This is a thread to prevent hijacking of other threads.

Order out of chaos, if you will.

I voted in honor of our shared history of snarky comments and snide remarks. Saying Bush sux is like saying water is wet. It can be snide, but it can't be wrong.

Originally Posted by Matt1989

This is a thread to prevent hijacking of other threads.

I also voted for Bush sucks, since the option of "This poll sucks" wasn't available. TM

Order out of chaos, if you will.

Nope.
Gordon's Restatement of Newman's Corollary to Godwin's Law: Libertarianism (pro, con, and internal faction fights) is the primordial net.news discussion topic. Any time the debate shifts somewhere else, it must eventually return to this fuel source.


http://www.netlingo.com/dictionary/symbols.php

Originally Posted by Matt1989

This is a thread to prevent hijacking of other threads.

Order out of chaos, if you will.

For quite some time, this site has been blessed or plagued by people viewing all problems through partisan lenses. It had been Red / Blue or Republican / Democrat until recently. The Republicans have seemingly been replaced by Libertarians recently.

If people have strong political values, they can't help but view the world through a strong set of filters. Political ideology effects how people perceive the world, what they believe to be important or unimportant, and how problems should be solved. From a liberal perspective, one would like to pretend that liberals see the world as it is while conservatives and libertarians are biased and have locked closed minds. In practice, everyone has strong values. Everyone has biased locked closed minds.

Now, I'm not a libertarian true believer. Their perspective is unusual. I don't see most of the problems we are facing this crisis being solvable through the libertarian philosophy and approach. I can sympathize with the goals, and think it might be nice if we might push in their direction another four score and seven years downstream.

But getting them to view the world though some perspective other than their own values is apt to be a futile quest. Like any other set of political values, when presented with a problem they will lock onto particular aspects of that problem and gravitate towards particular solutions. I would anticipate they would be equally frustrated by red, blue or green biases. Thus, any thread on any issue becomes a lecture on libertarian values... not to mention the values of anyone else contributing to the thread.

We can try to create a special place for libertarian discussion. I haven't a true objection to it. I am just doubtful that an experiment in Thought Policing will get us very far. The culture of this site is one of partisanship. I don't think a single new thread is apt to change this.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

In practice, everyone has strong values. Everyone has biased locked closed minds.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Um ... no.

Is there anything I could say that would presuade you otherwise? ™

Tell you what. Why not ask everyone who posts here for the first time on the subject to define their terms?

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

Tell you what. Why not ask everyone who posts here for the first time on the subject to define their terms?

Hey, I'm still waiting for a clear definition of blue values.

Nomad: <Criticism of a government policy or publicly funded externality>

Prophet: YOU NEED ROADS AND POLICE!

Nomad: Whatever, caps lock bro

Prophet: I CAN'T BELIEVE HOW FIXATED ON IDEOLOGY PEOPLE WHO DISAGREE WITH ME ARE

NOMAD: Whatever, <generic insult>

Prophet: THINK ABOUT THE CHILDREN, WHY DO YOU HATE POOR PEOPLE?

Originally Posted by independent

Nomad: <Criticism of a government policy or publicly funded externality>

Prophet: YOU NEED ROADS AND POLICE!

Nomad: Whatever, caps lock bro

Prophet: I CAN'T BELIEVE HOW FIXATED ON IDEOLOGY PEOPLE WHO DISAGREE WITH ME ARE

NOMAD: Whatever, <generic insult>

Prophet: THINK ABOUT THE CHILDREN, WHY DO YOU HATE POOR PEOPLE?

Nomad: Whatever, poor people should know they're poor people and avoid having kids.

Prophet: Baby killer!

Nomad: Whatever, what's your cut in the action?

Prophet: You're a racist!

Nomad: That's it! I suggest that you turn the f around and go away before I start hurting you, you liberal MF'er!

Like the Nomads of the last Crisis, I bide my time and wait for the day when we are old enough to take leadership. At that time, these will be the pronouncements of the caps lock:

NO MORE.

IT ENDS NOW.

Missionary: Fascist!
Nomad: Communist!

Boomer: Libertarian!
Xer: Socialist!

Should I really expect any different? Boy I can't wait for the High & the Awakening to get here--especially the High/Awakening cusp where all of the Prophets and Nomads are too busy either dieing off or being born to argue anymore. Of course we'll have to worry about fights on the playground, but they're quite easy to break up (& scold) when they're little.

I voted that voting (on this issue) is/was counterproductive.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by The Rani

AND FURTHERMORE ... TRY LIVING SOMEWHERE ELSE AND SEE HOW YOU LIKE IT!

