I have no idea when it happened. It could have been before I moved to Alburtis in the early 80's but more than likely it happened all the while I was growing up. My family was Lutheran (religious, without being overtly religious) and they almost always voted Democrat (this is still a mystery, I would think my folks would be more in the Republican camp but hey what do I know). There are some that say you are born libertarian, while others say you come to the philosophy after you have found out nothing else works for you. There is also the theory that you have to be charged with a Federal crime to become libertarian. Among the supposed prerequisites for entry into the party and philosophy are, but not limited to;
anger at the government
be a convicted felon
hold a Ph. D and work as a cab driver
know your way around bombs and the U. S. Postal system
believe "everything" is a government conspiracy
support anarchy
refusal to pay your taxes
have a shrine built to Hayek, Friedman, and Mies
make a pilgrimage to University College to urinate on the corpse of Jeremy Bentham while muttering "Splitter!" (best to do this after a few 'hoppy' pints so it flows well enough to soak his pant leg)
go around correcting everyone by saying "It's pronounced Ay - n not Ann" and while your at it falsely tell your friends that libertarianism and objectivism is the same thing
and most importantly, go beat your head against a brick wall until the world finds out how many of the ideals Republicans and Democrats actually share with the libertarians.
What can I say, it's easy to cut up something when there are a few 'outlyers' as your sole source of media representation. I think this is where libertarianism gets 'dicked'.
I have as much in common with Libertarianism as I do with Republicanism and the Democrats. Conversely, those similarities don't put me into the mainstream politics.
I started off in the party of my parents. When I signed up for Selective Service I also registered to vote. So, that makes my first time somewhere in 1987. I wish I could remember it, the whole process was a complete blur. Almost before it began it was over. The surrender of your ideals, choosing the right person to be your first, the sweet words, and eventually the shame and regret that follows. In many ways it's like the first time you had sex.
My Trusted MOGs
yeah but did everything work the way you expected when you pulled the relevant levers? ;-)
My Trusted MOGs
I don't remember. That the sad part. That day was huge, and I can't remember.
Probably not.
My Trusted MOGs
Yeah, but isn't everything really a government conspiracy? :-)
That sex metaphor hit a little close to home. As did the point about Ayn Rand.
Sadly, mine started out less than ideal. I was first drawn to it simply because it was "different." And as much as I like to think I'm above the trends and bandwagon, I still find myself doing things sometimes solely because it's different than what other people do. Conforming by automatically refusing to conform. It's still the same thing, doing things based on what everyone else is doing.
Thankfully, in this case the more I actually learned about it the more I liked what I saw. I've always been a very laid back person, never really caring enough about what other people are doing in their own life to feel like "there oughta be a law." So in addition to my antisocial streak, I'm basically libertarian due to apathy and laziness, too.
My Trusted MOGs
If you can check out my Multi post about being 'different' and libertarian. That post sucked, but I completely identify you.
Rand is a slippery slope.
So in addition to my antisocial streak
Anarchist!
My Trusted MOGs
Anarchist!
Oddly, no. Sounds intriguing, but the logical endpoint of anarchy never sat right with me. To put it in the terms of my fave RPG, I'm too lawful to go chaotic neutral.
For some reason, I think you'll get that.
I'll check out that Multi post. It's been a while since I've logged in over there.
My Trusted MOGs
Just shittin' ya. Because your my favorite turd, don't cha know.
Humans + Anarchy = Unworkable Project. It will never work.
My Trusted MOGs
Two of ya in this ship......
So which kind of libertarian are ya rights theorist, or consequentialist....... ok, ok so I've been reading the Wiki..... ;-)
Do you advocate the reduction of the central government to be only the judicial system and the armed forces?
Do you recognize a commons? Is there such a thing as collectively deciding something? How do you establish a common consensus concerning one's rights and when they have been infringed upon? Won't that consensus necessarily, not include everyone's opinion?
Is private charity enough to say...... pay for health care of those who are unable?... provide for the old and infirm .......
Libertarianism is about liberty right. About personal freedom.... but people are born into different circumstances, with varying degrees of socio-economic freedom, access to education etc...... how do you reconcile that?
If I am making wrong assumptions, let me know.... really I'm not trying to provoke anything, I'm just asking.
My Trusted MOGs
Chris: Not sure how to respond to that! :-)
Nick: you have been reading the wiki, haven't you . . . well, you are officially more knowledgeable than I am about it! Seriously, I haven't sat down and hammered out every little thing and every little detail about it to my satisfaction. I've been in that camp for a long time, but only recently became serious enough to actually do anything, talk to others, etc. For me, always, it's about moderation. I don't for one minute think the 100% completely libertarian view would ever take hold, and I don't think it necessarily should. It's great in small communities, but in large areas like a state or country, well, "good fences make good neighbors" and I think there's a point where it crumples in on itself.
