Now, Marx says all ideologies are false and then promotes marxism. However, marxism is an ideology just like every other ideology. I think that the best way to understand politics is from your own views. Not some subscribed plethora of views attached to some string.
Let me explain my view. I at first really liked the socialism ideology and then recognized it was too utopianish. Then I kind of thought about letting the government regulate lots of things. I became a conservative. Then I became a liberal. When I was a liberal I was fiercly Democratic and I admired the Democratic party and its views. Then, when all these liberals got in power it's lke they had forgotten why they were in there. I realized that I became a pawn of the Democratic party. So I gave up my party affiliation and became an independent. Then for a tme I became invested in libertarian thought but I recognized that THIS TOO is a utopian ideology. It has shaped my thinking on why privitzation is a good thing, but, it fails to explain many things. And a libertarian ideology would be terrible for mentally disabled people, or, poor people for that matter. Not that we should give people lots of welfare... but the libertarian ideology puts the fault completely on the individuals... while I disagree on what extent the individuals can be blamed. However, the only true way to see and understand political thinking is not through the colored lense of any ideology but with your own individual critical thinking. Who else shares my sentiment? It's not rich or poor, Republican or Democrat... it's YOU.
SilentXtarian: ... Then for a tme I became invested in libertarian thought but I recognized that THIS TOO is a utopian ideology.
How/why is it utopian? Please explain/expand.
SilentXtarian:And a libertarian ideology would be terrible for mentally disabled people, or, poor people for that matter.
So why did people starve to death under communist China, communist Russia, and so on?
SilentXtarian: Not that we should give people lots of welfare... but the libertarian ideology puts the fault completely on the individuals...
What fault?
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
I think it's utopianish, because, well depending on the kind of libertarian philosophy you stumble upon it puts too much faith in the individual. I am all for limited government... but the libertarian ideology is at some parts-- like with the unions-- really fails to miss the points and puts too much faith in businessmen and the individuals... now I'm all for free business and no regulations... and the like... but not for the reasons that libertarian ideologies says.
Their governments did that to them. But, if I understand correctly the libertarian ideology would not allow for any government faciliation of the poor. I think there should be SOME faciliation of them, but, there should be more emphasis on getting them back to work rather than welfare... and it should be as limited as possible. If that doesn't work then the libertarian ideology might work. I also don't know how the ideas of privately owned streets would work...
In the book I read the guy placed all the blame on the fault of the person for their situation. I think that's just a bit harsh of a view.
Also, don't you see what I'm saying? A true individualist mindset would be to see things from your own critical thinking analysis. Every ideology has its good and bad parts and EVERY ideology if it was just that ideology would be too utopianish.
SilentXtarian:I at first really liked the socialism ideology and then recognized it was too utopianish. Then I kind of thought about letting the government regulate lots of things. I became a conservative. Then I became a liberal. When I was a liberal I was fiercly Democratic and I admired the Democratic party and its views. Then, when all these liberals got in power it's lke they had forgotten why they were in there. I realized that I became a pawn of the Democratic party. So I gave up my party affiliation and became an independent. Then for a tme I became invested in libertarian thought but I recognized that THIS TOO is a utopian ideology.
Sounds to me like you are someone attracted to doctrine.
SilentXtarian:It has shaped my thinking on why privitzation is a good thing, but, it fails to explain many things.
Such as? This is why we are here. To look for answers and share knowledge.
This statements means that you don't understand libertarianism. Which means your previous pronouncement about it being utopian seems uninformed.
SilentXtarian:Not that we should give people lots of welfare... but the libertarian ideology puts the fault completely on the individuals... while I disagree on what extent the individuals can be blamed.
Libertarianism isn't about guilt. You're still thinking like a socialist.
SilentXtarian: However, the only true way to see and understand political thinking is not through the colored lense of any ideology but with your own individual critical thinking.
Politics is about murder and theft. Move beyond politics if you want to look for answers. You won't find justice, peace or progress by pointing a gun at people.
SilentXtarian:Who else shares my sentiment?
I don't share any of your sentiments, except the last one. It is about you. And you could really improve your understanding of libertarianism, because you seem to have a lot of ideas about it which are not correct.
