I’m more of a libertarian but I see that it can never work. Oh, it is superior in every way, but as this video shows, personality and genetics determine attitudes and there are just too few people who are built that way for it to work. The best we can do is probably a sort of Burkian Classical Liberalism where private property and culture is sacrosanct and ordered liberty built on those concepts is the model. That is most likely a lost cause as well. Liberty cannot survive long where females have the vote. They are not built that way for th most part. They do not value it.
I've often described myself as a Classic Liberal, unfortunately, most people today don't understand what that means:
Classical liberalism is a political ideology and a branch of liberalism which advocates civil liberties under the rule of law with an emphasis on economic freedom. Closely related to economic liberalism, it developed in the early 19th century, building on ideas from the previous century as a response to urbanization and to the Industrial Revolution in Europe and the United States.[1][2][3] Notable individuals whose ideas contributed to classical liberalism include John Locke,[4] Jean-Baptiste Say, Thomas Robert Malthus and David Ricardo. It drew on the classical economic ideas espoused by Adam Smith in Book One of The Wealth of Nations and on a belief in natural law,[5] utilitarianism[6] and progress.[7] The term "classical liberalism" was applied in retrospect to distinguish earlier 19th-century liberalism from the newer social liberalism.
I'd be ok with a return to Classic Liberalism vs. the current Post-Modern Marxist "liberalism" of today.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
I’m more of a libertarian but I see that it can never work. Oh, it is superior in every way, but as this video shows, personality and genetics determine attitudes and there are just too few people who are built that way for it to work. The best we can do is probably a sort of Burkian Classical Liberalism where private property and culture is sacrosanct and ordered liberty built on those concepts is the model. That is most likely a lost cause as well. Liberty cannot survive long where females have the vote. They are not built that way for th most part. They do not value it.
Most people in the world aren't IMO.
The major problem with several of the political systems is that they ignore or mostly fail to take into account human nature.
You know one way to ameliorate the negative effects of human nature and insure the survival of beneficial political systems? Common ethnicity and common culture. There are no universal rights of man ordained by God or nature. Natural rights are a sham. There are beliefs and cultural touchstones that create rights of long standing by common understanding and convention. These rights do not develop equally or even similarly in every culture and they are not universal.
American style civic nationalism based on the idea of the so-called melting pot is doomed to fail. Even moreso and more quickly when not only is there no dominant culture but the vestiges of that once dominant culture are ridiculed and despised.
Sub-Saharan Africa here we come.
We will only enjoy those rights they can defend.
What the open borders leftist fail to understand, is you can have either a highly developed social welfare system, or open borders, but never both, for the reasons you mentioned above.
In principle I'm generally in favor of open border in places and ways that make sense. In practice I understand why the unregulated border proposes by the left might not end our nation, but at a minimum would lead to a civil war that may, or may not, save our Constitutional Republic.
Once again, lets here from Johnathon on this subject:
Last edited by antelope_sniper; 07/14/18.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
always did believe, and continue to do so, that the libertarian ethics are the way to go. but with current numbers of libertarians and greens, it makes more sense for each to support their respective main parties, that is the demo's and republicans.
ralph nader cost al gore the election, no doubt about it, and he got a mere 2 percent of the votes cast?
as far as the borderlines are concerned, i'd have to say i belong to a subset that might be described as nationalist libertarians. that is, our borderlines are sacrosanct. l learned that from my scotti history. we humans just aren't prepared to live in a world with many fewer than some 200 independent sovereignties.
when we see putin and trump on stage in a few days, we'll get to see what the real world ldrs look like in each other's company. the only thing lacking is the dude representing the red chi-coms. that is, the people that the tv announcers will tell us lead the people on earth.
...as far as the borderlines are concerned, i'd have to say i belong to a subset that might be described as nationalist libertarians.
Gus,
That's what I call a practical libertarian. I'm all for stealing the brightest minds and hardest working strong backs, and pretties girls from other countries. The rest they can keep.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
In the video Haidt points out that libertarians can be liberal or conservative. Libertarian is not a separate party. Though many would marginalize it as such.
"There's more to optics than meets the eye."--anon
"...most of us would be better off losing half a pound around the waist than half a pound on our rifle."--dhg
For you conservatives out there, it'll also be helpful to learn what libertarians mean when they say "big L" and "little l".
Little l means libertarians (go look up the Non-Aggression Principle).
Big L means the "Libertarian" party, which is very, very often anything but.
Generally "little l" and "big L" folks won't have anything to do with each other. In my opinion, libertarians just aren't party-kinda folks, since by nature they mostly want to be left alone and are happy to leave others alone.
Last edited by Pine_Tree; 07/14/18. Reason: added phrase
Taking libertarians to their end game (freedom to do whatever suits them with minimal or no oversight by society or consideration for others), results in near anarchy.
So while there are libertarian principles I get and want, reasonably, those principles are not absolutes. For society to function, there must be rules. Otherwise it is Lord of the flies.