My main answer to most of your questions would be that those are questions best dealt with on a more local level. I believe the national government needs to deal only with things laid out for it in the constituion, and all other questions, be it healthcare regulation, education, etc, be handled in some cases on the state level, and some cases even more locally. Not to try and weaken the union or anything, though, but the thought of people 1,000s of miles away telling me I have to do things the same way as people on the other side of the country just sits wrong.
And now that I have succesfully avoided answering any of these questions in any committed way, I hit "Publish."
My Trusted MOGs
So are you saying now is the time for a local libertarian form of government, or are you saying that we would not be where we are if we had been more libertairan?
This echoes my confusion with what people who claim "States Rights" are actually talking about. Not to group you all together necessarily.
My Trusted MOGs
I generally agree with what you said Chuck. I think the strengthening of local community is necessary.... however, how much of that is actually going on of its own accord? Generally I see us Americans as a "me first" crowd... and I think it's going to take something major... like an economic depression to force a different way of thinking and relating to one another..... but of course that would be kind of ironic from a libertarian standpoint.
Maybe the US would be better off in smaller chunks.... I'm not against that.
You're a sci-fi fan, you read any of the Richard Morgan books? His latest "13" has a pretty grim picture of the US in the near future but it essentially consists of a chunk down south, the coasts (actually the west coast is part of the Rim States which extends all the way down), and then "jesus land", i.e. the "heartland"... which is completely walled off from the rest.... not inconceivable actually.
A strictly libertarian or objectivist (not to conflate the two but they are related) philosophy always sounds logical and good in theory but seems to break down in the context of actual social life..... you can say that people are free or should be free but the fact is people don't behave as if they are free.........and the freedom that we do have is relative, not absolute.
well, I had more to say, but my brain is petering out.
My Trusted MOGs
that's why I'm supporting Adam Yauch and Mos Def in 2012!
My Trusted MOGs
You had me with: go around correcting everyone by saying "It's pronounced Ay - n not Ann" That's funny - unlike her disciples. When given the "bible" to read I should have never observed that she was a terrible writer.
Great Ella track. Mr. Rhythm gets my vote every time, regardless of his beliefs.
My Trusted MOGs
After I voted for the first time, I felt the immediate need to take a shower - and every time since then, come to think of it....
My Trusted MOGs
I flirted, ever so briefly, with objectivism. The nail in the coffin was a premiere of an Ayn Rand documentary at a film festival, with a Q&A after word. The movie was fine, nothing special. The audience hissed at Eisenhour appearing on screen, which I still don't really understand. Then when it was over I experienced the most soul sucking, emotionally devoid, intellectually suffocating hour of my life listening to the card carrying objectivists talk about Ayn and her philosophy. I began at that moment to realize that people arguing over whether stuff was black or whether it was white, progressed nothing, and as much as it would be great if life was one way or the other, for the most part, most of it is lived in the grey part of the spectrum. I never read another book again.
A friend later summed up objectivists nicely in saying that they can't except the fact that society will always be there to prop up the weak, the losers, and the incapable. That is the point of civilization, we will always have to pay for those who can't pay their way (this may sound cold, but I'm really using it as a broad example, and I personally don't have a problem with the government supporting people who are sick, or unable to support themselves) - and they just can't accept that.
My Trusted MOGs
Hmmm, I do not know enough to understand your point Contra, but I guess I would agree.
To quote the Wiki about objectivism: "there exists an objective reality that is independent of mind and that is capable of being known." This smacks of obvious contradiction. How can one know what is independent of the mind, if the mind is the only tool we have for "knowing". Perhaps you open the realm of possibilities to include that some knowledge comes from the heart. Then the point of contention is whether the heart or what some might call intuition is a valid source of reality. I think it is arguable that the mind is subjective, while the intuition is much more mysterious (does that make it objective?) If you don't really know the impetus of your fundamental desire, does that mean that you are working off of an objective plan that you can't grasp?
So I read on and Rand's point is that man can know "reality." I don't dispute that point, but the identification of reality is where this falls apart. An aetheist has a far different idea of the reality that a person strives to realize, while someone who includes an omniscience akin to chaos in their reality will have a far different idea of where the path to reality lies.
To bring it to the politics, I think politics is seen as a means to an end, when actually politics is just the end in itself - the constant struggle to balance opposing POV. But tis total self interest really prolong the constnt battle, or is there a way to fioster at least an increase in cooperation. I don't think there is a perfect result.
So to bring back to Chris' points (sort of) I like a lot of aspects of Libertarian thinking, but no thing is going to stop this train without a catastrophe more along the lines of the recession that Nick referred to or something like climate change. Too often individualism and the laissez faire attitude mask pure greed and selfishness, and increase the divisions. I mean, the civil rights movement would never have culminated in reform without the enormous enlargement of the commerce clause. So are we talking about localism replacing this now that something has been accomplished? There will still be the nasty reality of the man with the money having the biggest say. What about bigots, that is a form of tyranny too, won't localism just re-empower more overt racism and provincialism. Maybe you are saying that you are resigned to this fact, and I could accept that, but then the less fortunate without means cannot move out of the tyrannical province.
