Thanks to the Ludwig von Mises Institute for putting together a massive library of libertarian literature online: http://mises.org/literature.aspx
One reader suggested that for a sociopath like me "who equates feeling 'other' with being an at-risk minority, fear of mob rule and fondness for libertarianism makes sense. But for the sociopath who feels that their cunning and logic and fearlessness make them invincible and all-powerful (plenty of criminal sociopaths fall into this category, I think), totalitarian politics might be very appealing -- assuming, of course, that the sociopaths are in power."
Fascist sociopaths? That's probably the dirtiest thing you could call people in certain cultures.
You are onto something....
ReplyDeleteLibertarianism and decentralization of power benefits individualists. Individualists don't like being told by the majority how to live and how to think.
Specifically I favor left libertarianism aka libertarian socialism, I don't see how totalitarianism benefits anybody except individuals at the very top of the pack, the most elite of the elite which you have to be born into.
You already know whether or not you were born into the right family and whether or not you benefit from libertarianism or fascism. If your family controls all the energy companies then maybe it makes a bit of sense to be a fascist, because your power isn't going anywhere and wont be taken away. Anybody else? We could find ourselves in prison at the whims of some powerful with the money and influence to bribe and threaten.
http://libcom.org/library/social-versus-deep-ecology-bookchin
ReplyDeleteHere this is to help people out who have no clue about what left-libertarian(libertarian socialism) is. It's the polar opposite of fascism.
There's an engineer, where I work, who tried to explain to me the virtues of libertarianism shortly after I began my employment.
ReplyDeleteOne key phrase come to mind:
"We don't need laws, we all just agree on things that nobody does."
I've never taken libertarianism seriously since then, but I guess he might just be an exceptional nutter who doesn't accurately represent the group. Though, frankly, most libertarians I've spoken to are out of their fucking minds.
Yet what should laws be, really, except the codification of "we all just agree on things that nobody does"? The alternatives (everyone decides for her-/himself without reference to others; some ruling class decides "what nobody does") don't seem preferable to me.
DeleteLibertarianism, conservatism, liberalism, left wing, right wing… I can’t get into any of it. I keep up with political news from time to time. It’s an interesting game. But I don’t have any strong political leanings. Sure, in some abstract way I can see why an individualistic political philosophy might be attractive to me. Beyond that, I can’t summon enough emotional energy to give a damn. I don’t care what the government does so long as it doesn’t affect me personally.
ReplyDeleteSince I mention the government, I do have a distinct distaste for cops.
Peter pan thats a naive anarchist, not a libertarian. I believe in locally controlled government, decentralized power, human rights/civil liberties, of course we need a government. We need a government to keep us from being enslaved by the fascist regimes of the world, but we don't need our government to be a fascist regime that enslaves us. And we shouldn't fall for the bait that racial slavery is okay because it only happens to them, or that it's okay to enslave Mexicans, or women, it's where we have to draw our line in the sand otherwise they'll be putting the chip in all of us soon.
ReplyDeleteDaniel let me guess, you don't like the idea of being chipped and enslaved by the majority right?
ReplyDeleteThere you go. Thats reason enough not to go along with the two party system.
I have this problem where I see the validity (or ridiculousness) of both sides of any given argument.
ReplyDeleteThis often leaves me with no opinion on most things.
One might conclude from this that I am lacking in character. With this I could agree and also disagree.
Savagelight, the problem with ideologies is that they're ideologies. They aren't based on reality. They originate from emotion, and it's apparent in everything their followers do. None one of their followers are truly free--they are slaves to a set of pathetic rules that ignore reality in favor of a dream. Libertarianism is your answer, is it? Well let me tell you something, the people who would implement your answer, should it ever become a reality, will be idiots of a slightly different flavor from the one I mentioned, and the dream you think this philosophy will provide will be lost beneath a landslide of bullshit policies and social contracts. The fact of the matter is that your ideology is impractical, impossible, and thus insignificant unless it gets in my way.
ReplyDeleteFreedom isn't an ideology. Freedom is doing whatever the fuck strikes your fancy given the current situation. If that means choosing to spit in the face of a man with a gun in your face, working the system, raping, murdering, or donating to charity, then so be it. But it won't ever be accurately represented by the clusterfuck paradox that is Libertarianism.
The question you should be asking yourself is whether or not you really *want* everyone to be free. I sure as fuck don't. Fuck that ideal. It's not worth the reality it would create.
