. It becomes obvious as we proceed that the most pugnacious and intolerant form of authority is the State, which even today dares to assume absolutism which the church itself has long ago surrendered and to enforce obedience with the Church's old and shameful Inquisition. Every form of authoritarianism is, however, a small "State," even if it has a membership of only two. Freud's remark to the effect that the delusion of many men is religion can be generalized: The authoritarianism of one man is crime and the authoritarianism of many is State.
If authority implies submission, liberation implies equality; authority exist when one person obeys another, and liberty exists when people do not obey other people. Thus, to say that authority exists is to say that class and caste exist, that submission and inequality exist. To say the liberty exists is to that classlessness exists, to say that brotherhood and equality exist.
Authority, by dividing people into classes, creates dichotomy, disruption, hostility, fear, disunion. Liberty, by placing people on an equal footing, creates association, amalgamation, union, security. When the relationships between people are based on authority and coercion, they are driven apart; when based on liberty and non-aggression, they are drawn together. The facts are self-evident and axiomatic. If authoritarianism did not possess the in-built, preprogrammed double-bind structure of a Game Without End, people would long ago have rejected it and embraced libertarianism. The usual pacifist complaint about war, that young men are led to death by old men who sit at home manning beaurocrats' desks and taking no risks themselves, misses the point entirely.
(Demands that the old should be drafted to fight their own wars, or that the leaders of the warring nations should be sent to the front lines on the first day of battle, etc., are aimed at an assumed "sense of justice" that simply does not exist. To the typical submissive citizen of authoritarian society, it is normal, obvious and "natural" that he/she should obey older and more dominant males, even at the risk of their life, even against their own kindred, and even in causes that are unjust or absurd.)
Wilson was once asked if he thought Western Civilization would survive - this was his answer:
"Yes. It will be increasingly like a libertarian, pagan, psionic, science fiction novel, probably by me..."
*grin* Just like a libertarian!!!
My apologies if this might take your thread onto a side track. But what I consider Libertarianism and what others on this board who call themselves Libertarians believe are probably very different things altogether.
Now - I think we need to put the question as to what you mean by libertarian... are you talking the concept or what the "self proclaimed" libertarian party thinks it is?
So - let me tell you what libertarianism means to me and others, as I learned it from Robert Anton Wilson...
Human society can be structured either according to the principle of authority or according to the principle of liberty. Authority is a static social configuration in which people act as superiors and inferiors: a sado- masochistic relationship. Liberty is a dynamic social configuration in which people act as equals: an erotic relationship. In every interaction between people, either Authority or Liberty is the dominant factor. Families, churches, lodges, clubs and corporations are either more authoritarian than libertarian or more libertarian than authoritarian. It becomes obvious as we proceed that the most pugnacious and intolerant form of authority is the State, which even today dares to assume absolutism which the church itself has long ago surrendered and to enforce obedience with the Church's old and shameful Inquisition. Every form of authoritarianism is, however, a small "State," even if it has a membership of only two. Freud's remark to the effect that the delusion of many men is religion can be generalized: The authoritarianism of one man is crime and the authoritarianism of many is State.
If authority implies submission, liberation implies equality; authority exist when one person obeys another, and liberty exists when people do not obey other people. Thus, to say that authority exists is to say that class and caste exist, that submission and inequality exist. To say the liberty exists is to that classlessness exists, to say that brotherhood and equality exist.
Authority, by dividing people into classes, creates dichotomy, disruption, hostility, fear, disunion. Liberty, by placing people on an equal footing, creates association, amalgamation, union, security. When the relationships between people are based on authority and coercion, they are driven apart; when based on liberty and non-aggression, they are drawn together. The facts are self-evident and axiomatic. If authoritarianism did not possess the in-built, preprogrammed double-bind structure of a Game Without End, people would long ago have rejected it and embraced libertarianism. The usual pacifist complaint about war, that young men are led to death by old men who sit at home manning beaurocrats' desks and taking no risks themselves, misses the point entirely.
