Ever since Ron Paul introduced me to AE, I've found that I've not only increased my economic knowledge exponentially (to the point where I could refute certain arguments promulgated by economics professor with confidence), but I've also grown to love Libertarianism to the point where it's become a vested interest in my life (I just can't let it go and I'm an ardent defender of the libertarian philosophy). I not only find that I'm becoming more radical by the day, but essentially I'm pretty much preaching the libertarian creed to anyone that will listen to me. In class and at home I feel like I've pretty much become a libertarian spark plug, where every discussion always somehow becomes intertwined with libertarian thought.
Any other members of the youth feel like this as well?
PS- I understand that AE is value-free and I'm not associating the two.
I'm not sure if you can call it "religious", but I've reached the point where I cringe every time someone utters the sentence "I think the government should ...".
http://article.nationalreview.com/267107/the-libertarian-lobe/jonah-goldberg
Anyone read this (It's an older article)? It's pretty much National Review garbage, but he pretty much regards Libertarianism as utopian, when it's clearly not.
It's funny when he acts if his horrified when he cites Rothbard and how he condemns the state (He was probably weeping crocadile tears as he wrote that segment of the article, I wonder if he thinks the FCC should get involved).
I always happen to love when retreating from their poor arguments, conservatives and liberals start calling libertarians "arrogant" or "utopian"...
Don't let philosophies own your mind. The ideas, concepts, and conclusions you've collected in your psyche has developed its own philosophy. Although, some concepts (Libertarianism for example) may shine brighter in your eyes than other ideas.
Besides, the youth (like myself) tends to be radical and idealist. It also tends to dull away with the weariness of age, though not all the time.
TelfordUS: Don't let philosophies own your mind. The ideas, concepts, and conclusions you've collected in your psyche has developed its own philosophy. Although, some concepts (Libertarianism for example) may shine brighter in your eyes than other ideas. Besides, the youth (like myself) tends to be radical and idealist. It also tends to dull away with the weariness of age, though not all the time.
To be honest Telford, I've always been vocal and passionate. Whether it was arguing off of horrendous talking points in 4th grade or starting to read the Drudgereport/ various conservative dogmas in 6th grade, I can't say I've ever lost that spark..(well not yet annyway)
LvMIenthusiast: TelfordUS: Don't let philosophies own your mind. The ideas, concepts, and conclusions you've collected in your psyche has developed its own philosophy. Although, some concepts (Libertarianism for example) may shine brighter in your eyes than other ideas. Besides, the youth (like myself) tends to be radical and idealist. It also tends to dull away with the weariness of age, though not all the time. To be honest Telford, I've always been vocal and passionate. Whether it was arguing off of horrendous talking points in 4th grade or starting to read the Drudgereport/ various conservative dogmas in 6th grade, I can't say I've ever lost that spark..(well not yet annyway)
I've felt the same way, I've always loved directing the flow of large discussions and debates, especially if I take a rather radical position.
LvMIenthusiast: Ever since Ron Paul introduced me to AE, I've found that I've not only increased my economic knowledge exponentially (to the point where I could refute certain arguments promulgated by economics professor with confidence), but I've also grown to love Libertarianism to the point where it's become a vested interest in my life (I just can't let it go and I'm an ardent defender of the libertarian philosophy). I not only find that I'm becoming more radical by the day, but essentially I'm pretty much preaching the libertarian creed to anyone that will listen to me. In class and at home I feel like I've pretty much become a libertarian spark plug, where every discussion always somehow becomes intertwined with libertarian thought. Any other members of the youth feel like this as well?
Not young but old and retired, and now busy becoming my own true self. So 4 years ago I became an AE, 1 year ago became a Libertarian, and am currently following the path of truth and freedom to the Gnostic Church - a religion. For me becoming old(er) is turning out to be one of the best times of life, although I'm worried about becoming a crusader for all 3. I had no idea previously that I was such a radical person, and rather angry with all the stupidity I've tolerated during my life.
A religion? No. A passion? Yes.