SilentXtarian: How/why is it utopian? Please explain/expand. I think it's utopianish, because, well depending on the kind of libertarian philosophy you stumble upon it puts too much faith in the individual. I am all for limited government... but the libertarian ideology is at some parts-- like with the unions-- really fails to miss the points and puts too much faith in businessmen and the individuals... now I'm all for free business and no regulations... and the like... but not for the reasons that libertarian ideologies says. So why did people starve to death under communist China, communist Russia, and so on? Their governments did that to them. But, if I understand correctly the libertarian ideology would not allow for any government faciliation of the poor. I think there should be SOME faciliation of them, but, there should be more emphasis on getting them back to work rather than welfare... and it should be as limited as possible. If that doesn't work then the libertarian ideology might work. I also don't know how the ideas of privately owned streets would work... What fault? In the book I read the guy placed all the blame on the fault of the person for their situation. I think that's just a bit harsh of a view. Also, don't you see what I'm saying? A true individualist mindset would be to see things from your own critical thinking analysis. Every ideology has its good and bad parts and EVERY ideology if it was just that ideology would be too utopianish.
I'm just going comment by comment of yours:
1 - Too much faith on the individual? Wow, that leaves the door open for mind-control. You're generalizing way too much.
2 - You want people not to depend on welfare from a charity and so you want them back to work as soon as humanely as possible. Then you're free to start up a charity that does this.
3 - It's a harsh view. So as an individual think of another view.
4 - So your answer is individuals shouldn't be able to "critical(ly) think" ?
SilentXtarian:I think it's utopianish, because, well depending on the kind of libertarian philosophy you stumble upon it puts too much faith in the individual.
So you don't trust people by themselves, but you trust them in groups?
SilentXtarian:I am all for limited government... but the libertarian ideology is at some parts-- like with the unions-- really fails to miss the points and puts too much faith in businessmen and the individuals... now I'm all for free business and no regulations... and the like... but not for the reasons that libertarian ideologies says.
What part about unions? What are your reasons for being for free business and no regulations? How does this differ from the libertarian ideology?
SilentXtarian:But, if I understand correctly the libertarian ideology would not allow for any government faciliation of the poor.
This is false. Libertarianism promotes the poor becoming rich. It promotes justice, peace and private property rights. Free markets encourage trade, not hoarding. They encourage interaction, not seclusion. They encourage profit, not welfare.
SilentXtarian:I also don't know how the ideas of privately owned streets would work...
The same way privately owned movie theaters work. Or privately owned shools. Or privately owned security companies. Or privately owned airlines. Or privately owned electric companies.
SilentXtarian:In the book I read the guy placed all the blame on the fault of the person for their situation. I think that's just a bit harsh of a view.
What book?
SilentXtarian:Also, don't you see what I'm saying? A true individualist mindset would be to see things from your own critical thinking analysis. Every ideology has its good and bad parts and EVERY ideology if it was just that ideology would be too utopianish.
Sounds like you are using doublethink or bad examples as an excuse to dismiss drilling down to truth.
Okay... let me ask a few questions.
Is there any room for unions in a libertarian society?
What kinds of protests would be allowed in a libertarian society?
In a minarchist state what kind of government functions would be allowed?
You see, I don't really understand how the libertarian thought would deal with these kinds of problems. I don't really want to get away with the government altogether because I like our country's principle, I like what America stands for, and I don't want us to go away... but I just wonder how libertarian thought would allow for it. That's why I think it's idealist... I just don't know how we could do away with some things. I'm not a statist. I just love the idea of our country... I'm a believer in our constitution and yeah... I think I've said enough on this subject.
SilentXtarian:I think it's utopianish, because, well depending on the kind of libertarian philosophy you stumble upon it puts too much faith in the individual. I am all for limited government... but the libertarian ideology is at some parts-- like with the unions-- really fails to miss the points and puts too much faith in businessmen and the individuals... now I'm all for free business and no regulations... and the like... but not for the reasons that libertarian ideologies says.
So you don't think an employee and an employee should be able to negotiate a contract without the coercive intervention of government? What points is libertairanism missing? This is where I want you to expand.
SilentXtarian:Their governments did that to them. But, if I understand correctly the libertarian ideology would not allow for any government faciliation of the poor. I think there should be SOME faciliation of them, but, there should be more emphasis on getting them back to work rather than welfare... and it should be as limited as possible. If that doesn't work then the libertarian ideology might work. I also don't know how the ideas of privately owned streets would work...
Are you implying that the free market wouldn't provide charity? Did you know that millions of people donate to the Goodwill, Toys for Tots, and other such organizations? Did you know that churches provided health services and other services to the poor that were financed through charity? Did you know that it was the Church that started Harvard College? Did you know that the best expressways and freeways and roads in China are those built and maintained and owned privately?
What book is this?
Every ideology has its good and bad parts and EVERY ideology if it was just that ideology would be too utopianish.
The free market doesn't promise that no crime will occur, that no one go bankrupt, that no one will die. To think so would be utopian.