(Demands that the old should be drafted to fight their own wars, or that the leaders of the warring nations should be sent to the front lines on the first day of battle, etc., are aimed at an assumed "sense of justice" that simply does not exist. To the typical submissive citizen of authoritarian society, it is normal, obvious and "natural" that he/she should obey older and more dominant males, even at the risk of their life, even against their own kindred, and even in causes that are unjust or absurd.)
Wilson was once asked if he thought Western Civilization would survive - this was his answer:
"Yes. It will be increasingly like a libertarian, pagan, psionic, science fiction novel, probably by me..."
*grin* Just like a libertarian!!!
My apologies if this might take your thread onto a side track. But what I consider Libertarianism and what others on this board who call themselves Libertarians believe are probably very different things altogether.
gleam
Really Really Experienced
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2001
- Posts
- 373
lavender said:
I'm a little curious as to what it is about Ayn Rand's and Leonard Peikoff's specific "brand" of libertarianism that you don't like, as opposed to other "brands" or libertarianism?
I'm no expert here, or even particularly knowledgeable about these things, but I'm under the impression that libertarians are remarkably homogenous when it comes down to the essentials...
Dillinger
Guerrilla Ontologist
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2000
- Posts
- 26,152
I believe in Libertarianism as I described - not as a political philosophy endorsed by any party. Many of the posters on the board who espouse what they call Libertarian philosophy are really wearing a conservative mask... nothing more.
The Libertarian Party is as corrupt and full of shit as the Republican and Democratic parties.
The Libertarian Party is as corrupt and full of shit as the Republican and Democratic parties.
G
Guest
Guest
Nah -
As Lavy and Dilly are saying, a lot of Libertarianism is a fetishistic reading of the rights of corporations, which are individuals under the law. I support any state power mainly as a counterbalance to corporate power, which if unchecked, will devour us all as horrifically as any state would. We should all suspect ANY institutions, anywhere, at any time, and keep them on their figurative toes. Technology and bureaucracy are so powerful now that it wouldn't take much to engulf many of our rights in a few blinks.
But contemporary conservative Libertarians tend to focus wholly on attacking state power, which leads to problems such as those Lavy posited above with Judge Rand's "view" of MegaCorp's right to work children to death. Our lives wouldn't be worth living without a democratically-based sphere (government) in which to contest corporate power. Can companies really be allowed to dump toxins in our rivers and skies whenever they want? I imagine come on this board would say yes.
And yet the government is indeed a dangerous entity and must be viewed skeptically. We can all imagine an EPA malfunctioning for reasons of corruption, patronage, incompetence, faulty science, etc., and so our EPA must move deliberately, defensively, coherently.
PS - Barry Goldwater opposed the Civil Rights Act back in 1964 because he opposed companies being forced not to discriminate. Goldwater's checkered career on the Right (supporting No-Knock raid laws under Nixon, Reagan's Contras) illustrates some of the problems inherent in trying to be a conservative and a libertarian. Souter is an interesting case of a budding liberal-libertarian on the Supreme Court, as he comes from a law-enforcement past in a conservative state, but his evolving positions tend to be suspicious both of government and corporations. I like this guy - old Bush's best accident.
As Lavy and Dilly are saying, a lot of Libertarianism is a fetishistic reading of the rights of corporations, which are individuals under the law. I support any state power mainly as a counterbalance to corporate power, which if unchecked, will devour us all as horrifically as any state would. We should all suspect ANY institutions, anywhere, at any time, and keep them on their figurative toes. Technology and bureaucracy are so powerful now that it wouldn't take much to engulf many of our rights in a few blinks.
But contemporary conservative Libertarians tend to focus wholly on attacking state power, which leads to problems such as those Lavy posited above with Judge Rand's "view" of MegaCorp's right to work children to death. Our lives wouldn't be worth living without a democratically-based sphere (government) in which to contest corporate power. Can companies really be allowed to dump toxins in our rivers and skies whenever they want? I imagine come on this board would say yes.
And yet the government is indeed a dangerous entity and must be viewed skeptically. We can all imagine an EPA malfunctioning for reasons of corruption, patronage, incompetence, faulty science, etc., and so our EPA must move deliberately, defensively, coherently.
