Lighten up, man. No offense intended. In 2016 I actually voted for the pot-addled compulsory gay wedding cake guy and his smarmy RINO-reject running mate who "vouched for Hillary" in 2016. I even joined the Libertarian Party briefly, out of desperation, I suppose. But the reach of any political party where one of the most recognizable pe…
Lighten up, man. No offense intended. In 2016 I actually voted for the pot-addled compulsory gay wedding cake guy and his smarmy RINO-reject running mate who "vouched for Hillary" in 2016. I even joined the Libertarian Party briefly, out of desperation, I suppose. But the reach of any political party where one of the most recognizable perennial candidates wears a boot on his head and whose convention features a large, hairy man doing a striptease on stage will always be self limiting.
Not that being serious would yield much better results versus the fixed R and D duopoly controlled by the oligarchs whose corruption inspired the original article, as well as the media propagandists, which these oligarchs also control. Either way, we're screwed.
Your second paragraph says it perfectly, and explains why your first paragraph is completely wrong.
They are simply looking for an excuse to marginalize us. If nothing existed, they would simply make it up. Vermin Supreme or the stripping guy have nothing to do with it.
Maybe so. But consider this. I have observed two traits among my fellow human beings that seem to be so pervasive as to constitute a large part of "human nature." Perhaps you've also observed these tendencies. The first is what seems to be an instinct toward tribalism. We tend to prefer to associate with others who share certain similarities, one of which is likemindedness. In and of itself, maybe that's not a bad thing, but maybe sometimes it is.
The second is the instinct to force others to act in ways that comport with one's own viewpoint, and by extension, that of our likeminded brethren, usually--although not always--out of a belief that it is the Right Thing To Do, and that sacrificing just a wee bit of freedom (particularly someone else's freedom) is worth it for the greater good of all. A good example of this would be Gary Johnson's position on the gay wedding cake controversy. When this instinct acts together with the instinct toward tribalism, as it inevitably does, individual freedom always loses.
So I would contend that, given human nature, libertarian ideas are easily marginalized, even by those of us who consider ourselves to be libertarians and that coercion is, by default, an erosion of or assault on individual freedom (except for this one small thing, of course, and maybe the next, then the next, etc.--for the greater good, of course). And the average naked ape doesn't think it through even to this limited extent. So maybe the line between "they" and "us," and exactly who is doing the marginalizing, isn't so well defined, and that therefore, libertarianism--silly or not--is indeed self-limiting to a great extent.
And maybe the large "L" silly side of it is a way to laugh to keep from crying over the human condition and a humorous recognition that being libertarian is, at least at this point in human evolution, so rare as to be an exercise in futility, broadly speaking.
But being a real libertarian is not caring what other people are doing, unless they are harming somebody.
Human nature being what it is, real libertarians will ALWAYS be outnumbered and outgunned by the "elite" in society who want to keep their power. But libertarian ideas are powerful and persuasive when people actually stop to listen, so we must be marginalized as freaks. Hell, you do it and you voted for GJ!
We all do it--even GJ., even you--to everyone, including ourselves. That's why I caution against viewing it solely, or even mainly, an "Us vs. Them" proposition. And surely you've noticed that most people don't listen very well, if at all, and that the vast majority of the time, everyone seems to hear what they want to hear within the cacophony of experiential life. Humans, and humanity itself, are inherently imperfect. Libertarianism represents an ideal, and like all ideologies, it is ultimately self-limiting. To be libertarian is to be lonely, but it is what it is.
Thanks for the kind words. Life IS good. But I choose my fights with care, and the Republic is done. I will waste no more time or energy on it. My primary concern at this point is the welfare of my immediate family. The zombie Empire it has mutated into will stagger on for a while, but it is not salvageable as a republic. The statist rot goes too deep.
Lighten up, man. No offense intended. In 2016 I actually voted for the pot-addled compulsory gay wedding cake guy and his smarmy RINO-reject running mate who "vouched for Hillary" in 2016. I even joined the Libertarian Party briefly, out of desperation, I suppose. But the reach of any political party where one of the most recognizable perennial candidates wears a boot on his head and whose convention features a large, hairy man doing a striptease on stage will always be self limiting.
Not that being serious would yield much better results versus the fixed R and D duopoly controlled by the oligarchs whose corruption inspired the original article, as well as the media propagandists, which these oligarchs also control. Either way, we're screwed.
Your second paragraph says it perfectly, and explains why your first paragraph is completely wrong.
They are simply looking for an excuse to marginalize us. If nothing existed, they would simply make it up. Vermin Supreme or the stripping guy have nothing to do with it.
Maybe so. But consider this. I have observed two traits among my fellow human beings that seem to be so pervasive as to constitute a large part of "human nature." Perhaps you've also observed these tendencies. The first is what seems to be an instinct toward tribalism. We tend to prefer to associate with others who share certain similarities, one of which is likemindedness. In and of itself, maybe that's not a bad thing, but maybe sometimes it is.
The second is the instinct to force others to act in ways that comport with one's own viewpoint, and by extension, that of our likeminded brethren, usually--although not always--out of a belief that it is the Right Thing To Do, and that sacrificing just a wee bit of freedom (particularly someone else's freedom) is worth it for the greater good of all. A good example of this would be Gary Johnson's position on the gay wedding cake controversy. When this instinct acts together with the instinct toward tribalism, as it inevitably does, individual freedom always loses.
So I would contend that, given human nature, libertarian ideas are easily marginalized, even by those of us who consider ourselves to be libertarians and that coercion is, by default, an erosion of or assault on individual freedom (except for this one small thing, of course, and maybe the next, then the next, etc.--for the greater good, of course). And the average naked ape doesn't think it through even to this limited extent. So maybe the line between "they" and "us," and exactly who is doing the marginalizing, isn't so well defined, and that therefore, libertarianism--silly or not--is indeed self-limiting to a great extent.
And maybe the large "L" silly side of it is a way to laugh to keep from crying over the human condition and a humorous recognition that being libertarian is, at least at this point in human evolution, so rare as to be an exercise in futility, broadly speaking.
Generally you're right.
But being a real libertarian is not caring what other people are doing, unless they are harming somebody.
Human nature being what it is, real libertarians will ALWAYS be outnumbered and outgunned by the "elite" in society who want to keep their power. But libertarian ideas are powerful and persuasive when people actually stop to listen, so we must be marginalized as freaks. Hell, you do it and you voted for GJ!
We all do it--even GJ., even you--to everyone, including ourselves. That's why I caution against viewing it solely, or even mainly, an "Us vs. Them" proposition. And surely you've noticed that most people don't listen very well, if at all, and that the vast majority of the time, everyone seems to hear what they want to hear within the cacophony of experiential life. Humans, and humanity itself, are inherently imperfect. Libertarianism represents an ideal, and like all ideologies, it is ultimately self-limiting. To be libertarian is to be lonely, but it is what it is.
Most Excellent Discussion.
" To be libertarian is to be lonely, but it is what it is."
Chin up, Braxton. The SimulationCommanders and pop122's are here!
To be libertarian is also to be aware, and that is good.
So is life, and the fight.
Thanks for the kind words. Life IS good. But I choose my fights with care, and the Republic is done. I will waste no more time or energy on it. My primary concern at this point is the welfare of my immediate family. The zombie Empire it has mutated into will stagger on for a while, but it is not salvageable as a republic. The statist rot goes too deep.
"Either way, we're screwed."
So your opinion is there is no exit from the Alexander Tytler cycle.
I was always hoping mankind would one day find a way to guide societies out at the "freedom" points.