I rather think all this makes people more consistent in their views.
A large number of Americans, for example, are small government-loving people who want minimum regulation and a tightened government budget, but then they also expect to get the Social Security, pensions, and all such social services to which they are so wedded. I guess the sort of education given to the public by groups like mises.org simply helps them understand that they don't have to stand on a feeble middle ground, and see that there is a more simple and consistent solution.
It's not radicalisation, it's clarification.
If I had to choose one of two books to live my life by:
1) Holy Bible
2) Rothbard's : For a New Liberty
No Question - For a new Liberty.
Actually, I do live my life by #2 the best I can. It is my bible. I subscribe to no religion.
bearing01:Actually, I do live my life by #2 the best I can. It is my bible. I subscribe to no religion.
Apparently you do. Your religion, though, doesn't try to explain what happens in an after life. But it does tell you how to live your life and it provides a code of ethics (not that there's anything wrong with this, don't get me wrong).
"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."
Hallowed be Mises's name...
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Uh oh, Angurse is not gonna like this...
I like pretending it's a religion when I'm bored. Tom Palmer seems to think I'm one of Hoppe's religious fanatics on one of my other nyms. Made me smile.
in terms of the ideas of youth leaning towards the radical, I just don't see how my views on things could change to being more sympathetic of the state. Has anyone read anything by people who describe themselves as former anarchists (of the capitalist/individualist kind) ? I would think there have to be some out there. What kinds of things do they say?
Another thing on the whole "radical ideas" bit is that I find a lot of opposition just on the point of "well in life most things are good in moderation, you need to find the 'happy-medium'"
Esuric: bearing01:Actually, I do live my life by #2 the best I can. It is my bible. I subscribe to no religion. Apparently you do. Your religion, though, doesn't try to explain what happens in an after life. But it does tell you how to live your life and it provides a code of ethics (not that there's anything wrong with this, don't get me wrong).
But I do not unquestionably worship Rothbard as if he is some supreme being or mythical creature. I merely follow the creed that he has provided, not based on "faith" but because I consider the logic behind the principles to be moral and just.
Religion: 1. a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny; "he lost his faith but not his morality" 2.An institution to express belief in a divine power; "he was raised in the Baptist religion"; "a member of his own faith contradicted him"
Joe: Another thing on the whole "radical ideas" bit is that I find a lot of opposition just on the point of "well in life most things are good in moderation, you need to find the 'happy-medium'"
I've encountered this as well, even the people that are most fed up with the government prevent themselves from actually becoming truly anti-establishment by saying something along the lines of, "Well, it's there for a reason". But, yet they go on to rail against the government on an incessant basis with sayings like, " This isn't your money to spend!" or "Stop destroying our currency". I have yet to understand why they don't become more vocal about certain matters.
---
Maybe I should have phrased the topic differently, I didn't mean to use term religion in the literal sense. Sorry about that guys, my mistake.
LvMIenthusiast: Joe: Another thing on the whole "radical ideas" bit is that I find a lot of opposition just on the point of "well in life most things are good in moderation, you need to find the 'happy-medium'" I've encountered this as well, even the people that are most fed up with the government prevent themselves from actually becoming truly anti-establishment by saying something along the lines of, "Well, it's there for a reason". But, yet they go on to rail against the government on an incessant basis with sayings like, " This isn't your money to spend!" or "Stop destroying our currency". I have yet to understand why they don't become more vocal about certain matters. ---
I too am confused by this. Perhaps this is because 1) selection bias -the media shows libertarians saying "taxes are theft" but in reality most of the limited state conservatives are middle-roaders 2) the moderate conservatives are just trying to sound radical in order to better communicate with the libertarians or 3) the conservatives believe that taxes are theft but that a) "fees" are okay b) that theft =money going to programs they don't like. Or all of these or some combination of them. Especially perhaps b since most people equate theft is unjust taxes and not simply taxes.
Answer to OP: No.
Sphairon:I've reached the point where I cringe every time someone utters the sentence "I think the government should ..."