PS - Barry Goldwater opposed the Civil Rights Act back in 1964 because he opposed companies being forced not to discriminate. Goldwater's checkered career on the Right (supporting No-Knock raid laws under Nixon, Reagan's Contras) illustrates some of the problems inherent in trying to be a conservative and a libertarian. Souter is an interesting case of a budding liberal-libertarian on the Supreme Court, as he comes from a law-enforcement past in a conservative state, but his evolving positions tend to be suspicious both of government and corporations. I like this guy - old Bush's best accident.
shadowsource
A Flash In The Pain
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2001
- Posts
- 1,664
That troll was me -
Timed out again, chewing over Goldwater's weird career. And feeling weird about my av in this discussion....
Timed out again, chewing over Goldwater's weird career. And feeling weird about my av in this discussion....
gleam
Really Really Experienced
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2001
- Posts
- 373
lavender said:
Well I suppose that libertarians differ in what they regard as the basis of their convictions, and in the psychological roots of their beliefs. Yes, I'm sure that there are some libertarians who are against anti-discrimination laws because, deep down inside, they really are racist. But, if they are true libertarians, they would never actively work against voluntary cooperation between races - they wouldn't do it, if they still wanted to be libertarian.
The thing is, as far as I can see, libertarians are all fairly homogenous when it comes down to the *legal issues*. Ayn Rand may have abhored collectivism and adored the concept of private property, but I don't she would have attacked the *right* of a person to join, say, a monestary, where there is no private property at all, and each person's rights are secondary to what the head monk considers the good of the group.
So, I'm still a little confused. What is it about Ayn Rands specific "brand" of libertarianism you don't like? If it's the end result, the beleifs about what should and shouldn't be legal, that you disagree with, then you're not just disgreeing with Ayn Rand; you're disagreeing with the vast majority of liberatrians as well.
But the distiction has to be made. A liberatarian's personal convictions (aside from those that deal with what actions should and shouldn't be legal/constitutional) are not what make him/her a libertarian.
Well.....yes. This is unavoidable, I think. Libertarians don't believe in the initiation of force. They do indeed believe in using force to stop someone who has initiated it's use. "Initiation of force" is indeed something that is improper accoring to the libertarian ideology.
But I don't think libertarians are the only ones to make the distinction between "those who start it" and "those who retaliate". In fact, I don't think one would get very far in *any* moral theory if one didn't make this distiction.
I mean, are police officers guilty of "kidnapping" when they apprehend a thief or murderer against his will? Are thiefs and murderers merely excercising their right to self-defense if they open fire on cops who are trying to aprehend them? If you answered "no" to those question, then you are making a distiction between the "initiators" and the "retaliators".
Dhalgren
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2001
- Posts
- 738
stepping in rather carefully...
Robert Anton Wilson being a member of the OTO as well as a follower of Crowley's beliefs ...feels that authority lives within the individual..
You might as well be what you are regarding your own free will.
Rand's concepts seem to have the more the idea of a "super ego"
That is more belonging to the masses...outside the individual.
Robert Anton Wilson being a member of the OTO as well as a follower of Crowley's beliefs ...feels that authority lives within the individual..
You might as well be what you are regarding your own free will.
Rand's concepts seem to have the more the idea of a "super ego"
That is more belonging to the masses...outside the individual.
Last edited:
Thumper
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2000
- Posts
- 4,184
A little deep for me...
After reading many posts from the resident Libertarians I find it odd that they are so suspicious of the Central government and yet so trusting of the business community. They continually espouse the notion that there is a conspiracy afoot to take away our precious rights.
I just want to know who is supposedly behind this alleged dark campaign. Someone has to be pushing it. A personality cult? Who is pulling the strings. It would have to be someone above the everchanging (Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond excluded) face of Washington.
There is no guaranteed tenure in the political field. You may be in the loop and all powerful one moment and a has been the next morning. e.g. Newt.
