Computer nerds and losers in the Libertarian movement

GilesStratton:

John Ess:

I want to hear you debate Molyneux.  Either in video or in audio.  Either that or point me towards some of your books or articles.  On any subject.

I've got better things to do than debate your precious idol thanks, no wonder you're an atheist, there's no room for Stefan Molyneux and God in your world.As for my books or articles? In comparison to Molyneux's poor literature I wouldn't have to do much.

 

It seems to me that your hatred for Molyneux reduces to a fanning of cultural war flames, I.E. you are turned off by the fact that a hard atheist is such a loud voice in the movement and is dawing philosophical parralels between religion and statism.

GilesStratton:

John Ess:

About the title of the thread.

While I think that the term "nerd" is now neutral and thus ok to use, I don't think anyone is a "loser" (or worse that this is terminal).  That is not the point about why I am concerned for people who are drug abusers or people who hurt themselves in some other way.  I don't care about PR, either.  It's more out of empathy that I even offer my opinion about this subject.  As I said, if anyone is abusing alcohol or is in some other bad situation... I offer them my condolensces and best wishes.  Not that they remove themselves from our "movement", so to speak.

Why limit it to the movement? Drug addicts should remove themself from society, not just the movement.

Removing themself from "society" as a whole? You've got to be kidding. The fact is, such people will continue to exist in society. There's no way to have them removed completely from society in the abscence of coercion unless there's some kind of unanimous and broad cultural conservatism in that society, which isn't likely.

To me, this is all quite a petty thing in the grand scheme of things to be ejecting people from society as a whole over. Really, I see these arguments as being predicated on the assumption that a libertarian society is a culturally conservative society in which there is zero demand for so-called "alternative lifestyles" or zero institutions that cater to them. It seems to be assuming one's own preferaces as the outcome, and while none of us can predict with absolute certainty what the cultural outcome will be, the nature of free competition and the diversity between human preferances would seem to indicate an inevitable degree of pluralism.

While you might succeed in largely ejecting such people from your personal life or your clubs or small geographical areas, it is more than likely that they are still going to exist in society as a whole. You may certainly flock to those areas in which you can avoid such things most efficiently, but it's hardly the case that your personal preferances with regaurd to culture are going to be anywhere close to uniform in a libertarian society qua society.

MacFall:

Juan:

That's putting words in the mouths of 'libertines'...in other words, a straw-man.

No it isn't. Having spoken to many self-described libertines, I can tell you that's exactly what it means. They hold as virtuous any act which goes against social norms. They engage in promiscuity because it is reviled by mainstream society. They do drugs for the same reason. And they do it out of spite. They believe that nobody has the right to express disapproval of their activities. They are not anti-aggression, they are anti-assertion. It is an absurd philosophy, and epistimologically baseless. Yet it exists, and there are people who believe in it by name.

You're correct that there is a philosophy of libertinism and/or hedonism. But I think part of the issue here is that the people that Hoppe and his adamant cultural conservative followers refer to as "libertines" are by and large not philosophical hedonists or particularly harmful people. It's being assumed that just because one is associated with an "alternative lifestyle", one is some kind of total vagrant that is incompatible with libertarian norms and has a coercive agenda in which they wish to use power structures to force their "alternative lifestyles" onto others. I think it's silly to assume that such people are by defacto a bunch of animals who don't respect property rights. The fact is, beyond the norms of non-aggression/non-coercion, libertarianism is culturally neutral (as Walter Block has pointed out, although I have some slight reservations with regaurd to his article on this that I'm refering to).

Brainpolice:

. It's being assumed that just because one is associated with an "alternative lifestyle", one is some kind of total vagrant that is incompatible with libertarian norms and has a coercive agenda in which they wish to use power structures to force their "alternative lifestyles" onto others.

The point isn`t the desire to use the power structes to force their lifestyle on others. The point is to use the power structers to force others into accepting, even approving of their lifestyles instead of condeming them. 

It is going on. And it is working. The proof is in the name itself. "Alternative lifestyle". "Alternative" as in just another thing on the menu. As just slightly different, but equally fine lifestyle. 

