Random Political View Thread

[fatdeadsheep]

So... what are your political views. commence clusterfuck.

[fatdeadsheep]

ok, Ill get this shit started. I have libertarian ideology with practical leanings, essentially I hate anything that is totalitarian (im looking at the communist government Bester.) and think people should have freedom to essentially fuck themselves up no matter what.(i.e. with all types of drugs legalized and invisible wanking hand of the market ideals)

[deathrow_juggalo]

I believe in the right to shoot illegal immigrants that refuse to work and won't assimilate themselves into the diverse culture we have. Instead trying to change our ways

[IronMan666]

ok, Ill get this shit started. I have libertarian ideology with practical leanings, essentially I hate anything that is totalitarian (im looking at the communist government Bester.) and think people should have freedom to essentially fuck themselves up no matter what.(i.e. with all types of drugs legalized and invisible wanking hand of the market ideals)

Libertarianism, a society without construction codes. Just like Platos Republic and Karl Marx bullshit its nothing but intellectual madness.

[fatdeadsheep]

Libertarianism, a society without construction codes. Just like Platos Republic and Karl Marx bullshit its nothing but intellectual madness.

i agree about Plato and Marx but libertarianism, at least when you take some of the impractical bullshit out, is a society that doesn't give a shit and leaves you alone as long as your not doing something that affects another person negatively i.e. murder or theft.

[IronMan666]

i agree about Plato and Marx but libertarianism, at least when you take some of the impractical bullshit out, is a society that doesn't give a shit and leaves you alone as long as your not doing something that affects another person negatively i.e. murder or theft.

In that case you're describing the elimination of victimless crimes. That's an oversimplification of a libertarian society, if not just a secondary condition of the overall concept of libertarianism.

My main point against libertarians is that just like Plato and Marx they come to their conclusions entirely from the basis of logic, and result in a monstrous ideology that does not work in the real world, and if even implemented lead to disastrous results.

Neither Plato, Marx or the Libertarian ideals implemented has a whole have nearly the results they promised.

If you want a literary example that reflects the opposite read the anabasis by Xenophon. He organizes the 10,000 Greek Mercenaries into a moving polis successfully and is an example in how intelligence working on the project adapts to form an institution that functions. The main basis is that they're rooted in reality. Plato, Marx and the Libertarians are imagining things and finding cause and effects that sound logical, but when carried out do not work because they're based in false assumptions about the world.

The same works in business, usually a great plan that sounds logical fails. The Xenophon method would be called validated learning in the business world.


So, going back into the point of victimeless crimes: In theory all victimless crimes could be eliminated in the US overnight and we would be no were near a Libertarian society. This would consist of introducing any substance into our body, what amount, or consenting sexual activities regardless of how destructive and sadomasochistic they might be, etc.

The notion of a victimeless crime is that it doesn't affect anyone DIRECTLY. The notion that there is no victimeless crimes is that it affects people INDIRECTLY therefore there are no victimelss crimes.

Now, both sides take this shit to far and we must be reasonable here. In most cases smoking weed is a victimeless crime and it mainly only affects you. But say for example that a young mother with an infant decides to get high and drunk alone in her apartment for days. She forgets about the child, who dies from Dehydration. She's now accused of child neglect and goes to prison. So now smoking weed and not giving a fuck lands you in jail. Which opens a whole new load of questions regarding parenting and if the parents should go to jail for having consumed certain chemicals that directly puts the life of their children in danger...

On the other side, everything we do affects does around us. They expect individuals to have some kind of bandage and regulate their behavior into the greatest social good? Who the fuck can tell for sure what is the best social good? Were does it stop? Is a great coach forced to never retire because it will harm the schools students, etc? Fuck that. Besides taking this notion literary would mean disproving Adam Smiths notion of the Invisible hand, which ofcourse they can't do.

So the pure elimination of victimeless crimes, even do for the most part I agree with it, is more complicated then first seems.

So, that arises to the next point: What is Libertarianism?

Its a society ruled by what is called Natural Order or Anarcho-Capitalism. Just like Plato and Marx, the Libertarians rationalize how society will organize itself in such conditions when EVERY attempt to implement this society has failed!

What is the main points of it?

The ELIMINATION OF THE STATE.

Bring invisible wanking hand of the market notions into government. (The invisible wanking hand of the market is the best engine for wealth, but the Gov just does some things better).

The elimination of ALL public property, even streets.

and on it goes.


If you read American History, after the Revolution the US Government looked alot like a Libertarians wet dream: The government had nearly no power, and couldn't even tax for fucks sake! It was a disaster, and thanks to Federalists like Hamilton we were able to bring some authority and have the power to create national strategies. America from then on began to develop rapidly, boosting the economy and creating a series of managerial and technological innovations unsurpassed in Europe.