At the same time that they are saying we are being sold down the river by the politicos they are almost reverent in their worship of the businessman. Politicians are out to screw you but the businessman is pure and sin free. A businessman will just as surely screw you as a politician, and he is usually immune to any effort to stop him. We don't vote on the Chairmen of the Boards.
Our government, despite what Bill has said, is of the people, by the people and for the people. For the most part anyway. Most of them do run for office because they think they have a better idea and want to do what is right. The people working there are just like you and I. They have families and dreams and ideas. Money soon corrupts that though. One thing you will never see anymore is a poor man in Congress.
The absolute freedom the Libertarians long for may have been possible two hundred years ago. A man's ability to fuck things up was limited to pretty much his own little patch of land.
It is very different today. A greedy and unscrupulous landowner could open his own little toxic waste dump on his property and totally wreck the environment (and his neighbors properties) for hundreds of miles around. Ever heard of Dioxin? Remeber Valujet? They cut corners and wrecked a plane to save a few bucks. Without the FAA (read:the people) looking over their shoulders, how many other airlines would gut their safety and maintenence programs or overwork the pilots?
What about the DOT and the NTSB...you really want to let the trucking companies have Carte Blanche on what they deem as safe. Most companies still skirt the rules. Think about that the next time you look in the rear view mirror and see nothing but a Freightliner bumper. Without the regulations they could work that driver to death. It is cheaper to payoff the deceased's family than to hire more drivers and take care of the equipment.
I could go on and on. Yes the bureaucracy is at times fucked up but the intent is good. I am not so sure about the business community.
It all boils down to who(m) do you trust. The politician that is at a certain level answerable to the voter and probably is well intentioned, or the CEOs and board members who only care about the profit margin.
The Libertarians are the right wing equivalent of the left's Green party. Vocal but insignificant. (that oughta rile'em up)
After reading many posts from the resident Libertarians I find it odd that they are so suspicious of the Central government and yet so trusting of the business community. They continually espouse the notion that there is a conspiracy afoot to take away our precious rights.
I just want to know who is supposedly behind this alleged dark campaign. Someone has to be pushing it. A personality cult? Who is pulling the strings. It would have to be someone above the everchanging (Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond excluded) face of Washington.
There is no guaranteed tenure in the political field. You may be in the loop and all powerful one moment and a has been the next morning. e.g. Newt.
At the same time that they are saying we are being sold down the river by the politicos they are almost reverent in their worship of the businessman. Politicians are out to screw you but the businessman is pure and sin free. A businessman will just as surely screw you as a politician, and he is usually immune to any effort to stop him. We don't vote on the Chairmen of the Boards.
Our government, despite what Bill has said, is of the people, by the people and for the people. For the most part anyway. Most of them do run for office because they think they have a better idea and want to do what is right. The people working there are just like you and I. They have families and dreams and ideas. Money soon corrupts that though. One thing you will never see anymore is a poor man in Congress.
The absolute freedom the Libertarians long for may have been possible two hundred years ago. A man's ability to fuck things up was limited to pretty much his own little patch of land.
It is very different today. A greedy and unscrupulous landowner could open his own little toxic waste dump on his property and totally wreck the environment (and his neighbors properties) for hundreds of miles around. Ever heard of Dioxin? Remeber Valujet? They cut corners and wrecked a plane to save a few bucks. Without the FAA (read:the people) looking over their shoulders, how many other airlines would gut their safety and maintenence programs or overwork the pilots?
What about the DOT and the NTSB...you really want to let the trucking companies have Carte Blanche on what they deem as safe. Most companies still skirt the rules. Think about that the next time you look in the rear view mirror and see nothing but a Freightliner bumper. Without the regulations they could work that driver to death. It is cheaper to payoff the deceased's family than to hire more drivers and take care of the equipment.
I could go on and on. Yes the bureaucracy is at times fucked up but the intent is good. I am not so sure about the business community.
It all boils down to who(m) do you trust. The politician that is at a certain level answerable to the voter and probably is well intentioned, or the CEOs and board members who only care about the profit margin.
The Libertarians are the right wing equivalent of the left's Green party. Vocal but insignificant. (that oughta rile'em up)
gleam
Really Really Experienced
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2001
- Posts
- 373
Re: A little deep for me...