Peter Pan's diatribe against ideology struck me as being highly abstract and ideological.
DeleteFreedom isn't an ideology. Freedom is doing whatever the fuck strikes your fancy given the current situation. If that means choosing to spit in the face of a man with a gun in your face, working the system, raping, murdering, or donating to charity, then so be it.
DeleteI don't believe you've thought this through carefully enough, because it's a shabby and meager freedom that comes with disaster attached. Non-humans have that level of "freedom": they can do whatever they like as long as they don't suffer a disabling injury, because a disabling injury generally means they'll shortly be demoted to someone's lunch.
High-quality freedom is when you can do pretty much what you like secure in the knowledge that a broken leg or similar won't kill you.
Reading back, I'm sure you know what real freedom is, so I apologize if it seemed I was preaching a bit too much there. But my point still stands about ideologies in general.
ReplyDelete@Peter Pan, freedom isn't free. We have to fight to get it and fight to keep it. That is the purpose and function of libertarianism. It's an ideology which exists to continue that fight.You are correct in believing that most of the political leaders govern by emotions when making the laws, but libertarians typically are the most logical among them.
ReplyDeleteUnder libertarian government you'd have no more war on drugs, prostitution would be legal, in fact every behavior which does not directly harm someone else would be illegal and the burden would be on the government to have a reason to intrude on our lives and get in our way.
The way it is now, the government owns us and we are subjects, we basically get told what to do and with technology they are trying to control us down to the microscopic level, it has to stop and if you don't think libertarianism is the answer because it's ideology thats fine, I'm not ideological either. I see libertarianism as the best tool for the situation at hand, it's the means to an end not an end in itself.
correction, every behavior which does not infringe upon the liberty of someone else would be LEGAL.
ReplyDeleteSavagelight, that's some pipe dream utopianism stuff you are talking about right there.
ReplyDeleteSocialism, fascism, communism, liberalism, etc... doesn't matter.
There will always be servants and there will always be masters, no matter what name you give them, whether government-sanctioned or not. There will always be idiots, and there will always be someone looking for a loophole to take advantage of. Every form of government has been tried at one time or another, in one form or another, but in the end we are still humans.
Hell, I'm sure there are some remote tribes in the Congo that operate under what might be considered libertarianism, but it doesn't stop them from stabbing each other and raping stuff.
There is no such thing as freedom with regards to other people.
There will always be servants and there will always be masters, no matter what name you give them, whether government-sanctioned or not.
DeleteI'd urge you to read about the !Kung. They have an egalitarian (anarchic) society with neither masters nor servants. Nor, for that matter, any sort of permanent leadership role(s). They just live together.
Savagelight said, “There you go. Thats reason enough not to go along with the two party system.”
ReplyDeleteNot really.
When I say that as long as it doesn’t affect me directly, I don’t care, I’m being as literal as I can be. That chip thing is not an actual problem as of yet. It may never be in my lifetime. If it ever becomes an issue that could threaten me, there are alternatives I could pursue that do not involve me caring about or getting involved in politics. The law would not stand between me and something I really, really wanted, ergo there is no need for me to go on political crusades to change it.
I agree with the general thrust of your comments Medusa. It’s probably the reason why I can’t get too worked up about politics. Peace time breeds apathy perhaps. Who is to say how I would feel and what I would do if I were living thru a time of revolution and mass social instability or if war was bought to the homeland, up close and personal. At the very least it would be really exciting. I would definitely think that such a time would be a great opportunity for someone like me. Barring that, I don’t care.
Who is to say how I would feel and what I would do if I were living thru a time of revolution and mass social instability or if war was bought to the homeland, up close and personal. At the very least it would be really exciting. I would definitely think that such a time would be a great opportunity for someone like me. Barring that, I don’t care.
ReplyDeleteHah! This is exactly why I got so excited after 9/11. And again after the financial meltdown.
What a let down those both were.
Okay, that makes me sounds sick as those were both horrifying events.
ReplyDeleteI was just hoping that something substantial would come out of them at least.
Instead we are just getting a slow, lazy and mindless cultural erosion.
Congrats, terrorists, you win.
I'm excited about the possibility of another, deeper recession. Costs for expensive things will continue to drop.
ReplyDeleteCheap houses, cheap cars... can't go wrong there!