I’m more of a libertarian but I see that it can never work. Oh, it is superior in every way, but as this video shows, personality and genetics determine attitudes and there are just too few people who are built that way for it to work. The best we can do is probably a sort of Burkian Classical Liberalism where private property and culture is sacrosanct and ordered liberty built on those concepts is the model. That is most likely a lost cause as well. Liberty cannot survive long where females have the vote. They are not built that way for th most part. They do not value it.
Most people in the world aren't IMO.
The major problem with several of the political systems is that they ignore or mostly fail to take into account human nature.
You know one way to ameliorate the negative effects of human nature and insure the survival of beneficial political systems? Common ethnicity and common culture. There are no universal rights of man ordained by God or nature. Natural rights are a sham. There are beliefs and cultural touchstones that create rights of long standing by common understanding and convention. These rights do not develop equally or even similarly in every culture and they are not universal.
American style civic nationalism based on the idea of the so-called melting pot is doomed to fail. Even moreso and more quickly when not only is there no dominant culture but the vestiges of that once dominant culture are ridiculed and despised.
Sub-Saharan Africa here we come.
You both have good points the way I see it. Socialism, communism, Marxism and every iteration thereof fail because they fail to understand human nature — both it’s greed in the elites, and the effects of lack of motivation in the masses. So, failed ideologies, so adhered to by the Left.
At the risk of being labeled a misogynist (I’m not) by the left, and this is a vast generalization (which also means there is truth in it), women (note, for example, the most vociferous, vacuous leaders in the Democratic Party) seem to go off the rails sharply, their nature being more easily deceived by waves of emotion.
Contrary to leftists’ political falsehoods, all cultures are not only not equal, they are vastly unequal. Without a clear, “desirable profile” for admitted immigrants, we get, as we are now, mostly the chaff of the world as regards potential individual industry.
All of these make up leftist groups, policies, ideologies, and characteristics that slip in everywhere.
Taking libertarians to their end game (freedom to do whatever suits them with minimal or no oversight by society or consideration for others), results in near anarchy.
So while there are libertarian principles I get and want, reasonably, those principles are not absolutes. For society to function, there must be rules. Otherwise it is Lord of the flies.
Libertarians are not Anarchist. Small government is not the same as no government. As an example, libertarians typically believe government expenditures should be around 15% of GDP. It's enough to provide for essential government services such as a legal system for the enforcement of contracts that is necessary to protect private property. 15% is also small enough to prevent government overreach.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
Like many here, I have a strong libertarian bent. Which, to me means three things:
1) I mind my own business
2) you mind your own business
3) the government minds it's own business.
There is a natural, necessary function of government, primarily to pave the highways, deliver the mail, aim the ICBM's so other countries mind their own business, and make sure that the people mind their own business -- that is, provide security for the people in their persons and their property.
Most people, conservatives included do not want liberty. Think about it. Are you willing to give up government redistribution of wealth (social security), are you willing to give up foreign intervention? The Spanish American war, World War I & II, and all others including Korea, Vietnam, Middle East, etc. etc. did not have to involve this country. And the bad thing about these wars is that in addition to the men we lost is that they ended up in a net loss for the people and nations we set out to save. The East Europeans were saved from Nazis and turned over to Russia. East Asia was saved from Japan and turned over in a large part to Red China. We have never paid for these adventures or the interest on the money. The list of things to give up could go on and on. How about farm subsidies. All of us that are rural people know families that have drawn millions in farm subsidies. Without all this government interference there would be a lot of freedom and a lot less suffering except that each family and community would have to take care of their own elderly and afflicted.
Yes, I wished we could give up re distribution for sure. I'll take my own damn chances.
We can keep Larry Root and all his idiotic blabber and user names on here, but we can't get Ralph back..... Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, over....
Antelope sniper: Personally I could NOT care less about "libertarians mind sets"! The harm these cretins have done to the American political landscape over the last few decades has been dramatic. They siphon off the votes of somewhat conservative citizens and have given us the likes of bill "bent dick" clinton and john tester! To name just a few. libertarians are simply NOT smart enough to realize with a Republican voted into office they would get maybe 80% of their issues instilled, sought for - by voting libertarian and getting demonrats into office they get exactly 100% of NOTHING they would prefer. Sad these libertarians and yet laughable at the same time. Hold into the wind VarmintGuy
Horsepuckey. Without libertarians, the GOP would have given us another friggin Bush this election.... Which is really not any different than electing Billary......
Lots of neocons are figuring out that the neocon co-opted Republican Party militates against their interests. Neocons (Romney, Bush 43, etc) will destroy our Second Amendment as quickly as any liberal, which neocons are. The neocon co-opted Republican Party desperately tried to defeat President Donald J Trump. Neocons preferred the uncharged felon to President Trump because she's one of them. President Trump is not among the ruling elite of neocons, which scares the hell outta them. President Trump is fixin' to expose neocon treachery (globalism, auctioning America's sovereignty, false flag BS wars, etc.) and return our country that neocons have stolen from us to We, the People.
I'm a qualified libertarian. I part ways with libertarians on their advocacy for open borders, abortion, legalizing drug abuse (opiates, cocaine, meth), and its anti-nationalism stance.