You had people with wacky lifestyle choices before, but they actualy did not care if others disapproved and went around calling themselves a "counter-culture" not an "alternative culture".

The point isn`t the desire to use the power structes to force their lifestyle on others. The point is to use the power structers to force others into accepting, even approving of their lifestyles instead of condeming them.

It simply does not necessarily follow that, for example, because one is homosexual, one wishes to use coercive power structures to make homosexuality approved or taught or to deny people the ability to speak out against their lifestyle (that simply writes off all homosexual libertarians and anarchists). The same is true for any other preferance. One could just as easily point the finger at cultural conservates and accuse them of doing the same. The issue here really isn't germaine to a particular preferance because any of these preferances can be either compatible or incompatible with libertarianism depending on how they are pursued or expressed; but libertarianism as such has nothing to say about them in and of themselves.

Merely being a part of such groups or being tolerant of them does not inherently make one a cultural marxist.

It is going on. And it is working. The proof is in the name itself. "Alternative lifestyle". "Alternative" as in just another thing on the menu. As just slightly different, but equally fine lifestyle.

In the context of voluntaryism, that's essentially exactly what it is. It reduces to another choice that people can make for themselves. This doesn't mean that others are inherently required to cater to or be particulary tolerant of such a choice, it simply means that it is something one chooses for oneself. You may personally not like the lifestyle in question, but that really has nothing to do with libertarianism, it's just your personal preferance and you have no legitimate decision-making power with regaurd to how others non-coercively live their own lives. It's an apolitical matter in that there is no rational grounds for our political institutions deciding one way or the other on such matters.

Brainpolice you are of course right. I agree wholeheartedly.

I was just saying many alternative lifestyle people and those that approve of them have turned into negatives of cultural conservatives and are pushing for stuff like "tolerance classes" in public schools. But yes of course it does not follow that living unorthodox ways automaticaly makes one a part of this cabal.

 

Marko:

Brainpolice you are of course right. I agree wholeheartedly.

I was just saying many alternative lifestyle people and those that approve of them have turned into negatives of cultural conservatives and are pushing for stuff like "tolerance classes" in public schools. But yes of course it does not follow that living unorthodox ways automaticaly makes one a part of this cabal.

 

I think that the whole cultural marxist - cultural conservative paradigm has tended to stifle the progress of liberty in that both sides become reactionary to the other and begin battling for the reigns of power to achieve dominance. It may very well be the case that to an extent the scale is more tipped towards the cultural marxists right now (although not entirely, since we have plenty of coercive laws enforcing culturally conservative norms), but a lot of the paleolibertarian rhetoric on these matters strikes me as reactionary. I find both sides to be deeply flawed based on shared misnomers.

Brainpolice:

You're correct that there is a philosophy of libertinism and/or hedonism. But I think part of the issue here is that the people that Hoppe and his adamant cultural conservative followers refer to as "libertines" are by and large not philosophical hedonists or particularly harmful people.

I agree.

Brainpolice:

It seems to me that your hatred for Molyneux reduces to a fanning of cultural war flames, I.E. you are turned off by the fact that a hard atheist is such a loud voice in the movement and is dawing philosophical parralels between religion and statism.

"Militant atheism" in general just annoys me, particularly so when it comes from hypocrites like you who seem hell bent n showing the religious how wrong we are and yet refuse to subject drug users or homosexuals to the same treatment. Not to mention that any parralels between the state and religion are ridiculous, but this isn't the place for that discussion.

In any case, if you combine his atheism, arrogance, poor writing skills and annoying tendancy to resort to some sort of pseudo psychology I find him most irritating. And then there's his fanboys.

Brainpolice:

The fact is, such people will continue to exist in society.

Fair enough, they can continue to do so, away from the rest of us though.

Brainpolice:

There's no way to have them removed completely from society in the abscence of coercion unless there's some kind of unanimous and broad cultural conservatism in that society, which isn't likely.

Why isn't it likely? Look across the world, the vast majority of countries are to some extent cultural conservatives and intolerant of drug users, and this is with the large degree of statist intervention in their favour. In a free society in which you'd have to be responsible for your own actions it's very likely that people would stop such irresponsible lifestyles because they'd have to live with the effects.