Plus, the current recession has allowed me to hire my ex as a maid, for next to slave wages. Already had the threesome with her and her and her engaged cousin, so this is the next best dream.
I also have her boyfriend scrambling to find me excellent deals on cars. If he saves me money compared to what I'd normally pay, he gets a small cut of the savings. Seriously, everyone scavenging for money is awesome.
Yeah, my eyes widened when I first heard about the possibility of a "double dip" recession.
ReplyDeleteI was also hoping that the oil spill would destroy the world. Except the animals. Leave the animals alone.
Good Christo, Peter, your life sounds like quite the clusterfuck.
I was also hoping that the oil spill would destroy the world.
ReplyDeleteLMAO!
Except the animals. Leave the animals alone.
Meh, to the animals.
@Daniel & Medusa
ReplyDeleteLibertarianism if we expect it to go like it is on paper is utopian but thats not what I expect. I see it as a logician, maximum liberty means maximum opportunity. It's like if you are playing a game of chess and you develop a philosophy or style of positional gameplay which is based around bringing the maximum amount of options/moves to your pieces on the board because it increases your chances of winning.
Daniel claims that hes willing to break the law to win, Daniel should assume that everyone else is willing to do what hes willing to do and once he does this kind of thinking this is when libertarianism begins to make a bit of sense. Daniel you have to recognize that there are people whos only mission in life is to keep you from being able to od certain things.The chip which you think isn't a problem today, will immediately become a reality if not for the US Constitution which was written mainly by libertarians. The US revolution was an important part of history and you are correct that during revolution there is opportunity for someone like you, but I don't think you realize just what that means because you are only thinking about the first few days or few weeks where it might favor a person like you.Once people get organized into militias, are you still going to take the antisocial lone gunman attitude?
Medusa I'm fully aware that each system has elites. I don't have a problem with the elites, for all I know you could be an elite, I only have a problem with people who don't know me, who don't understand me, who don't even live in the same state as me, but they think they have the right to tell me how to live my life, how to feel, how to think, what I can and cannot do. It's in my nature to be anti-authoritarian. It's not at all about political ideology, you can be apolitical, it's about whether or not you will tolerate being controlled.
No I don't see social unrest happening anytime soon. Most of the young people in this country are wimpy cowards, most of the old people are corrupted by bribes, threats of all kinds, so nobody is going to do anything even remotely illegal.
See SL, here’s the thing. I don’t take an “anti-social, lone gunman attitude”. I'm more asocial than anti-social. But when I read the words lone gunman, I think of… well… a lone gun man, a la Lee Harvey Oswald. It is more accurate to characterize my political mindset, such as it is, as pragmatic and selfish, especially if I am only talking about survival. Now if I were actually trying to gain power for myself on a larger scale, then you could add Machiavellian to that list. If, say, a mass revolution occurred, my first thoughts would be to consider how I might take advantage of the chaos. History demonstrates that when all is in flux, a smart and lucky person can accrue a lot of power. Strategy is critical in such situations, which does indeed involve long term thinking. So rather than lone gun man, I’d say strategic opportunist is a better phrase, if I ever got involved that is.
ReplyDeleteYour comments prompted me to imagine what I might do in a Communist setting, ala Soviet Union style at the height of its dominance. I saw myself spouting the party line, saying and doing what all good party members would do, all the while not believing a word of it. In that way, I could gain power and privileges for myself and those I choose to be part of my circle. I would game the system to make myself one of the elites Medusa talked about. The political philosophy itself, whether it helped the masses, whether I truly thought it was right or wrong, whether it was logical or not, would be irrelevant to me.
Thanks SL. You inadvertently helped me make something clear to myself.
Nah, my life is pretty good. Situations like this are only dramatic if you let them get that way, and I'm not big on drama if it impacts the stability of my life. The point I was trying to make was that bad things are awesome if you're in a position to use them to your advantage, while also breaking the "I just want to watch the world burn," mentality that seemed to be emerging in some of the comments.
ReplyDeleteI think its about a balance.. know that ultimately we all want to feel okay.
ReplyDeleteThe biggest sociopaths around seem to be liberals AKA democrats notice they feign empathy for others but what they're really doing is deflecting any personal responsibility by USING everyone else. Then they step back and praise themselves for their collective manipulation abilities. Libertarians are independent but they also believe in personal responsibility which sociopaths don't seem to have any if you ask me.
ReplyDelete