I think the government should be abolished. (:
Political Atheists Blog
Joe:in terms of the ideas of youth leaning towards the radical, I just don't see how my views on things could change to being more sympathetic of the state. Has anyone read anything by people who describe themselves as former anarchists (of the capitalist/individualist kind) ? I would think there have to be some out there. What kinds of things do they say?
They are fine. You will get over it too.
bearing01:But I do not unquestionably worship Rothbard as if he is some supreme being or mythical creature. I merely follow the creed that he has provided, not based on "faith" but because I consider the logic behind the principles to be moral and just.
Well of course they're not identical: Rothbard didn't talk about an after life, for example--but that's basically the only significant difference. You apply Rothbardian ethics, which is rooted in natural law (one truth), as a guide to your life. People debate the "true teachings" of Rothbard, citing his works, calling those who don't agree with his theories (their interpretations of his theories) evil. I don't see how this differs, in kind, from the various debates between Islamic and Christian philosophers. The biggest difference between religion and various ideologies, as far as I can tell, is that the former says its code comes from God, and the latter says its code comes from nature.
Let me put it this way. Suppose an Alien comes to earth in order to study its religions. The alien comes across two individuals. One is in a church, praying at an altar, bible in hand, and the other has an image of Rothbard on his dress, holding "For a new liberty" in his right hand, citing directly from certain passages and condemning those who support the government as evil. What would the alien think?
Again, I'm not knocking your beliefs. But I've always found it rather peculiar that those who hate religion often embrace ideologies which resemble religion (like the Marxists, for example). [I've edited this comment a lot in order to avoid confusion].
Youth have no tendency to be radical. Kids in school have a tendency to not get government jobs.
Yay, Esuric!
Esuric,
There's a difference between simply taking something on (A) belief and then taking something on (B) belief and intellectual principles. A person of belief can abandon all or some intellectual principles. A person of belief and intellectual principles hasn't abandoned either one.
wilderness:(A) belief and then taking something on (B) belief and intellectual principles.
Religions have guys for that too, they are called theologians.
Jackson LaRose: Religions have guys for that too, they are called theologians.
It's okay, some are afraid of comparing ideologies to religions, & admitting that ideologies can resemble secular religions & end up feeling like a "nihilist" of some sort.
"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
Nitroadict:It's okay, some are afraid of comparing ideologies to religions, & admitting that ideologies can resemble secular religions & end up feeling like a "nihilist" of some sort.
Paging Dr. Angurse, paging Dr. Angurse...
Nitroadict: Jackson LaRose: Religions have guys for that too, they are called theologians. It's okay, some are afraid of comparing ideologies to religions, & admitting that ideologies can resemble secular religions & end up feeling like a "nihilist" of some sort.
Are you referring to me, cause I have no idea what you are talking about?
wilderness: Esuric, There's a difference between simply taking something on (A) belief and then taking something on (B) belief and intellectual principles. A person of belief can abandon all or some intellectual principles. A person of belief and intellectual principles hasn't abandoned either one.
Well this is merely your own shallow interpretation of religion. There have been many intellectuals and philosophers who came to religion through reason. Frederick Copleston was not some fool who blindly accepted religion purely on faith. I'm not saying that religion doesn't require a certain degree of faith. I'm saying that all ideologies require a certain degree of faith (many automatically dismiss Cartesian doubt, for example).
wilderness: Nitroadict: Jackson LaRose: Religions have guys for that too, they are called theologians. It's okay, some are afraid of comparing ideologies to religions, & admitting that ideologies can resemble secular religions & end up feeling like a "nihilist" of some sort. Are you referring to me, cause I have no idea what you are talking about?
Nope, although I just realized how it looks regarding the post order :\ . I meant that in general, ideologies can water down to secular religions or belief systems of sorts (i.e. compare to the establishment of the USA circa 1776 - 1800 & the understandings of it's Constitution compared to say, now, with the general population).I did kind of felt like you were giving a pass at ideologies being incapable of becoming secular religions, but it wasn't entirely clear to me.