SilentXtarian: Okay... let me ask a few questions. Is there any room for unions in a libertarian society? What kinds of protests would be allowed in a libertarian society? In a minarchist state what kind of government functions would be allowed? You see, I don't really understand how the libertarian thought would deal with these kinds of problems. I don't really want to get away with the government altogether because I like our country's principle, I like what America stands for, and I don't want us to go away... but I just wonder how libertarian thought would allow for it. That's why I think it's idealist... I just don't know how we could do away with some things. I'm not a statist. I just love the idea of our country... I'm a believer in our constitution and yeah... I think I've said enough on this subject.
I guess I'll read this post, but I think it only intellectually proper for you to address your first comments and our responses to them. For you to jump around like this shows lack of attention and so how can I discuss with somebody that is drifting off to sleep. Other's can do what they please, obviously, but I'm not playing this game.
Thank you for clarifying some of my concerns with the libertarian ideology.
Look, I read a book called The Libertarian Manifesto and I was really turned off by the libertarian ideology...
I apologize if I seemed just like a disgruntal former libertarian from this thread... I'll have to do more research on the thought before I make more comments about it in the future.
Thanks for the answers.
I'm curious as to where this middle of the road thinking came from. "the truth must be somewhere in the middle of two extremes". It seems to be a rejection of systematic, logical thinking.
“Elections are Futures Markets in Stolen Property.” - H. L. Mencken
SilentXtarian:Is there any room for unions in a libertarian society?
Yes. But not the kind we have today in the US where the government-backed unions have the power to coerce the businesses.
SilentXtarian:What kinds of protests would be allowed in a libertarian society?
Depends on the agreement. You have to understand that not all lands will have the same rules. In other words, there won't be one universal set of rules. The same way DisneyWorld has different rules than SeaWorld.
Doesn't apply to libertarianism.
There could be a country (notice I say country, not state nor nation) that is modeled after the US.
Well, I'm not a modeate...but I'll answer that to the best of my ability. It's the idea that being on either extreme is a rejection of systematic, logical thinking, so being in the middle they say would be better than the other two extremes.
You mean voluntary association? It's what the free market depends on!
Against what? Where? Do you want to use violence? Better yet, against whom?
SilentXtarian:In a minarchist state what kind of government functions would be allowed?
I'm not a minarchist. Minarchy is still statism.
SilentXtarian:You see, I don't really understand how the libertarian thought would deal with these kinds of problems.
Again, that's why we have a discussion forum.
SilentXtarian: I don't really want to get away with the government altogether because I like our country's principle, I like what America stands for, and I don't want us to go away... but I just wonder how libertarian thought would allow for it.
Allow for what? What does America stand for?
SilentXtarian:That's why I think it's idealist... I just don't know how we could do away with some things.
But why are you worried about that? Do you know how your corn flakes are made and delivered to your bowl? Do you know the process your crap undergoes when you flush the toilet? Do you know how to manufacture aspirin?
Sounds to me like you're trying to find any excuse to reject libertarianism.
SilentXtarian:I'm not a statist.
Sure you are. You think government is good and necessary. You can't have it both ways. You can plead the case for nationalism and government, then claim not to be a statist.
SilentXtarian:I just love the idea of our country...
But do you love what your country actually is? Sounds to me like you're the utopian.
Sorry if I come off hard, but you're posting a bunch of contradictions and strawmen, then claiming libertarianism is things it is not. You sound like a really confused person. I'd like to help you find some answers, but you'll have to be honest with yourself about the questions.
SilentXtarian: It's the idea that being on either extreme is a rejection of systematic, logical thinking, so being in the middle they say would be better than the other two extremes.
Which is the basis of doublethink. Do not believe anything as absolutely true. Moderation (believing nothing for sure) is the key to being knowledgeable. It's completely counter intuitive.
A = A. If you think you're being open minded by allowing that A =A, A = B, A = C etc, that's double think.
SilentXtarian:It's the idea that being on either extreme is a rejection of systematic, logical thinking, so being in the middle they say would be better than the other two extremes.
ha, so the intermeditate between justice and evil is superior to justice, and that between truth and falsehood superior to falsehood. etc etc.
in other words, the 'moderation ideology' is a big fail of an ideology
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
liberty student: SilentXtarian: ...I like what America stands for, and I don't want us to go away... What does America stand for?
SilentXtarian: ...I like what America stands for, and I don't want us to go away...
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
SilentXtarian: Well, I'm not a modeate...but I'll answer that to the best of my ability. It's the idea that being on either extreme is a rejection of systematic, logical thinking, so being in the middle they say would be better than the other two extremes.