Brainpolice:

Really, I see these arguments as being predicated on the assumption that a libertarian society is a culturally conservative society in which there is zero demand for so-called "alternative lifestyles" or zero institutions that cater to them.

Who has said that?

 

GilesStratton:

Who has said that?

No one.  That is what BP does.  He makes up shadow puppets and then rails against them and their imaginary ideologies.  He's been doing it since i joined the forum.  You can call him on it, and he will go away and resurface elsewhere, or like most of his BS, you can just ignore it.

 

liberty student:

GilesStratton:

Who has said that?

No one.  That is what BP does.  He makes up shadow puppets and then rails against them and their imaginary ideologies.  He's been doing it since i joined the forum.  You can call him on it, and he will go away and resurface elsewhere, or like most of his BS, you can just ignore it.

 

Lol, he still hasn't provided any examples of these imaginary anarchists gone Republicans.

 

 I believe you've repeated "poor writing skills" on every single page of this thread and yet you can't point me to a single blog entry, article, essay, book, or really anything you've ever written in your life on any subject.  brainpolice writes all the time so people can see what he compares "poor writing" to.  You simply do not.    Frankly, you have zero credibility.

Probably the reason you think others rely so heavily on others (like Molyneux) for ideas is that you have probably never come up with one on your own yourself.  At least, you've never demonstrated a very strong belief system or theory that I've seen (or you'll allow me to see).  You just have idealistic fantasies (like those of having people you do not like removed in a future world) and a mishmash of other people's ideas.  A bit of projection perhaps? (I don't even have to address the idea of latent homosexuality in your protesting too much).

GilesStratton:

liberty student:

GilesStratton:

Who has said that?

No one.  That is what BP does.  He makes up shadow puppets and then rails against them and their imaginary ideologies.  He's been doing it since i joined the forum.  You can call him on it, and he will go away and resurface elsewhere, or like most of his BS, you can just ignore it.

 

Lol, he still hasn't provided any examples of these imaginary anarchists gone Republicans.

They don't care which party it is but... many people on the Lew Rockwell.com blog (during the primaries) who gave money to him and thought he could win the election.  Even posting results of the polls to get people's hopes up.  Then you have the encouragement of people like Murray Sabrin and "Ron Paul Republicans" to run by the very same site.

None of this was imaginary.

As much as he provides good economic sense on television, RP continuing to encourage people to vote for him and other like-minded candidates is a disaster.

John Ess:

I believe you've repeated "poor writing skills" on every single page of this thread and yet you can't point me to a single blog entry, article, essay, book, or really anything you've ever written in your life on any subject.

His writing is dull, uninteresting and just generally poor, do I care enough to provide examples? No. I'll leave it to you to compare the writings of say Nock, Mencken with Molyneux. |Or even just Rothbard, Mises, Rockwell, Hoppe etc who all write for more readably and succintly than Molyneux.

John Ess:

brainpolice writes all the time so people can see what he compares "poor writing" to.  You simply do not.    Frankly, you have zero credibility.

So what? Because I haven't written anything it follows that I can't criticise others? Fair enough, follow your own advice then and stop praising his writing until you've provided any of your own.

A great example of a piece of poor writing my Molyneux, here.

John Ess:

Probably the reason you think others rely so heavily on others (like Molyneux) for ideas is that you have probably never come up with one on your own yourself.

As opposed to you perhaps?

John Ess:

At least, you've never demonstrated a very strong belief system or theory that I've seen (or you'll allow me to see).

So, what, it follows that I don't have a very strong belief system (whatever that means) because I don't go around yelling about my hate for the state on a forum full of anarchists?

John Ess:

mishmash of other people's ideas.

So in other words, I'm like everybody on these forums and most market anarchists in general? In fact, I'm much like yourself, only I don't borrow ideas for Molyneux, which is a sin in your book.

John Ess:

You just have idealistic fantasies

If you wish you call them that, go ahead, you'd be wrong though. It's funny to see libertarians applying ostracism to economics when it suits them, when it's applied to social issues that makes them feel uncomfortable? Then it's a very different matter.

John Ess:

(I don't even have to address the idea of latent homosexuality in your protesting too much).

I see what you did there.