[fatdeadsheep]

Well, your assuming that I am ideologically bound to all libertarian ideas and your assuming that I believe libertarian ideals would lead to a more stable society. Of course they wouldn't. for example, if drugs where legalized there would be more overdoses, more drug related deaths, more child neglect, more everything bad related to drugs but the entire point is that people make these decisions for themselves. As for children being affected, it happens every day even with illegal drugs. Junkies don't need to have legal drugs to fuck up their kids lives. Also if you look at the indirect consequences of the illegal drug trade i.e. an entire country being completely destabilized by drug cartels, you'll see that there will be far reaching consequences either way.

You did make a good point about the other extreme but i don't see that as a libertarian ideal. The idea of individuals attributing to social good got extremely popular in Europe during the late 1800's and eventually lead to the idea's behind Nazis and Communists, the only difference between the two being which side of the political spectrum they approached totalitarianism from. In Europe people took the ideas of social Darwinism (a brand new concept at the time) and believed that their culture or their nation was competing against other cultures and other nations so ideas of communism, uniting as one political nation, and Nazism, uniting as one homogenous culture, took off.

The same idea of social Darwinism had the opposite affect in the United States. We took the survival of the fittest to mean that individuals where competing against other individuals to become the most successful, the wealthiest, ect. this lead to invisible wanking hand of the market ideals and the birth of the libertarian movement. So essentially, the libertarians want an unstable society so the fittest among us can rise to the top while the lesser among us can sink into the depths of debt and addiction.

Of course this is just the really hardcore ideology and their is definitely a lot of loopholes and impractical ideas that i don't exactly agree with like human nature allowing pollution to build up without regulation, the idea that your fucked from birth if your parents are shit, the government is better for doing things that are not profitable in the short term for example the space program.

As for libertarian societies i say look at early 1900 America. There was a huge explosion of wealth and American became a superpower in this time but in my opinion they went to far. See though I am a libertarian I don't take the ideology to an extreme like some do. I think early 1900 society with a little more regulation on pollution and workers rights and a more educated public would have been fantastic. Also having legal cocaine wouldn't be that bad of an idea either.

[IronMan666]

Well, your assuming that I am ideologically bound to all libertarian ideas and your assuming that I believe libertarian ideals would lead to a more stable society. Of course they wouldn't.

Well the notion of Stable society is abit subjective. The invisible wanking hand of the market itself is a chaotic thing (and many socialists rant about this and how scientific dictatorships would be much better. Mostly because from this chaos they can't have their grand Social Engineering schemes carried out). But the main basis of the Libertarian society is the protection of Private Property. But the example you're using to describe it is the abuse of narcotics which would:

be more overdoses, more drug related deaths, more child neglect, more everything bad related to drugs

So what you're describing is the breaking down of the Civil Order as the destabilization of society. This is by no means the promise of any libertarain intellectual, neither would it establish a protection towards private property and its hardly the desired goal of any citizen.

for example, if drugs where legalized there would be more overdoses, more drug related deaths, more child neglect, more everything bad related to drugs but the entire point is that people make these decisions for themselves. As for children being affected, it happens every day even with illegal drugs. Junkies don't need to have legal drugs to fuck up their kids lives. Also if you look at the indirect consequences of the illegal drug trade i.e. an entire country being completely destabilized by drug cartels, you'll see that there will be far reaching consequences either way.

I was pointing out the fallacy of the notion of Victimless Crimes and how the Libertarian claim that its their right to do whatever they want to their body and the Gov has no authority over them would soon crumble down and regulations have to be enforced. Not the effects of legalizing drugs or how effective the Gov is from preventing Drug use.

Has for the argument that making drugs legal it would destroy the cartels is a fallacy. It would destroy drug traffickers yes, but the Cartels would look at other ways to make money which many argue are even less desirable then their current role of providing narcotics. Such as sex trafficking, kidnapping, extortion to business owners, etc.

You did make a good point about the other extreme but i don't see that as a libertarian ideal. The idea of individuals attributing to social good got extremely popular in Europe during the late 1800's and eventually lead to the idea's behind Nazis and Communists, the only difference between the two being which side of the political spectrum they approached totalitarianism from. In Europe people took the ideas of social Darwinism (a brand new concept at the time) and believed that their culture or their nation was competing against other cultures and other nations so ideas of communism, uniting as one political nation, and Nazism, uniting as one homogenous culture, took off.