See that's it. You are still stuck in the false left / right wing paradigm like many others.
left wing = communism / marxism = international socialism
right wing = fascism / nazism = national socialism
Literally 5 letters of difference. You are NOT in the middle of those two. Well you shouldn't be. It is a false dichotomy erected and propagated by the State and media talking heads to keep us all in their little box. Reject it.
The true paradigm is individualism vs collectivism.
So you're either Forwards towards Freedom (Individualism) or backwards towards Tyranny. (Collectivism)
And until Libertarians and everyone else realise this - we ain't going anywhere.
See that's it. You are still stuck in the false left / right wing paradigm like many others. left wing = communism / marxism = international socialism right wing = fascism / nazism = national socialism Literally 5 letters of difference. You are NOT in the middle of those two. Well you shouldn't be. It is a false dichotomy erected and propagated by the State and media talking heads to keep us all in their little box. Reject it. The true paradigm is individualism vs collectivism. So you're either Forwards towards Freedom (Individualism) or backwards towards Tyranny. (Collectivism) And until Libertarians and everyone else realise this - we ain't going anywhere.
First of all, I'm not in the left or right false paradigm... I'm all for freedom. Just can't we have a workable representative Democratic Republic? Why can't we just have a workable government?
SilentXtarian: SilentXtarian: Well, I'm not a modeate...but I'll answer that to the best of my ability. It's the idea that being on either extreme is a rejection of systematic, logical thinking, so being in the middle they say would be better than the other two extremes. See that's it. You are still stuck in the false left / right wing paradigm like many others. left wing = communism / marxism = international socialism right wing = fascism / nazism = national socialism Literally 5 letters of difference. You are NOT in the middle of those two. Well you shouldn't be. It is a false dichotomy erected and propagated by the State and media talking heads to keep us all in their little box. Reject it. The true paradigm is individualism vs collectivism. So you're either Forwards towards Freedom (Individualism) or backwards towards Tyranny. (Collectivism) And until Libertarians and everyone else realise this - we ain't going anywhere. First of all, I'm not in the left or right false paradigm... I'm all for freedom. Just can't we have a workable representative Democratic Republic? Why can't we just have a workable government?
Oh goodness... This is back to square one. Why can't you reason and answer these questions yourself or are you depending on a representative to answer them for you? Serious question.
I like the philosophy behind having a representative government.
But, all representative governments seem to have fallen for aristocracies. We haven't had any real Presidents since JFK.
If every President was like JFK wouldn't that be a good thingg?
I think that there SHOULD be some sort of government... but we should be allowed to share our voicees more... I just don't like the idea of doing away with government completely.
SilentXtarian: I like the philosophy behind having a representative government. But, all representative governments seem to have fallen for aristocracies. We haven't had any real Presidents since JFK. If every President was like JFK wouldn't that be a good thingg? I think that there SHOULD be some sort of government... but we should be allowed to share our voicees more... I just don't like the idea of doing away with government completely.
Alright. I have my ideas to this question I'm going to ask you, but it helps to know what you are thinking about, what underlying thoughts you are having in order to dig into this better. So I'm asking you this question, not cause I don't have an opinion on it, but because I want to know your opinion. Answer this as honestly as you can it will help me:
1 - What's the difference between the State (aka the government you advocate) and the following: a business, a farmer, a militia, and labor?
I ask since you find the State to be necessary, then explain to me what it offers differently? What is it about a State that you find to be attractive?
The idea behind our government would be that it would protect our rights and it wouldn't infringe on people. Unfortunately in real life-- the state does the exact opposite. We need to be the nation which shows strong support for civil rights and makes a lot of positive change around the world. I don't think that just because we've had a lot of setbacks in recent history and in our beginning history of our nation means we do away with it entirely. Don't you think-- aside from the negatives that our country could be used for a good thing? I'm all for limited government... I just don't want to do away with government entirely.
I don't find a state attractive. I think it's a necessary evil... it's just that I'm not ready to do away with it entirely. when it's proven to be completley inefficient then I'm all for getting rid of it. But we have to have some kind of organization for people who are in need of structure and the way of life as wee know it. That is my main problem. What about the other people who are dependent on the state?
SilentXtarian:Just can't we have a workable representative Democratic Republic?
No.
SilentXtarian:Why can't we just have a workable government?
Because government is predicated on theft and violence. It's sole purpose to is re-distribute property.
There would be voluntary associations for people like you describe, but it would be contractual. You could have your welfare, your security, your flags and rallies. You just wouldn't be able to coerce others into associating with you. Does that sound fine?
Perhaps. that could work.. But I guess I'm a bit conservative in that regards. I just would like to see every model of a government first proven wrong before we go to a stateless society. And in a stateless society there should be organizations to privatize the functions of governmment that have been monopolized by the government previously.