 

John Ess:

They don't care which party it is but... many people on the Lew Rockwell.com blog (during the primaries) who gave money to him and thought he could win the election.  Even posting results of the polls to get people's hopes up.  Then you have the encouragement of people like Murray Sabrin and "Ron Paul Republicans" to run by the very same site.

Very few people seriously thought he could win the election, fewer yet were anarchists. You fail to prove why it's bad that people would donate money to him? Especially when you take into account the fact that most people who donated money to him were statists anyway, so it's not as if people are throwing money at him that would have otherwise gone towards the black market. It appears to me as if your main argument against Mr Paul is that he got peoples hopes up and then let them down by not winning, how convincing.

You ignore the people who are on these forums purely as a result of Mr Paul's campaign: myself, Liberty Student, Banned, Krazy Kaju, and others (I may be wrong on some of those, so apologies if I am).

John Ess:

None of this was imaginary.

Yes, it is, BP hasn't provided any examples of anarchists gone constitutionalists. All he can say is that Ron Paul's campaign restores faith in the political procoess, the very thing we're debating the virtues of. Aside from the people directed to either Lewrockwell.com or mises.org as a result of the RP campaign there's the countless others that have gone from neoconservatives to small government conservatives, a step in the right direction.

John Ess:

RP continuing to encourage people to vote for him and other like-minded candidates is a disaster.

Now, rather than stating it as if it's self evident, perhaps you could support this assertion? Perhaps the Molynoids would be more content if RP advised people to write in your God, am I right?

MacFall:

They hold as virtuous any act which goes against social norms. They engage in promiscuity because it is reviled by mainstream society. They do drugs for the same reason. And they do it out of spite.

I doubt that the majority of people who do drugs or engage in so called promiscuous sex do it because those things are forbidden, or to upset 'normal' people. Let me state the obvious : sex and drugs are appealing because...they are appealing. I don't think that libertarianism as a philosophy has anything to say about people seeking pleasure in ways which don't harm others.

John Ess:

As much as he provides good economic sense on television, RP continuing to encourage people to vote for him and other like-minded candidates is a disaster.

Only by running (the process of attempting to win votes) was Paul allowed to challenge the existing establishment.

As a conservative gone anarchist, I am indebted to Paul for putting his time and energy on the line at an age when many people would be rather golfing or bouncing grandkids on their knee.

You'll also note that Paul has done very little to purchase or request votes.  He's used the last several months to make negative endorsements of Obama and McCain, calling into question the validity and differentiation of the entire system.

I find a lot of people who talk about Paul, don't know squat about what he has done, has said or is doing.

 

Brainpolice:

It seems to me that your hatred for Molyneux reduces to a fanning of cultural war flames, I.E. you are turned off by the fact that a hard atheist is such a loud voice in the movement and is dawing philosophical parralels between religion and statism.

GilesStratton:

"Militant atheism" in general just annoys me, particularly so when it comes from hypocrites like you who seem hell bent n showing the religious how wrong we are and yet refuse to subject drug users or homosexuals to the same treatment.

Drug users: perhaps insofar as if they are addicts like Amy Winehouse. Homosexuals: perhaps insofar if they willingly try to destroy themselves. You see: homosexuality and drug use qua homosexuality and drug use aren't harming anyone. So take your "I hate homosexuality because I think it's icky and it makes me feel like less of a man" garbage and shove it up your ass. And take your "I hate drug users because it's icky" and shove it up your ass.

 

GilesStratton:

Not to mention that any parralels between the state and religion are ridiculous, but this isn't the place for that discussion.

Oh, but it is, since it parallels perfectly. The state and god are two sides of the same coin.

liberty student:

I find a lot of people who talk about Paul, don't know squat about what he has done, has said or is doing.

Or they do, but it simply doesn't fit into their idea that we can't use political process for any reason whatsoever. So they erect strawmen, and do anything they can to attack him.

Like you, I owe my being on these forums to Mr Paul's campaign, I honestly believe that in the future Mr Paul's campaign will be proven to be a turning point in the history of the libertarian movement, meanwhile the leftists will still be blogging and posting videos on Youtube about he bad he has been.

