I debate with statists a lot. I argue with them, I point out flaws in their reasoning, I generally present a rosy picture of the free trade between consenting individuals of the products of their labor.
And just now I realized something. I think a lot of people resist the idea because it is so pleasant. Currently they live in a world that is, if not perfect, at least somewhat nice. If they entertain the notion of libertarianism they will have to admit to complicity in the crimes of government. They will have to admit that we are headed for disaster. they will have to admit that they live in a world where government makes life a living hell for many.
They all have stockholm syndrome, and they don't want to give up their picture of reality. They aren't basing this on truth. They're basing it on which conception of reality allows them to do what they already wanted to do.
I think there is a cognitive bias involved in not examining too closely the exact methods of a leader who tells you that he will get more resources for the tribe. We prefer to think of ourselves and project an image of empathy and community, but the most effective tribes were those that killed others and stole their resources. So we like to gloss over the details because it allows us to maintain our self image. In essence the best leaders are Machiavellian, so we look the other way and pretend our share of the plunder didn't come from initiating force.
Then one of us libertarians comes along and tries to force their head over to look at the pile of corpses. And so they bite and kick. They're eating their food, they don't want to be bothered.
nazgulnarsil: I debate with statists a lot. I argue with them, I point out flaws in their reasoning, I generally present a rosy picture of the free trade between consenting individuals of the products of their labor. And just now I realized something. I think a lot of people resist the idea because it is so pleasant. Currently they live in a world that is, if not perfect, at least somewhat nice. If they entertain the notion of libertarianism they will have to admit to complicity in the crimes of government. They will have to admit that we are headed for disaster. they will have to admit that they live in a world where government makes life a living hell for many. They all have stockholm syndrome, and they don't want to give up their picture of reality. They aren't basing this on truth. They're basing it on which conception of reality allows them to do what they already wanted to do. I think there is a cognitive bias involved in not examining too closely the exact methods of a leader who tells you that he will get more resources for the tribe. We prefer to think of ourselves and project an image of empathy and community, but the most effective tribes were those that killed others and stole their resources. So we like to gloss over the details because it allows us to maintain our self image. In essence the best leaders are Machiavellian, so we look the other way and pretend our share of the plunder didn't come from initiating force. Then one of us libertarians comes along and tries to force their head over to look at the pile of corpses. And so they bite and kick. They're eating their food, they don't want to be bothered.
I would say the largest scale example of battered wife syndrome & economical ignorance (or perhaps the progress of tyranny via distraction), but you are also correct, methinks.
"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict
Because forced equality is more important to the tyrannical majority than individual liberty is. If most people see someone with something more than they have, then they likely won't want to work for it. Libertarianism teaches responsibility and most people would rather having something "free" rather than put the slightest ounce of work towards it.
I'd say its resisted because the authoritarians advertise their policies as "free health care", or "free health care for every american," as Hillary Clinton would call it. The majority of voters will fall for that, because they're uneducated. That's why James Madison worried about the tyranny of the majority.
The neo-cons and the Democrats just want the government to force economic equality. Then the Federal Government jumps in more, and offers groups a lower interest rate than the private sector can, with a too-good-to-be-true payment plan;
if the majority of people were offered a mansion, for an interest rate of .025%/month and at the expense of the person they resent who earns more, then they'd take it not realizing that they'd eventually lose their home, because they underestimated how little work they'd have to do to keep their home. And 90% of those people given not-so-free hand-outs by the Authoritarians wouldn't be responsible if they were given all that by the government. That gives the illusion that you don't have to work at all. And that's what happened due to Bill Clinton, his CRA-strengthening, and also due to George Bush for letting it continue.
People are risk averse. Until they can be shown that a certain system will bring them a greater number of better quality, cheaper goods they'll fail to be motivated by abstract ideals.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
Remember the Lord of the Rings. Everyone who wants the ring of power will find an excuse why they need it.
What makes democracy so dangerous is that everyone starts to think they have a hope of holding the ring.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Exactly. Every statist knows there simply aren't enough political goods and services to go around, so naturally it's difficult for them to let go of it, knowing that their respective political opponents will continue to use the state at their expense.
Diminishing Marginal Utility - IT'S THE LAW!
People confuse getting things for free with freedom
Yep; the tyrannical majority believes that individual liberty includes forcing equality and forcing individuals to give others special treatment. And, no one has the right to private property these days.
What the thinker thinks, the prover proves...
What we’re talking about here is standard human psychology. Like Giles said, people are risk adverse. Our minds our built to resist change for the sake of survival. The reasoning goes like this: Whatever I’ve been doing so far has kept me alive, therefore it must be good.
When you debate people about this kind of thing they typically never hear a word you say. Logic and reason have very little to do with it. Their “picture” of the world is already “painted.” When you come along and try to tell them that they’ve painted the trees red, they will simply reply “of course I did. Trees are red you know…”
You never miss your waterTill your well runs dry
- Peter Tosh
We are the soldiers for righteousnessAnd we are not sent here by the politicians you drink with - L. Dube, rip
Actually, it is because people are imprisoned in chains. They just want to stare at government's shadow, not learn the truth about government. They could, with effort, get out of the chains, but it is painful to admit that the shadow isn't reality. Instead, they will simply attack the one who tries to release them. They think that the false shadows that government gives them are more real than the "real" government that we try to convince them of.
Thanks to Plato's Allegory of the Cave, who unintentionally and coincidentally explained what is going on between the state and the people.
Schools are labour camps.
nazgulnarsil:but the most effective tribes were those that killed others and stole their resources. So we like to gloss over the details because it allows us to maintain our self image.
No, that isn't valid! War wasn't more profitable 2000 BC than it is today. War was always only an expensive hobby of the rich. It's a luxury extension of hunting animals. It is the best workers and traders who have survived evolution. Warriors are regularly killed off, in wars. It's their drug and entertainment.
Libertarianism managed to break through the millenias of royal imperialism, in an age of very limited media technology. Today, with democracy and internet, our task is made so much more easy. Especially since the idea has already been invented and has been tested very sucessfully. Shame on us to not pull the idea of liberty through during these extremely favourable conditions!
It's not fascism when the government does it.
“We must spend now as an investment for the future.” - President Obama
what does democracy have to do with libertarianism? democracy is the tyranny of the majority. If we actually lived in a democracy 51% could enslave the other 49% for profit. Things like the bill of rights were introduced to protect us from democracy.
We live in a constitutional republic that is rapidly deteriorating into a social democracy. actual democracy is a degenrate form of government in which power is concentrated in the hands of those who influence the public and responsibility is disseminated as widely as possible so you can't blame anyone for your problems.
Yes, democracy is the tyranny of the majority.
That said, democracy stops Libertarianism from thriving. Democracy is awful; after all, it got us into the trouble we're in now.
Hopefully, one day, if it's not too late, the majority will decide to quit be tyrannical and allow individual liberty to thrive... forever. But, for that to happen, the Authoritarian system is going to have to cause even more trouble than it has in the past... that's very scary, but I think if it screws up too much to enough people, then it will be voted out. On the other hand, one could argue that if it's screwed up as much as it has, then it doesn't matter how much it screws up, the tyrannical majority will always vote for it. Hopefully, the former of this last paragraph is true though.
ProudCapitalist:Today, with democracy and internet, our task is made so much more easy.
I think you need to read Democracy: The God That Failed.
You and everybody else, that is.