A rant, indeed, but you always put a solid soap box up for us Chris! Sorry to co-opt, I am in law school afterall.
My Trusted MOGs
Mass typos!
My Trusted MOGs
Dude, Ayn Rand was a marketing genius! Seriously! She took an old philosophy--that people should only care about themselves and their own interests without concern for others--and renamed it "objectivism."
That sounds so much more scientific than "evil"...
My Trusted MOGs
Your so right.
Did you know a lot of neo-cons consider themselves Objectivist. I've heard Alan Greenspan say he was one in an interview. Makes you understand their "markets will correct themselves" philosophy a little better.
My Trusted MOGs
Whew!
certainly...some major thought provoking material and comments going on over here on your mog lately!
My Trusted MOGs
excellent points Amiel, Tyler, and Brendan....
Don't have time now, but I'll try to return to this later......
One thing though ... are we conflating objectivism with libertarianism? I know they are related ... but how closely? How do you see this Chris?
These are age old issues....
My Trusted MOGs
I was not trying to group them together just making a point about the problem of "self actualization" on a practical level.
BTW wiki says that Alan Greenspan was an objectivist and was involved in Rand's movement, having met with her several times.
Laissez faire economics to me just means the big guy gets to do what he wants, which is not very libertarian at all. So there is a distinction for you.
My Trusted MOGs
Holy shit you guys.
Why couldn't you folks come up with easier questions, like what's my favorite flag color or what brand underwear do I wear.
I am just doing a afternoon check in. I will get back to this after the peeps go to bed tonight.
Nick, your worst than my daughter at the zoo, "What's this, Why, Would you ..., How, Why?"
While I am no expert in philosophy, I know a fair bit about classic libertarianism and objectivism. Hopefully, I can get you to see what I see.
Brendan, Your comment will grace any and all discourse I have about libertarianism v. objectivism.
Tyler, I always thought Greenspan to be a Consequentialist.
Sunny, I know, my brain is hurting.
My Trusted MOGs
I have no idea of "libertarianism" nor who Ayn Rand is, and I'm too lazy know to consult Wiki. I just classifiy the discussion as "Americans discussing about politics during times of election campain" ;). But I like the track. Cheers
My Trusted MOGs
I'd be an anarchist (not a nihilist) if it was't so varied on so many points of views and philosophies. I hold more to the libertarian view point even though they can't decide to go anti-abortion or pro-choice.
My Trusted MOGs
Haha, I definitely got too serious there. I just don't really understand the POV. I'm trying.
My Trusted MOGs
Amiel, I like serious. My libertarian POV is tempered with pragmatism. I know there is no way the libertarian ( I mean classic lib. ala Mills, Locke, and even Jefferson) 'ideal state' will come to fruition.
Greed is the end all argument. Without the drive to have more, where would we be? I think, greed drives the advancement of civilization.
Most social (if not all) philosophy seeks equilibrium. Power v. People = People with Power. I like the idea of Government, so long as this is the equation I am working with.
When I see this formula, Power v. People = Power v. People I start to think Tyranny and just because Tyranny is an outdated concept, that doesn't mean it's ineffective.
For instance; electoral colleges. I believe we should have a national standard concerning the way electoral colleges are awarded in an national election. If you can't already tell that is a highly unpopular 'libertarian' view.
Conversely, I advocate the wholesale dismantling of certain arms of the Government. Two come to mind, the FCC and Homeland Defense. And with that statement I got myself flagged. Just now. Did you feel it?
The FCC because I think privatization will do a better job. For the last 25 years telecom has been courting costumers. Ads make money. If you don't have the eyeballs your outta of business. Money talks.
Homeland Defense because they are ineffective and they have the power of 'martial law'. Until Sept 11th, FEMA had that power, and that was scary enough.
I choose tact and diplomacy over bullets any day and when/if we are invaded by some foreign threat (highly unlikely in the next 1000 years, and for the slow thinkers, that's until 3008 or 250 presidential terms) I will rely on my fellow Americans to resist by any means necessary.
I think some Government is good, but it has to be checked, and we lost the ability to check a long time ago.
It took me almost 2 hours to write that comment. I need a break.
My Trusted MOGs
This turned out to be a good thread for me. Thanks for your comments.
Don't get me wrong I am not end it here, by all means if you feel you want to say something, post it.
Nick, I didn't have time to get back you. I will.
I vote for keeping this one alive rather then opening up a new discussion. Keep checking back.
My Trusted MOGs
Here's a new start, I consider myself a 'traditional consequentialist'.
There's that gray area we always talk about.
My Trusted MOGs
Oat, I think you were frothing at the mouth.
My Trusted MOGs
That's one of the perks from receiving notification of your post, I am. The highly intelligent political discussion is always accompanied by a great track.
I won't add anything to the comments and your write-up as it won't take things any further. All I know is that politics is too serious to leave it to the politicians.
My Trusted MOGs
trick question: sex is politics