Knight_of_BAAWA:

So take your "I hate homosexuality because I think it's icky and it makes me feel like less of a man" garbage and shove it up your ass.

That's exactly what I said.

Knight_of_BAAWA:

Oh, but it is, since it parallels perfectly. The state and god are two sides of the same coin.

Or alternatively they're not, no matter how much the libertarian atheists would like it to be so.

Knight_of_BAAWA:

So take your "I hate homosexuality because I think it's icky and it makes me feel like less of a man" garbage and shove it up your ass.

GilesStratton:

That's exactly what I said.

Didn't look like it.

 

Knight_of_BAAWA:

Oh, but it is, since it parallels perfectly. The state and god are two sides of the same coin.

GilesStratton:

Or alternatively they're not

But they are, no matter how much it makes you feel embarrassed. You need to do something about that. But whatever you do: don't blame us atheists for pointing it out. It's YOUR problem. YOU deal with it.

Knight_of_BAAWA:

Didn't look like it.

That's because my objection to gays has nothing to do with making me feel like a man.

 

 

Knight_of_BAAWA:

Didn't look like it.

GilesStratton:

That's because my objection to gays has nothing to do with making me feel like a man.

Trying to convince yourself of that, are you?

 

Here's something else to think about: why do I get the same reaction from theists when I say that there is no god as I do from statists when I tell them that the state is a gang of thieves and should be eliminated?

 

Knight_of_BAAWA:

Here's something else to think about: why do I get the same reaction from theists when I say that there is no god as I do from statists when I tell them that the state is a gang of thieves and should be eliminated?

 

Because you choose to see it in such a way.

 

GilesStratton:

Knight_of_BAAWA:

Here's something else to think about: why do I get the same reaction from theists when I say that there is no god as I do from statists when I tell them that the state is a gang of thieves and should be eliminated?

 

Because you choose to see it in such a way.

 

I dunno, both are abstractions of central and/or ultimate authority.  It's not a stretch that challenging both concepts can yield similar reactions; I would say they certainly rhyme.

Nitroadict:

I dunno, both are abstractions of central and/or ultimate authority.

Not really actually, most people these days views the democratic state as something established by the people to acheive certain ends the people find desirable. Nobody really sees the state as the ultimate authority, they view the people as the ultimate authority.

Jon Irenicus:

How can you proceed, on the basis of such vagaries as enunciated by that dictionary, to deny the existence of the libertine?

I already explained it (three or four times ?). Sorry if you don't get it, or are playing dumb.

Libertines do exist in the sense that, by definition, anybody who doesn't bow to religious or sexual dogma is a libertine.

Yet the concept is nonsensical because there's nothing objective about sexual preferences or religious fairy tales. Your position is purely collectivistic - you're assuming that 'society' exists and is an entity with dictates valid conventions. I might as well be arguing with somebody who believes the earth is flat because it's written in some 'holy book'.

Jon Irenicus:

Juan:

I provided my own views on the subject : Libertinism is anything social conservatives don't like. As such, it's just an arbitrary category.

It's a convenient way of avoiding saying just what it is Hoppe is conjuring up, here, though.

No. I refuse Hoppe the 'right' to twist language for his own ends. But for argument's sake, let's grant that libertinism = hight time preference. Now what ?

Jon Irenicus:

Juan:

You then provided a list of actions and here's my comment about them : considering things as drug use (includes wine and beer I suppose ?), prostitution and oral sex as libertinism is laughable. Happy now ?

How about drug abuse? Alcohol abuse? Random sex with strangers? Would these count as libertine? If not, why not?

How do you define ab-use as opposed to mere use ? Also I'm curious how a particular sex practice can be 'self-destructive' ?

Random sex with strangers ? You mean like 'randomly' buying things you like ? Is see nothing wrong with that.

Now, what's the point of polling me about these things ?

Jon Irenicus:

No, considering a concrete definition has not been offered, as of yet, it's still an open question as to whether it relates to high TP or not.

I offered the standard definition. You just whine about it not being good enough. Whether in your personal definition actions A, B, and C relate to high time preference, or not, is up to you. Redefining words is not a hobby I cherish.