Some, maybe even most, libertarians are trusting of today's business community, but that trust is not a fundamental feature of libertarianism (though you might get that impression if all you ever read is Ayn Rand). For instance, many libertarians don't agree with the business tactics of Bill Gates (and many, many business people like him), though they fight against the DOJ's antitrust case because they don't question his right to practice those tactics.
Thumper said:
Some, maybe even most, libertarians are trusting of today's business community, but that trust is not a fundamental feature of libertarianism (though you might get that impression if all you ever read is Ayn Rand). For instance, many libertarians don't agree with the business tactics of Bill Gates (and many, many business people like him), though they fight against the DOJ's antitrust case because they don't question his right to practice those tactics.
Thumper
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2000
- Posts
- 4,184
Addendum
I actually believe that regulation by the government is good for business. It allows the responsible, "good citizen" business entity to function without the threat of being undercut by an unscrupulous one. The good company spends money to operate ethically and the bad one cuts corners and sells for less. The good company will eventually fail. In essence what Lavender said regarding the oil wells.
Government regulation only came about as a response to corporate misdeeds. The EPA is a direct result of the rampant dumping of wastes and toxins in the environment. Before that occured there was no reason for such a body to exist. Superfund was created to clean up the mess left by companies that long ago abandoned their responsibility.
True power rest with the monied and this is increasingly being concentrated into a very small group of individuals. Why should we trust them anymore than a politician? The politician is a puppet to the money crowd. But he/she still needs the votes so the power they wield is limited.
Now....where can I get laid?
I actually believe that regulation by the government is good for business. It allows the responsible, "good citizen" business entity to function without the threat of being undercut by an unscrupulous one. The good company spends money to operate ethically and the bad one cuts corners and sells for less. The good company will eventually fail. In essence what Lavender said regarding the oil wells.
Government regulation only came about as a response to corporate misdeeds. The EPA is a direct result of the rampant dumping of wastes and toxins in the environment. Before that occured there was no reason for such a body to exist. Superfund was created to clean up the mess left by companies that long ago abandoned their responsibility.
True power rest with the monied and this is increasingly being concentrated into a very small group of individuals. Why should we trust them anymore than a politician? The politician is a puppet to the money crowd. But he/she still needs the votes so the power they wield is limited.
Now....where can I get laid?
M
miles
Guest
At he beginning of your post you said Liberterians might find the stuff you quoted interesting. The only thing I found interesting was trying to figure out how someone was fooled into believing the author had some knowledge of the subject. When I read the part about individual rights was really about big business, I couldn't finish reading the thread.
Earlier this week you and I had a discussion about individual rights. I cited the seizures of personal property by the government in the name of "zero tolerance" drug enforcement as one example of the feds taking away our freedom. To see someone write that Libertarians' view of individual rights is a smokescreen for big business is patently absurd. The author is either misinformed or not telling the truth. Either way he/she has absolutely no credibility.
While I enjoy debating politics with anyone/anytime, you can't reasonably expect someone to defend a statement like that when it isn't the truth. If I quoted an article which said one of the goals of Liberalism was to decriminalize rape, what would the response be? Probably no response, because you can't prove a negative.
Someone is probably thinking I won't respond because all that stuff is true. The fact is, I won't respond because I know it isn't the truth, and not worth discussing.
Earlier this week you and I had a discussion about individual rights. I cited the seizures of personal property by the government in the name of "zero tolerance" drug enforcement as one example of the feds taking away our freedom. To see someone write that Libertarians' view of individual rights is a smokescreen for big business is patently absurd. The author is either misinformed or not telling the truth. Either way he/she has absolutely no credibility.
While I enjoy debating politics with anyone/anytime, you can't reasonably expect someone to defend a statement like that when it isn't the truth. If I quoted an article which said one of the goals of Liberalism was to decriminalize rape, what would the response be? Probably no response, because you can't prove a negative.
Someone is probably thinking I won't respond because all that stuff is true. The fact is, I won't respond because I know it isn't the truth, and not worth discussing.
M
miles
Guest
Above post
Post subject should have been : Lavender.
Post subject should have been : Lavender.
shadowsource
A Flash In The Pain
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2001
- Posts
- 1,664
Go, Lavy -
The Right Libertarians would have it that government is always more dangerous than business entities. Don't some of the R-L board posters support "tort reform?" I see this curtailment of ligitation rights as another mode of protecting business from individuals, one crafted to appeal to the public by purporting to attack the unpopular legal profession. C'mon Miles, you can at least answer this one: What's your view of "tort reform, as pressed by the GOP?
The Right Libertarians would have it that government is always more dangerous than business entities. Don't some of the R-L board posters support "tort reform?" I see this curtailment of ligitation rights as another mode of protecting business from individuals, one crafted to appeal to the public by purporting to attack the unpopular legal profession. C'mon Miles, you can at least answer this one: What's your view of "tort reform, as pressed by the GOP?
Dhalgren
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2001
- Posts
- 738
as Todd Rundgren put it....
Swing to the right
Try to face the fact that I ain't that young no more
Hair's short again and a suit is in,
Better brush up on how to tie a Windsor knot
Swing to the right
Credit's hard to find and a dollar doesn't go so far
What's more important when the count comes in
A sell-out who's alive or a corpse that can't be bought?
Swing to the Left
Stop the hand of time
Think I see a sign
Tables turning 'round
Hear a different sound
Stop the hands of time
Looking out for mine
Swing to the right
Don't want to hear what the povertous expect from me
Let 'em eat cake if they feel that way
I gotta work why should I have to pay for that?
And I don't want to be left holding the bag for them
'Scuze me for living but I have to say,
I've got some worries of my own, like staying fat
Swing to the right
Try to face the fact that I ain't that young no more
Hair's short again and a suit is in,
Better brush up on how to tie a Windsor knot
Swing to the right
Credit's hard to find and a dollar doesn't go so far
What's more important when the count comes in
A sell-out who's alive or a corpse that can't be bought?
Swing to the Left
Stop the hand of time
Think I see a sign
Tables turning 'round
Hear a different sound
Stop the hands of time
Looking out for mine
Swing to the right
Don't want to hear what the povertous expect from me
Let 'em eat cake if they feel that way
I gotta work why should I have to pay for that?
And I don't want to be left holding the bag for them
'Scuze me for living but I have to say,
I've got some worries of my own, like staying fat
Again you're dealing in misinformation, the political propaganda of the collectivist ideology. The abuses which government regulation were established to correct arose out of coercive monopolies established by government to achieve various political goals.
The coercive monopolies created by government in the case of the transcontinental railroad is the perfect example. Dig into your history and review the abuses there and then compare them with a private venture called the Pacific North West RR. The latter, being a purely capitalist venture had none of the abuses or problems as did the government sponsored and financed transcontinental railroad.
But when the politicos decide to get their fingers in the pie, they took over everyone, not just took measures to repair what they fucked up. This is the overseer authority you so admire and praise, this totalitarian authority to manage everything. Despite the demonstrated ability of government to mismanage virtually everything it's taken over and the fact that it provides the poorest service at the highest cost, you still want to run to the thugs who have one thing on their side, force.
While litigation can provide the means to achieve justice in the civil sense, the civil suit business has become the litigation lottery practiced by a lot of the bottom feeders of the legal profession and permitted by judges who are either incompetent to judge or are afraid to make reasoned decisions and throw out frivolous lawsuits.
As an example, the recent debacle over silicone breast implants cost Dow-Corning (if I remember correctly the company), billions in payments based on nothing more than hysteria and trial by the press. The scientific evidence showed that women with and without the silicone implants had virtually the same degree of the systemic problems. In fact, those with the implants actually showed a slightly but noteworthy LOWER incidence of the condition.
And the tort reform I would support is allowing the defendant to recover costs incurred for defense if the plaintiff loses the case. This would only discourage those cases which fit the litigation lottery class of suits, like the idiot who severs a finger or two trying to stop a chain saw blade with his hand! That's just Darwin at work.