Nothing wrong with comparing ideologies to religions, or saying that some can resemble them, saying that they are always the same thing is the problem.
Nitroadict:I did kind of felt like you were giving a pass at ideologies being incapable of becoming secular religions, but it wasn't entirely clear to me.
No, I was saying something else. I was pointing out that those devoted to for instance Marxism or the u.s. constitutional limited gov't even though the theories has surpassed them with logical deduction that would be (1) that I was referred to in my previous post which was, if I remember correctly, faith that has abandoned some or all intellectual principles even though they are present and known by those of such faith. I wasn't saying Rothbard or Mises don't incorporate a value preference within their systems of thought, they obviously do. Theirs incorporate the most logically extended theories in certain regards that I know of presently, but theories are open to revision which I will discuss in this post.
I find the value (or moral) preference to be a given in any human action. What those values (or morals) are, are based on the individual's own perspective content (which I read individual as natural liberty in this instance based on my paradigm). The logical extension aspect of human action and all that intellectually entails human nature, personally, I find valuable. I hold onto my moral, ie. spiritual view, and my intellectual view hand in hand and don't separate them out as I am only one person acting.
Axioms and principles don't change, but the theories cultivated from them do change, and my moral perspective can change too (if you label it my religion so be it I don't think that's arguably important in this context). Axioms and principles don't work without theories and what is unchangeable in my view never hits the light of day or is acted in time unless those axioms and principles have a workable and corresponding theory that applies those axioms/principles. The intellectual view (that includes principles, axioms, and theories) is always revisable and it is the theory that revises, not the principles or axioms.
The absolutism of axioms/principles can not be projected into time and they stay conceptual - unless - there is a theory being applied with these absolutes. That's why I don't see the absolutes being changeable, even if one tried, it is humanly impossible to change them. Yet the theory corresponding to the absolutes do work in time and therefore are changeable. The logic doesn't change, but what logic has to work with - the theories - does change, and each theory will be capable of a logical extension or logical refutation. The theory will be the theory (read: A will be A), but that logical insight will never be wrong/false - though - the theory the logic is being applied to can be wrong/false. And if something supposedly logical was found to be wrong/false, well, it was never logical to begin with and was illogical the whole time. Humans, in other words, are capable of making mistakes.
Esuric: wilderness: There's a difference between simply taking something on (A) belief and then taking something on (B) belief and intellectual principles. A person of belief can abandon all or some intellectual principles. A person of belief and intellectual principles hasn't abandoned either one. Well this is merely your own shallow interpretation of religion. There have been many intellectuals and philosophers who came to religion through reason.
wilderness: There's a difference between simply taking something on (A) belief and then taking something on (B) belief and intellectual principles. A person of belief can abandon all or some intellectual principles. A person of belief and intellectual principles hasn't abandoned either one.
Well this is merely your own shallow interpretation of religion. There have been many intellectuals and philosophers who came to religion through reason.
I never said otherwise, I'm a bit baffled why you thought this.
Esuric:Frederick Copleston was not some fool who blindly accepted religion purely on faith.
I would say he's then (B) in my post above.
Esuric:I'm not saying that religion doesn't require a certain degree of faith. I'm saying that all ideologies require a certain degree of faith (many automatically dismiss Cartesian doubt, for example).
It would seem we are agreeing then, not sure why you thought otherwise.
Angurse:Nothing wrong with comparing ideologies to religions, or saying that some can resemble them, saying that they are always the same thing is the problem.
Short and sweet. That's exactly what I meant.
Angurse: Nothing wrong with comparing ideologies to religions, or saying that some can resemble them, saying that they are always the same thing is the problem.
Aw, bollocks.
LvMIenthusiast:Any other members of the youth feel like this as well?
I would not call myself a member of the youth, but I do feel like this as well. I have a passion for it unmatched by anything else in my life.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
wilderness:It would seem we are agreeing then, not sure why you thought otherwise.
Sorry, I misunderstood you.