Jon Irenicus:

A social convention is no less and no more than the mores of a given society, e.g. what it considers acceptable or not, what is likely to result in dissociation with members of this society and so on.

As I just said, I reject the idea that "society considers acceptable [anything]" because it's a collectivistic fallacy. I am, after all, a "vulgar individualist"...

PR is my personal acronym now? It's standard shorthand for "public relations"...

Oh, actually I did parse PR to public relations but the sentence didn't make any sense, that's why I thought you were referring to something else. So, you said :

It's easy to just paint their view as reactionary conservatism, but Hoppe is making a point about PR here.

Hoppe and co. are indeed reactionary social conservatives. Just look at the things Giles Stratton is saying. Now, what's public relations got to do with anything ?

Juan:

It's easy to just paint their view as reactionary conservatism, but Hoppe is making a point about PR here.

Hoppe and co. are indeed reactionary social conservatives. Just look at the things Giles Stratton is saying. Now, what's public relations got to do with anything ?

I consider myself a Hoppean, stop promoting stereotypes.  You're starting to sound as ridiculous and intellectually bankrupt as BP with his imaginary people groups.

Giles obviously has some socially conservative ideas, but that is irrelevant because he doesn't speak for everyone and I resent the intellectual dishonesty of trying to portray it as a majority opinion.

In a libertarian society, I can tolerate people who have different sexual practices, and people who are interested in ingesting different substances.  And I can also tolerate people like Giles, who are a lot less tolerant than I am.  It's hypocritical to condemn Giles for being against something, without taking the opposite ideological stand and being for everything.  Which is nonsense.

Libertarianism isn't about everything being good.  It's about every opinion bearing the consequences of it's own advantages or deficits, without tranferring those costs or profits onto others involuntarily.

Really, I see these arguments as being predicated on the assumption that a libertarian society is a culturally conservative society in which there is zero demand for so-called "alternative lifestyles" or zero institutions that cater to them.

Why? I think it only reflects the his preferences. Perhaps culturally conservative libertarian societies will be numerous, who knows. But given that there is no longer a central authority whose dictates are to be obeyed, the potantial societies that might arise are infinite, and yes, amongst them will be more conservatives communities. Some will just be less successful than others.

-Jon

But I think part of the issue here is that the people that Hoppe and his adamant cultural conservative followers refer to as "libertines" are by and large not philosophical hedonists or particularly harmful people.

Hoppe may not cohabit with such people, but that isn't really the point of his remarks. He is saying a lot of libertarians tend to be libertines, and that this distances us from the general public, i.e. is bad for PR reasons. Which is definitely true. People associated moral degeneration with libertarianism, as well as callousness and aloofness.

-Jon

liberty student:

Libertarianism isn't about everything being good.  It's about every opinion bearing the consequences of it's own advantages or deficits, without tranferring those costs or profits onto others involuntarily.

I completely agree with you. And to a large extent this is what my issue is, the leftist correctly view the statist use of coercion to discourage drug use as immoral and then somehow leap to the conclusion that voluntary measures to deter the use of these substances is equally wrong, it isn't. I have no doubt that some people would continue to live alternative lifestyles when the state has been abolished. However, when there's nobody to protect such lifestyles, to force employers to hire you, to stop any form of social ostracism (both directly and indirectly) and to crush private charity in which support would be contingent upon rehabilitation things would be largely different. The stakes are very different when the drug users has to bear responsibility for his actions, which is why I draw a distinction between smokers and perhaps even those who use cannabis and alcohol to some extent and users of heroin, cocain and harder drugs on the other.

As for gays, a libertarian society would be built around the institution that the state has, for the longest time, been in competition with. An institution that  has existed for far longer than the state, the family. Needless to say, homosexuality and the family aren't very compatible, at the very least in a free society homosexuality would be discouraged as opposed to today's state of affairs where it is absolutely forbidden to discriminate against homosexuals.

I already explained it (three or four times ?). Sorry if you don't get it, or are playing dumb.

No. I find your definition inadequate. You have refused to flesh it out.

Libertines do exist in the sense that, by definition, anybody who doesn't bow to religious or sexual dogma is a libertine.

Conveniently, you failed to mention some other things that the definition might capture. Here: