Total Posts:37|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

What Makes Libertarians Tick?

charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2010 4:00:55 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
As a rule when you get personal it's a foul, a breach of decorum, and a sure give-away that you don't have a good argument against someone's views. However, there are exceptions, sometimes getting personal and engaging in a little amateur psychoanalysis of someone's views is just a matter of trying to understand and be honest about where those views really come from, about their true intellectual origin and nature. In the case of "libertarians" I think it's very much fair to take a critical look at the nature of their thinking.

This is because despite the staunchly rational image that libertarians like to project there's something about their very staunchness itself that screams that their views come not from a place of objective intellectual reflection but rather from the attitudes, mental set, and "motivated reasoning" of a certain type of person, what's flatteringly called the "rugged individualist" type.

Sorry, but I prefer the more technical and less euphemistic term universal ethical egoist to describe the sort of man or woman who typically espouses libertarianism. Runes' Dictionary of Philosophy defines ethical egoism as: "The view that each individual should seek as an end only his own welfare." The universal form of ethical egoism advocates this as a general principle to be practiced by everyone and to be made the basis for the organization of society.

So, the pointed $64 cognitive question is does anyone really think that universal ethical egoism is a position arrived at merely by the sort of objective rational thought that libertarians tout? Call me cynical if you like, but don't universal ethical egoists, aka libertarians, simply take an "Every man for himself", "To heck with everyone else, look out for number one", selfish way of thinking and feeling and codify it as a philosophical and socio-political stance?

Aren't ethical egoists/libertarians the cynical ones, i.e., don't they cynically assume that their own selfish nature is the universal and incorrigible nature of humankind, and that society therefore ought to conform itself to and harness our tendency to be self-interested SOBs?

I'm afraid that my own answer to these questions is yes, the ratiocination of libertarians absolutely is profoundly colored, or should I say discolored by their own egocentric, unaltruistic mentality, and by their cynical projection of that mentality onto their neighbors. This leads them to the social-Darwinist viewpoint according to which all life is just a struggle of selfish individuals competing for certain resources, and that human society should be consciously based on this reality, that any attempt to socially engineer a more noble form of society based on sharing and caring is doomed to failure.

In other words, libertarians take their sense of their own selfish nature to be an insight into human nature in general and narcissistically think that society should be geared to their meanly individualistic twist of mind. Libertarians commit and build their philosophy on a version of what's known as the psychologist's fallacy, "presupposing the objectivity of one's own perspective" vis–à–vis people in general. The libertarian's unconscious reasoning goes something like this: "Hmm, I find myself to be quite thoroughly ambitious for self, therefore this must be normal and universal, therefore a society founded upon benevolence and brotherly love is a lot of rubbish, socialism is a fool's pipe dream."

And not wanting to accept moral responsibility for his/her selfish mentality the libertarian adopts the view that an overriding sense of self-concern is hardwired into our genes and brains. That is, the libertarian dismisses the notion that people can rise above selfishness because that would leave him looking like an abject moral failure. Likewise, the idea that a society based on social compassion and fellowship could work because it would produce less selfish people is closed-mindedly balked at because in order to maintain his self-respect the libertarian needs to deny that human beings can be more graciously giving than he knows himself to be personally capable of being. Yep, the whole notion of socially engineering more social and kind people would make an egoist's egoism less determined and therefore less defensible, so it has to be pigeonholed as another wishful leftist error.

Libertarians prefer a "free market" philosophy that affirms and validates their own ungenerous attitudes and asocially individualistic sense of self-reliance. This is why their own pipe dream of the ideal society would be a laissez–faire utopia in which selfishness would be totally deregulated and everyone would be utterly free to fly his greedy capitalist flag.

Pathetically then the libertarian is someone who has embraced his selfish inner child with its constant whining of "Me, me, me", he's someone who has assumed a philosophical stance that projects and protects his unsocialized and self-pleasing inner crybaby. Which explains why so many libertarians are somewhat immaturely petulant and downright cranky.

However, although they intellectually accept their selfishness and try to paint it as a virtue some libertarians still do seem to suffer from some self-loathing and contempt, which they project onto the poor and needy who seem to be greedily saying "Give me, give me", "I want more welfare", "I want more of your tax dollars to support my life of leisure". Once again, the self-hating libertarian is really just hearing the cries of his own needy-greedy inner infant coming out of other people's mouths. Add to this the fact that he views panhandlers and welfare recipients as losers who lack the gumption to be productive egoists and you have a prescription for the libertarian/conservative's misanthropic disdain for the less fortunate.

Yes, the libertarian is essentially a rationalizing, selfish, cynical, misanthropic individualist who is inclined to take his cynicism and rationalizing to the extreme of fantasizing about a pure capitalist society in which he has complete license to be covetous, mercenary, and miserly; in which he doesn't have to pay a penny in taxes to help the helpless; in which the enterprising and strong don't have to be ashamed of dominating the unmotivated and weak; in which you can pretty much have it your way if you're one of the enterprising and strong.

The libertarian's real, covert idea of utopia is a state of individualistic anarchy in which a natural timocracy (the rule of owners) would arise. The libertarian thinks that such a society would be fair and good because his mentality is like that of the kid who owns the ball and who thinks that his friends should therefore play whatever game he wants to play. That is, libertarians fancy living in a society in which they own all the balls and therefore get to control the game. The will to social dominance is the real author of their social and economic philosophy.

If the libertarians were ever to find themselves in a position to actualize their theoretical principles, to create a true libertarian's paradise, it would quickly degenerate into a kind of decentralized timocracy or feudalism, with a few dominant owners staking claim to most of the land, property, and wealth in society and the rest of the population being reduced to the status of vassals and serfs. Alas, if libertarians were in charge we'd quickly learn that the kind of "meritocracy" that exists in a Darwinian "state of nature" is not at all conducive to social justice. But then libertarianism has nothing to do with progressive values such as justice and equality, it's just the intellectual fantasy of doctrinairely selfish minds.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2010 4:41:27 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
It is not ethical egoism that motivates us, no. It is nihilistic egoism. There is no right, no wrong, no justice. The is only power and those too foolish to use it. The libertarians of yore used to realize this and embrace it openly. These are your Stirners, your Tuckers.

It is not a moral command that I further myself, no. For then I would be serving the god of morality and not myself truly.

Morality is a lie, a phantom that exists only in your head. It haunts you. But you may, at any moment, cast it out! And then you are liberated in the sense most real, for you become your own.

Think of all the horrors of history. Wars have always been fault for the best of reasons. Both sides were on the side of good, of right, of justice. Young men he sacrificed themselves to murder and brutalize his fellows, all in t name of that one unquestioned deity, - the demon of morality.

Had but the soldier not be so courageous! Tell me, without morality, how could the army convince young men to butcher others, putting themselves in danger, on the salary of a mere pittance? It is only possible because it is done in the name of Good, of God and of Country, which are the same in the minds of the American today.

A world of egoists would be a world far more egalitarian and far more peaceful and, if justice has any meaning at all, far more just.

The problems in the world are caused not by egoists, but by selfless moralists.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2010 5:00:57 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/19/2010 4:00:55 PM, charleslb wrote:
As a rule when you get personal it's a foul, a breach of decorum, and a sure give-away that you don't have a good argument against someone's views. However, there are exceptions, sometimes getting personal and engaging in a little amateur psychoanalysis of someone's views is just a matter of trying to understand and be honest about where those views really come from, about their true intellectual origin and nature. In the case of "libertarians" I think it's very much fair to take a critical look at the nature of their thinking.

Yes, the libertarian is essentially a rationalizing, selfish, cynical, misanthropic individualist who is inclined to take his cynicism and rationalizing to the extreme of fantasizing about a pure capitalist society in which he has complete license to be covetous, mercenary, and miserly

That's not psychoanalysis. That's you being a condescending, self-righteous douche. As usual.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2010 5:05:19 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/19/2010 5:00:57 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 11/19/2010 4:00:55 PM, charleslb wrote:
As a rule when you get personal it's a foul, a breach of decorum, and a sure give-away that you don't have a good argument against someone's views. However, there are exceptions, sometimes getting personal and engaging in a little amateur psychoanalysis of someone's views is just a matter of trying to understand and be honest about where those views really come from, about their true intellectual origin and nature. In the case of "libertarians" I think it's very much fair to take a critical look at the nature of their thinking.

Yes, the libertarian is essentially a rationalizing, selfish, cynical, misanthropic individualist who is inclined to take his cynicism and rationalizing to the extreme of fantasizing about a pure capitalist society in which he has complete license to be covetous, mercenary, and miserly

That's not psychoanalysis. That's you being a condescending, self-righteous douche. As usual.

Pathetically then the libertarian is someone who has embraced his selfish inner child with its constant whining of "Me, me, me", he's someone who has assumed a philosophical stance that projects and protects his unsocialized and self-pleasing inner crybaby. Which explains why so many libertarians are somewhat immaturely petulant and downright cranky.

Once again, the self-hating libertarian is really just hearing the cries of his own needy-greedy inner infant coming out of other people's mouths. Add to this the fact that he views panhandlers and welfare recipients as losers who lack the gumption to be productive egoists and you have a prescription for the libertarian/conservative's misanthropic disdain for the less fortunate.

Yep. Condescending, self-righteous douche.
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2010 5:09:54 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/19/2010 4:00:55 PM, charleslb wrote:
lolololol i trolls u ^_^ u mad???

Not really. And Reasoning, you're not helping.
studentathletechristian8
Posts: 5,810
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2010 6:46:56 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/19/2010 6:34:04 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 11/19/2010 6:11:23 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Apparently nobody here reads debates.

Sure we do. That's why more discussion occurs in the forums.

LULZ. I'm taking this one way (a humorous way), but you may have different intentions. However, I'll assume that you are insinuating the seemingly shoddy debates we've had for the last couple of months.
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2010 7:32:01 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Charles, what is "altruism" to you? Is it the foregoing of all self-interest to help others? In that case, I assure you that it does not and cannot exist. The reason that people are kind to others, in the cases of charity or liberals who don't understand economics enough to recognize that they're causing more universal pain than gain, is that it gives them a warm, fuzzy feeling of helping the world. I like to believe that most people feel this way about kindness. You can't get this from forcing taxes from people and giving it to others. While this may look bad for these people who do charity, as it is indeed to benefit themselves, these people are truly good, for how can a truly evil person feel good about doing good?

Also, what system of governance and economics do you yourself support? Your long blog posts are generally attacks on libertarians and conservatives, but you give no reason why any other mentality in life is any better or has more practical results. You need to give your ideas of solutions, or else you are a weak coward who can't face the possiblity of having to resort to what you just bashed.
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2010 12:06:38 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/19/2010 4:00:55 PM, charleslb wrote:
Grill em, bake em, fry em, eat em, their wafflely versatile woo hoo!
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2010 12:36:01 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
You type these long posts, and yet there are still so many missing arguments. It's incredible really. What makes charleslb tick? Lack of focus. When you're writing the first post about some ad hominem hypothesis of yours, don't rephrase the same crap 10 ways, instead, just get it as right as you can for that post once. And don't inject stuff about what "libertarian society will devolve into," or other loosely related things, that's not what your thread is supposed to be about. Tangents are fine when they result organically from discourse, but you don't need to get ahead of the curve by derailing your own thread before anyone else has even read it!
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Sam_Lowry
Posts: 367
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2010 12:44:19 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Please, do a blog post defending the criminalization of drugs, as you're profile indicates that you favor it. I have a public debate coming up, and it's been so long since I've refuted someone's original work that I fear I might be rusty when it comes to ripping apart actual individualized rants. Do it without referencing the DEA's manual and you'll get bonus points.
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2010 9:02:27 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Sorry, but I prefer the more technical and less euphemistic term universal ethical egoist to describe the sort of man or woman who typically espouses libertarianism. Runes' Dictionary of Philosophy defines ethical egoism as: "The view that each individual should seek as an end only his own welfare." The universal form of ethical egoism advocates this as a general principle to be practiced by everyone and to be made the basis for the organization of society.

Sadly I stopped reading after a few paragraphs because it seemed your writing was long on words that were short in meaning. But what I did get to was your equating libertarianism to:

"The view that each individual should seek as an end only his own welfare."

Under this definition, Libertarians would be justified in actions such as banning guns, outlawing various substances (illegal drugs, alcohol, tobacco), increasing government controls over sectors that would benefit them, etc. Clearly all of these are anti-libertarian ideas which indicate a problem with your definition.

I think a better definition would be:
"The view that each individual should be free to decide what is in his own welfare."

Like I said, I read a few more paragraphs past the above where your post devolved into a childish rant and name calling. I am that there was some strong analytical analysis in there somewhere that I just didn't get to and maybe my definition applies to that analysis as well. But there is a clear distinction between what you suggest as a libertarian mindset and what really is a libertarian mindset.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2010 11:33:11 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/19/2010 4:41:27 PM, Reasoning wrote:
It is not ethical egoism that motivates us, no. It is nihilistic egoism. There is no right, no wrong, no justice. The is only power and those too foolish to use it. The libertarians of yore used to realize this and embrace it openly. These are your Stirners, your Tuckers.

It is not a moral command that I further myself, no. For then I would be serving the god of morality and not myself truly.

Morality is a lie, a phantom that exists only in your head. It haunts you. But you may, at any moment, cast it out! And then you are liberated in the sense most real, for you become your own.

Think of all the horrors of history. Wars have always been fault for the best of reasons. Both sides were on the side of good, of right, of justice. Young men he sacrificed themselves to murder and brutalize his fellows, all in t name of that one unquestioned deity, - the demon of morality.

Had but the soldier not be so courageous! Tell me, without morality, how could the army convince young men to butcher others, putting themselves in danger, on the salary of a mere pittance? It is only possible because it is done in the name of Good, of God and of Country, which are the same in the minds of the American today.

A world of egoists would be a world far more egalitarian and far more peaceful and, if justice has any meaning at all, far more just.

The problems in the world are caused not by egoists, but by selfless moralists.

Thanks for supporting my case that when exposed or nakedly stated the "libertarian" mentality is amorally egoistic. With adherents like you the libertarian philosophy doesn't need any enemies!

As for your point that history would have been less bloody if people didn't have hypocritical, rationalizing morality to justify their wars and other crimes against humanity, well, the Vikings didn't operate out of any holier-than-thou moral ideology, they weren't self-righteous zealots for a lofty cause, they were a people who became unabashedly, nakedly aggressive marauders and murderers for money. I.e., they operated out of straight-up self-interest, with no phony-baloney moral or theological beliefs to dress up their brutal behavior. They are just one example of the fact that human beings don't really need sanctimonious systems of ethical and religious ideas to act like barbarians. Jettison morality and you can hardly count on having more peace and justice in the world. Arguably, morality does more on a daily basis to deter human cruelty than it does to promote it.

I'll say one thing for you, you're a quite consistent libertarian egoist, but you know what Emerson said about consistency, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds". Yep, consistency is not always such an intellectual virtue.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2010 12:01:23 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/20/2010 9:02:27 AM, Floid wrote:

Under this definition, Libertarians would be justified in actions such as banning guns, outlawing various substances (illegal drugs, alcohol, tobacco), increasing government controls over sectors that would benefit them, etc. Clearly all of these are anti-libertarian ideas which indicate a problem with your definition.

Libertarian ideologues are under the egoistic illusion that they can best look out for their own interests, hence their opposition to government interference with people's supposed right to bear arms and to outlawing drugs. Libertarians are afraid that if they start down the road of using government controls to protect their interests they'll end up with a system that infringes on their ability to selfishly pursue their private interests. Libertarians are hardcore egoists who would rather take their chances and go it alone, they're people who don't want to have to make any self-sacrificing concessions whatsoever to being a part of society, they just want to do their own private thing and the rest of humankind be damned. They disguise this antisocial attitude with the American rhetoric of liberty and individual rights, but at the core of their mentality is the mantra of the Me generation, "Me, me, me; mine, mine, mine".

I think a better definition would be:
"The view that each individual should be free to decide what is in his own welfare."

Yes, and libertarians have decided that their welfare and best interest lies in being utterly free to be privatists and selfists, aka egoists. Libertarians are really individualistic anarchists, they think that the best form of society, the form of society most conducive to their welfare would be one in which people can function like completely atomized and self-interested individuals. But of course there's quite a stigma attached to the words "anarchy", "anarchism", and "anarchist", so libertarians have guilefully chosen a different label with more positive connotations of liberty and self-reliance. But boil down the thinking and attitudes of "libertarians" and you get egoistic anarchists, or in the case of more moderate libertarians, "conservatives" sans the religious right's desire to impose its morality on society, i.e., socially indifferent conservatives. In either case, what you get isn't too pretty.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2010 12:20:42 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/19/2010 5:12:24 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:

The trolling doesn't really work.

Can't one be critical of libertarians and lay into their ideology and psychology without being accused of "trolling"? If I were a right-minded libertarian taking shots at socialism would I be as likely to be pigeonholed and dismissed as a "troll". This tack of writing someone off as a "troll" because you don't like his criticisms of your ideology is a pretty weak response. Take your punches and give some back, don't lamely cry "Troll, wah, wah, wah!"
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2010 12:34:54 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Libertarian ideologues are under the egoistic illusion
You merely assume it to be an illusion.

In any case, only some libertarians are egoists, though I am among them.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2010 1:04:17 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Tell you what, if anyone here actually reads the whole thing hat he writes, and is willing to give a quick summary, i would be happy to entertain his thoughts, otherwise i'm. These excessive rants are more a testimony to narcissism than fruitful discussion.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2010 1:07:07 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/19/2010 4:00:55 PM, charleslb wrote:
As a rule when you get personal it's a foul, a breach of decorum, and a sure give-away that you don't have a good argument against someone's views. However, there are exceptions, sometimes getting personal and engaging in a little amateur psychoanalysis of someone's views is just a matter of trying to understand and be honest about where those views really come from, about their true intellectual origin and nature. In the case of "libertarians" I think it's very much fair to take a critical look at the nature of their thinking.

This is because despite the staunchly rational image that libertarians like to project there's something about their very staunchness itself that screams that their views come not from a place of objective intellectual reflection but rather from the attitudes, mental set, and "motivated reasoning" of a certain type of person, what's flatteringly called the "rugged individualist" type.

Sorry, but I prefer the more technical and less euphemistic term universal ethical egoist to describe the sort of man or woman who typically espouses libertarianism. Runes' Dictionary of Philosophy defines ethical egoism as: "The view that each individual should seek as an end only his own welfare." The universal form of ethical egoism advocates this as a general principle to be practiced by everyone and to be made the basis for the organization of society.

So, the pointed $64 cognitive question is does anyone really think that universal ethical egoism is a position arrived at merely by the sort of objective rational thought that libertarians tout? Call me cynical if you like, but don't universal ethical egoists, aka libertarians, simply take an "Every man for himself", "To heck with everyone else, look out for number one", selfish way of thinking and feeling and codify it as a philosophical and socio-political stance?

Aren't ethical egoists/libertarians the cynical ones, i.e., don't they cynically assume that their own selfish nature is the universal and incorrigible nature of humankind, and that society therefore ought to conform itself to and harness our tendency to be self-interested SOBs?

I'm afraid that my own answer to these questions is yes, the ratiocination of libertarians absolutely is profoundly colored, or should I say discolored by their own egocentric, unaltruistic mentality, and by their cynical projection of that mentality onto their neighbors. This leads them to the social-Darwinist viewpoint according to which all life is just a struggle of selfish individuals competing for certain resources, and that human society should be consciously based on this reality, that any attempt to socially engineer a more noble form of society based on sharing and caring is doomed to failure.

In other words, libertarians take their sense of their own selfish nature to be an insight into human nature in general and narcissistically think that society should be geared to their meanly individualistic twist of mind. Libertarians commit and build their philosophy on a version of what's known as the psychologist's fallacy, "presupposing the objectivity of one's own perspective" vis–à–vis people in general. The libertarian's unconscious reasoning goes something like this: "Hmm, I find myself to be quite thoroughly ambitious for self, therefore this must be normal and universal, therefore a society founded upon benevolence and brotherly love is a lot of rubbish, socialism is a fool's pipe dream."

And not wanting to accept moral responsibility for his/her selfish mentality the libertarian adopts the view that an overriding sense of self-concern is hardwired into our genes and brains. That is, the libertarian dismisses the notion that people can rise above selfishness because that would leave him looking like an abject moral failure. Likewise, the idea that a society based on social compassion and fellowship could work because it would produce less selfish people is closed-mindedly balked at because in order to maintain his self-respect the libertarian needs to deny that human beings can be more graciously giving than he knows himself to be personally capable of being. Yep, the whole notion of socially engineering more social and kind people would make an egoist's egoism less determined and therefore less defensible, so it has to be pigeonholed as another wishful leftist error.

Libertarians prefer a "free market" philosophy that affirms and validates their own ungenerous attitudes and asocially individualistic sense of self-reliance. This is why their own pipe dream of the ideal society would be a laissez–faire utopia in which selfishness would be totally deregulated and everyone would be utterly free to fly his greedy capitalist flag.

Pathetically then the libertarian is someone who has embraced his selfish inner child with its constant whining of "Me, me, me", he's someone who has assumed a philosophical stance that projects and protects his unsocialized and self-pleasing inner crybaby. Which explains why so many libertarians are somewhat immaturely petulant and downright cranky.

However, although they intellectually accept their selfishness and try to paint it as a virtue some libertarians still do seem to suffer from some self-loathing and contempt, which they project onto the poor and needy who seem to be greedily saying "Give me, give me", "I want more welfare", "I want more of your tax dollars to support my life of leisure". Once again, the self-hating libertarian is really just hearing the cries of his own needy-greedy inner infant coming out of other people's mouths. Add to this the fact that he views panhandlers and welfare recipients as losers who lack the gumption to be productive egoists and you have a prescription for the libertarian/conservative's misanthropic disdain for the less fortunate.

Yes, the libertarian is essentially a rationalizing, selfish, cynical, misanthropic individualist who is inclined to take his cynicism and rationalizing to the extreme of fantasizing about a pure capitalist society in which he has complete license to be covetous, mercenary, and miserly; in which he doesn't have to pay a penny in taxes to help the helpless; in which the enterprising and strong don't have to be ashamed of dominating the unmotivated and weak; in which you can pretty much have it your way if you're one of the enterprising and strong.

The libertarian's real, covert idea of utopia is a state of individualistic anarchy in which a natural timocracy (the rule of owners) would arise. The libertarian thinks that such a society would be fair and good because his mentality is like that of the kid who owns the ball and who thinks that his friends should therefore play whatever game he wants to play. That is, libertarians fancy living in a society in which they own all the balls and therefore get to control the game. The will to social dominance is the real author of their social and economic philosophy.

If the libertarians were ever to find themselves in a position to actualize their theoretical principles, to create a true libertarian's paradise, it would quickly degenerate into a kind of decentralized timocracy or feudalism, with a few dominant owners staking claim to most of the land, property, and wealth in society and the rest of the population being reduced to the status of vassals and serfs. Alas, if libertarians were in charge we'd quickly learn that the kind of "meritocracy" that exists in a Darwinian "state of nature" is not at all conducive to social justice. But then libertarianism has nothing to do with progressive values such as justice and equality, it's just the intellectual fantasy of doctrinairely selfish minds.
Flawed material, but I agree with some parts.
MikeLoviN
Posts: 746
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2010 4:35:37 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/20/2010 1:04:17 PM, innomen wrote:
Tell you what, if anyone here actually reads the whole thing hat he writes, and is willing to give a quick summary, i would be happy to entertain his thoughts, otherwise i'm. These excessive rants are more a testimony to narcissism than fruitful discussion.

It basically goes like this:

"Libertarians are a bunch of selfish, immoral egoists that hide behind the guise of their social-Darwinist view of human nature in a pathetic attempt at projecting their own mean selfishness as a logical basis on which society should be structured so that they can retain complete control over what is "theirs" without so much as throwing a crumb to those dirty, socialist, poor people."

Except in a slightly less direct, and significantly more condescending and self-righteous tone.

He sums it up pretty concisely himself:

Pathetically then the libertarian is someone who has embraced his selfish inner child with its constant whining of "Me, me, me", he's someone who has assumed a philosophical stance that projects and protects his unsocialized and self-pleasing inner crybaby. Which explains why so many libertarians are somewhat immaturely petulant and downright cranky.

Spoken like someone who has disappeared completely up his own a-sshole.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2010 4:46:51 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
If libertarians are so selfish, how come free market professors advocate ending the public universities they work at... Many libertarians act against their class interest in the general interest.

Conversely, most leftists are acting in their own class interest. They want OTHER people to work for them. That is kinda of selfish.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2010 5:38:25 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/19/2010 7:32:01 PM, mongoose wrote:
Charles, what is "altruism" to you? Is it the foregoing of all self-interest to help others? In that case, I assure you that it does not and cannot exist. The reason that people are kind to others, in the cases of charity or liberals who don't understand economics enough to recognize that they're causing more universal pain than gain, is that it gives them a warm, fuzzy feeling of helping the world. I like to believe that most people feel this way about kindness. You can't get this from forcing taxes from people and giving it to others. While this may look bad for these people who do charity, as it is indeed to benefit themselves, these people are truly good, for how can a truly evil person feel good about doing good?

Also, what system of governance and economics do you yourself support? Your long blog posts are generally attacks on libertarians and conservatives, but you give no reason why any other mentality in life is any better or has more practical results. You need to give your ideas of solutions, or else you are a weak coward who can't face the possiblity of having to resort to what you just bashed.

PING

Don't ignore things that don't agree with you.
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2010 5:39:08 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
. . . possibly political parasites that resemble Rhipicephalus sanguineus (AKA the common brown dog tick) which they have an insatiable instinct to eradicate . . .
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
OrionsGambit
Posts: 258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2010 1:39:04 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/20/2010 4:46:51 PM, Sieben wrote:
If libertarians are so selfish, how come free market professors advocate ending the public universities they work at... Many libertarians act against their class interest in the general interest.

Conversely, most leftists are acting in their own class interest. They want OTHER people to work for them. That is kinda of selfish.

Public Universities are funded through taxes that Libertarians pay. It's actually acting in their interest.

As someone who is sometimes called a leftist; I don't want other people to work for me. I'd like to work for myself. Because I honestly get bored when I'm sitting around doing nothing, which leads to things...

I worked my arse off at a job that I did well in, whose corporate owners then went and squandered it into a failing economy, thus losing me my job. I was under able to get a new job as similar wealthy and super-wealthy individuals lol'd the economy to their benefit, and then had me pay them even more money for messing up the economy via my taxes. So I went on unemployment and took as much of my taxes back as I could while I looked for a job. The Stimulus package finally gave me a job that I now work at and enjoy.

What about me makes me want other people to work for me while I do nothing?
Noblesse Oblige
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2010 2:55:14 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Libertarian ideologues are under the egoistic illusion that they can best look out for their own interests, hence their opposition to government interference with people's supposed right to bear arms and to outlawing drugs.

I don't think that is true. In fact, a lot of people are really freaking stupid and make dumb decisions. Look at how many people are mortally obese, live pay check to pay check, play the lottery, etc. The utopian form of government might be to have an oligarchy of the smartest people in the world who are also free from bias and greed making choices for everyone.

Unfortunately, we don't live in a utopian world. So a few hundred years ago some smart, albeit flawed, individuals suggested that people should have the liberty to make their own decisions, even if those decisions are really stupid, and suffer the consequences of those actions. It has worked suprisingly well so far. In some instances, government interferences have been necessary, mainly to combat times when groups of people have held enough power to infringe on the liberty of others, whether that be through slavery, monopoly, or civil rights offences. Other than that, most of the time government interferences ends up screwing things up for everyone.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2010 4:21:33 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/22/2010 1:39:04 AM, OrionsGambit wrote:
At 11/20/2010 4:46:51 PM, Sieben wrote:
If libertarians are so selfish, how come free market professors advocate ending the public universities they work at... Many libertarians act against their class interest in the general interest.

Conversely, most leftists are acting in their own class interest. They want OTHER people to work for them. That is kinda of selfish.

Public Universities are funded through taxes that Libertarians pay. It's actually acting in their interest.
Uhh... If you're a professor, you don't pay net taxes, because you are paid in taxes. They act against their interests because they advocate abolishing state funded education, which means they would be out of a job.

I worked my arse off at a job that I did well in, whose corporate owners then went and squandered it into a failing economy, thus losing me my job. I was under able to get a new job as similar wealthy and super-wealthy individuals lol'd the economy to their benefit, and then had me pay them even more money for messing up the economy via my taxes. So I went on unemployment and took as much of my taxes back as I could while I looked for a job. The Stimulus package finally gave me a job that I now work at and enjoy.
How do you know the stimulus package gave you a job? What industry do you work in?
What about me makes me want other people to work for me while I do nothing?
I didn't say leftists want to sit around all day. I said they push policies that benefit THEM. They want other people's wealth. Whether they choose to work hard on top of it is a different topic.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...