Communism didn't take roots in Pre-WWII West (You can now argue that Europe is living under Cultural Marxism more or less). And Communism was not influenced by Darwin. Infact they saw Darwinism has a threat to their ideology since it meant individuals weren't biologically identical to each other and to believe in evolution would land you in trouble in Soviet Russia.

The same idea of social Darwinism had the opposite affect in the United States. We took the survival of the fittest to mean that individuals where competing against other individuals to become the most successful, the wealthiest, ect. this lead to invisible wanking hand of the market ideals and the birth of the libertarian movement. So essentially, the libertarians want an unstable society so the fittest among us can rise to the top while the lesser among us can sink into the depths of debt and addiction.

I'm sure many share this thought, but never make it public. Their main argument is the raise of collective Welfare and individual standards of achievement.

Of course this is just the really hardcore ideology and their is definitely a lot of loopholes and impractical ideas that i don't exactly agree with like human nature allowing pollution to build up without regulation, the idea that your fucked from birth if your parents are shit, the government is better for doing things that are not profitable in the short term for example the space program.

As for libertarian societies i say look at early 1900 America. There was a huge explosion of wealth and American became a superpower in this time but in my opinion they went to far. See though I am a libertarian I don't take the ideology to an extreme like some do. I think early 1900 society with a little more regulation on pollution and workers rights and a more educated public would have been fantastic. Also having legal cocaine wouldn't be that bad of an idea either.

America in the 1900's wasn't a Libertarian society. A libertarian Society wants to implement Natural Order/Anarcho Capitalism.

Anarcho-capitalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Libertarians advocate the destruction of the state, or at best one very crippled. The US has only had this ONCE in its history, and it was right after Independence from England and it was a disaster.

What you're advocating here is Laissezfaire capitalism, not the libertarians society:

Laissez-faire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The separation of State and Economy is NOT a libertarian society. A great example that proves me right is that China has less political freedom the US and a more deregulated economy:



So unless you're infavor of natural order and the elimination of public property and public government (Yes, most modern Libertarian intellectuals are against Political kleptocracy) and either the destruction of the state as we know it and a do away with the westphalian system, then you're a capitalist, not a Libertarian.

[fatdeadsheep]

So what you're describing is the breaking down of the Civil Order as the destabilization of society. This is by no means the promise of any libertarian intellectual, neither would it establish a protection towards private property and its hardly the desired goal of any citizen.

Lets not get carried away, im not saying that society would break down and a huge portion of the population would be this useless drug addicted mess. More people would be addicts im sure, but it wouldn't be anarchy or anything so i reject the idea that this would hurt private property.

Has for the argument that making drugs legal it would destroy the cartels is a fallacy. It would destroy drug traffickers yes, but the Cartels would look at other ways to make money which many argue are even less desirable then their current role of providing narcotics. Such as sex trafficking, kidnapping, extortion to business owners, etc.

I'm sure that the cartels will be around for a long ass time or until the sweat reeking spic government gets its shit together but the drug trade is a multi-billion dollar industry that has HUGE profit margins for these cartels. Sex trafficking would also be slightly reduced in a libertarian society because prostitution would also be legal. For everything else though, yes they would continue to extort, sex trade, and kidnap. But remember if lets say cocaine was legal huge amounts of legitimate revenue would flood into south American countries and conditions would improve. as conditions improve the cartels would be progressively destroyed, of course this is all hypothetical and there is no way to know what would actually happen.

And Communism was not influenced by Darwin. Infact they saw Darwinism has a threat to their ideology since it meant individuals weren't biologically identical to each other and to believe in evolution would land you in trouble in Soviet Russia.

Social Darwinism is separate to biological evolution and the early leaders of communism would know that. People have written 500 page long dissertations about the development of communism and this idea is just one small aspect of the huge web of how it evolved and why it was popular.

So unless you're infavor of natural order and the elimination of public property and public government (Yes, most modern Libertarian intellectuals are against Political kleptocracy) and either the destruction of the state as we know it and a do away with the westphalian system, then you're a capitalist, not a Libertarian.

by your definition, your right, I am a capitalist/objectivist but I disagree with the definition. to me libertarian believes that individual freedom is the most important aspect of a society. Its a broad definition but it is what I identify with.

[IronMan666]

I'm sure that the cartels will be around for a long ass time or until the sweat reeking spic government gets its shit together

The sweat reeking spic Government and the Cartels are the same corporation. The Governments sole objective is to kill competing traffickers that sprung up and compete with them.

by your definition, your right, I am a capitalist/objectivist but I disagree with the definition. to me libertarian believes that individual freedom is the most important aspect of a society. Its a broad definition but it is what I identify with.

You sound like a fiscal conservative. And its more then a broad term, its an unspecific abstraction. Even Socialists claim they work for individual freedom!