SilentXtarian: I think it's a necessary evil...
I think it's a necessary evil...
If you could only see my face now... sad.
You admit you like evil.
SilentXtarian: when it's proven to be completley inefficient then I'm all for getting rid of it.
when it's proven to be completley inefficient then I'm all for getting rid of it.
What is inefficient to you?
SilentXtarian: But we have to have some kind of organization for people who are in need of structure and the way of life as wee know it.
But we have to have some kind of organization for people who are in need of structure and the way of life as wee know it.
Who partakes in the structure of the government?
SilentXtarian: I just would like to see every model of a government first proven wrong before we go to a stateless society.
I just would like to see every model of a government first proven wrong before we go to a stateless society.
This fits in with "inefficiency" that you brought up in your earlier post. What is this proof of wrong you want to "see" (as you put it)?
wilderness: SilentXtarian: I just would like to see every model of a government first proven wrong before we go to a stateless society. This fits in with "inefficiency" that you brought up in your earlier post. What is this proof of wrong you want to "see" (as you put it)?
First of all, I'm a believer that representative Democracy has been hijacked. All of this secrecy needs to go away. The army needs to do away with operations northwood. I think if the government starts actually caring about its people more then we would probably be better off. What I'm saying is that our government needs to care about us again... and if that doesn't work then we need to a stateless society. I see government as a nessecary evil. I don't think we have to be all evil and stuff... but I am not ready to do awaay with it entirely.
SilentXtarian:I just would like to see every model of a government first proven wrong before we go to a stateless society.
Yeah, I mean it was a good thing they tested communism by murdering 100 million of their own citizens in the 20th century. You know, just to be sure it wasn't the "correct solution".
The state is by its very nature coercive and no amount of "caring for its people" can provide a moral justification for it. Representative Democracy, Monarchy, Fascism, just different forms cut from the same cloth.
SilentXtarian:I think if the government starts actually caring about its people more then we would probably be better off. What I'm saying is that our government needs to care about us again... and if that doesn't work then we need to a stateless society.
How do you define "caring about its people"? If by this you mean "not using force against them," then you are already in favor of a stateless society, where the "government" is no more than a voluntary group of individuals. If not, then please do elaborate on what you mean.
I'm all for a government that doesn' use force on its people. If that's what you mean by stateless society-- a voluntary group of individuals-- working for the common good... then I would be all for it. But as an American the idea of my country has been ingrained on me pretty much since birth. But we could change how society is ran and the like.
Please define common good.
Voluntary ones.
Peaceful ones.
Nothing but the provision of law and order. Even that is too much, IMO, to be left to a legal monopoly.
It's the idea that being on either extreme is a rejection of systematic, logical thinking, so being in the middle they say would be better than the other two extremes.
Or rather, it is systematic, logical thinking that leads to an extreme, once contradictions are purged.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Which is a personal failing. But rather than admit to having trouble understanding others, you have decided to pretend that their arguments don't exist.
This may surpise you, but ideologies arrise from individuals using their "own individual critical thinking." Of course, the quality of the ideology is determined by the mental tools used. Someone with your attitude is going to end up with a very poor ideology, indeed.
Peace
Jon Irenicus: What kinds of protests would be allowed in a libertarian society? Peaceful ones.
I was thinking about this today. What would people protest in a market economy? When you vote with your dollars, and free choices, why would you waste time lobbying anyone or anything to change?
I think that protesting is a consequence of having limited choices, in which case reform is the only possible method for change. But with limitless choices and competition, any firm or institution that got to the point of being protested or lobbied would already be hearing the footsteps of their competitors.
My 2 cents. Be interested to read what others think of this...
SilentXtarian: wilderness: SilentXtarian: I just would like to see every model of a government first proven wrong before we go to a stateless society. This fits in with "inefficiency" that you brought up in your earlier post. What is this proof of wrong you want to "see" (as you put it)? First of all, I'm a believer that representative Democracy has been hijacked. All of this secrecy needs to go away. The army needs to do away with operations northwood. I think if the government starts actually caring about its people more then we would probably be better off. What I'm saying is that our government needs to care about us again... and if that doesn't work then we need to a stateless society. I see government as a nessecary evil. I don't think we have to be all evil and stuff... but I am not ready to do awaay with it entirely.
How do you legislate care? How do you force care? either one...
How ironic, you challenge people to be critical thinkers and yet are unwilling to do it yourself. Answer your own questions. Think for yourself.
How would unions work in a society where people were free to associate with whom they wanted?
What kind of protests would be acceptable in a free society?
There is no such thing as a minarchist state.