OK, so then you seem to have a bizarre definition of libertarian. The central ideas of libertarianism are self-ownership, property rights through homesteading and voluntary exchange and non-aggression (only the use of defensive, non-initiatory violence is legally justifiable).
You said in the OP: "We are NOT born Libertarian. We are born human, and as humans, we are tribalistic, violent, and collective thinking [desiring to be part of a group]."
Implied in this are that libertarians are one or all of:
The first point is I think rhetorical excess on your part. The second and fourth points are, it seems to me, different ways of saying the same thing. So, you are asserting two things as I see it: libertarians are pacifist and rugged individualistic. However, if you look at the central ideas I spelled out above, you will see that neither pacifism nor rugged individualism figure anywhere there. That's not an oversight. Some libertarians are pacifistic (e.g. Roderick Long). Some are rugged individualists (e.g. Henry David Thoreau).
I'll agree with you that these libertarians are mistaken in their pacifism and rugged individualism. But what all libertarians have in common are the attributes I gave in the first paragraph. If you're going to claim that humans are not born libertarian, please use the actual definition of libertarian.
Clayton -
TronCat/MissMapleLeaf:'Collective thinking' was a stupid way to put it, I simply meant that people desire to be part of a group, or a tribe of some sort.
Only one group?
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
When I say that humans are not born libertarian, I mean to say the 'Libertarian' ideas as we understand them (which is completely understandable for a newborn human). Unless you're saying that libertarianism is the most honest expression of humanity?
Also, I don't think humans are born to follow the NAP, but then again, not all libertarians necessarily follow that or agree with it.
This wan't necessarily about tribalism, it was to debunk two things: 1. We are born Libertarians 2. That socio-political direction of America (or any country for that matter) is driven by an 'elite'
1. We are born Libertarians
2. That socio-political direction of America (or any country for that matter) is driven by an 'elite'
I don't get the relevance of 2, if I'm not mistaken Clayton didn't say anything of that sort. As for 1, our "group" now (i.e. the state) is certainly anti-libertarian, but groups in themselves are not necessarily anti-libertarian.
Clayton admitted that he's into that conspiracy stuff.
I agree that there are 'powers' that manipulate the process, but they're just working with the culture, and that culture is emergent and cyclical (this shit has happened before).
there are 'powers' that manipulate the process,
But that's the whole point. Those in power want to make it out like their position is somehow natural or not the result of their own avarice and ambition. The country just rose up and demanded Barack Obama as President in 2008! How silly. Those in power got there as the result of climbing over the heads of their peers - by any means necessary - to reach the top. They are not the lucky beneficiaries of "emergent" and uncontrolled public sentiment.
It is true that the masses will always run after some leader or other and that is why we have some leader. But it doesn't follow that the particular leader can wipe his hands clean of all the dirty business he engaged in to get to the top on this basis. "Someone had to lead" Yeah, but it didn't have to be you, so shut up unless you're going to be honest enough admit that you're a despicable human being devoid of moral compunction who clawed his way to the top over a pile of broken lives and probably even some dead bodies.
They are not the lucky beneficiaries of "emergent" and uncontrolled public sentiment.
They aren't 'lucky', they just took advantage.
That was the point of his whole post.....I can't tell if you are trolling.
Clayton was assuming that I think they got 'lucky' because the culture is emergent. That's not what I think.
Where did he assume that?
Anyway, TronCat, as long as we are on the subject of you trolling, is there any particular reason you decided to create the troll account MissMapleLeaf?
What the hell are you talking about? I don't know what that account is.
It's interesting that I got a response out of you for that comment, but not when I asked you to point out where Clayton assumed whatever it is you claimed he assumed.
Anyway, for those that are interested, here is the damning evidence that TronCat decided to troll us under the account MissMapleLeaf.
It's quite obvious that Clayton assumed that, considering our discussion in this entire thread thus far.
As for that 'damning evidence', it's quite obvious that someone in here hacked into my account to frame me.
Really, and just how is that "quite obvious"?
You are a troll. Please quote the section where Clayton assumed it. No one hacked your account. You are a troll.
Ask Clayton whether or not he did, it doesn't matter anyway.
Why should I ask him if it doesn't matter?
Then don't.
A troll! A troll! Burn him at the stake!
Hahaaa, TronCat dun goof'd!