One of these days I'm going to try to put together something informative on that topic based on my own experiences. In short, I find that it entirely possible to like it quite well. People in the USA (and perhaps other places as well; but I try to limit myself to only speaking about things I know about) seem to be excessively fixated on law and government as defining characteristics of a place/society.

It seems to me that the more critical factor in what makes a person free is not how much he gets to vote in elections or how many public initiatives he is asked to weigh in on, or the content of the laws written over him. Rather freedom -- in the sense that matters; that is, as experienced in one's own life -- is a function primarily of the people immediately around you and the way they relate to each other and with the rest of society. And politics only becomes a major issue in infringing on freedom to the extent that those people around you (and you yourself) allow it to. The fixation on laws and leaders as the solution to perceived problems -- in the USA, as people here so well demonstrate, as the sole viable solution -- not only does nothing to solve problems, but in fact tends to increasingly restrict freedom as the sphere of politics occupies an increasingly key role in society.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Like the Nomads of the last Crisis, I bide my time and wait for the day when we are old enough to take leadership. At that time, these will be the pronouncements of the caps lock:

Just be careful that the civic generation doesn't preempt your time. The GIs had their merits, but they could be rather overwhelming in their solidarity.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Feel free to do so, if you're so inclined.

For my purposes, "everyone" would have to be redefined to exclude children and all the open-minded people that I've interacted with in my life.

But yeah, in that case I might be persuaded.

I could certainly grant there are pre-political children who haven't locked into a tight world view. I'll grant there are people who at least attempt to listen. I could apply fuzzy logic to the original statement and say enough people on this board are so dedicated to particular sets of values that we have a problem. Those who are locked into the libertarian perspective are annoying those who aren't. I see this as not essentially different from the old Republican / Democratic values clash which went on for decades. I see an attempt by one group to quash others as being no more likely to be successful.

I also attempt to keep an open mind, to try to take the good ideas out of various perspectives, be they liberal, conservative, ecological or libertarian. There is merit in all, but I don't know that any of them can be taken to the extreme. During the unraveling, the conservative perspective was taken to an extreme and failed. It seems clear we need to move out of that particular corner.

I believe others might perceive themselves as open minded to some extent, but as I am generally pegged as liberal I am typically treated as a closed minded biased partisan. Even if there are open minded folks about, how often are they treated as open minded? Are they not more often pegged as members of cliques and subjected to stereotyped 'all liberals are communists' or 'all conservatives are fascist' sort of ad-homs?

I don't see the recent shift as changing the nature of the forums. We just have more vocal and active libertarians now rather than vocal and active Republican conservatives. I do not anticipate that we can quash their addiction to Libertarian values by creating a Libertarian ghetto thread where they can express their opinions freely than the Democrats or Republicans could do anything similar during the seemingly endless culture wars discussions.

Thus, any attempt by the left center majority to quash dissent by those holding a conflicting set of values seems likely futile. At bottom, I don't think we should be suppressing ideas. I'd prefer to suppress personal attacks, long exchanges of insults going back and forth.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

I also attempt to keep an open mind, to try to take the good ideas out of various perspectives, be they liberal, conservative, ecological or libertarian. There is merit in all, but I don't know that any of them can be taken to the extreme.

WHAT! But, but, but........how does one communicate if one cant hurl broadsides againts others from some extreme part of the political landscape? Are you honestly suggesting open, honest, considerate discourse? Do you really think we should give each person the benefit of the doubt and treat them as human beings worthy of respect? Correct me if I'm wrong, but do you expect us to stand corrected when we're wrong? Bob, that would mean folks 'round here would actually have to admit they don't know it all!!

I agree with you 100%

I believe others might perceive themselves as open minded to some extent, but as I am generally pegged as liberal I am typically treated as a closed minded biased partisan. Even if there are open minded folks about, how often are they treated as open minded? Are they not more often pegged as members of cliques and subjected to stereotyped 'all liberals are communists' or 'all conservatives are fascist' sort of ad-homs?

Yes, sadly it is the lazy way that wins the day. I've introduced a good number of people to S&H's material. Folks from all points on the political spectrum. Yet, I refrain from sending them here to this forum simply because the labling and ad-hom attacks. We (everyone here) could be getting so much more out of using this forum if the lazy way did not rule the day.

I don't see the recent shift as changing the nature of the forums. We just have more vocal and active libertarians now rather than vocal and active Republican conservatives. I do not anticipate that we can quash their addiction to Libertarian values by creating a Libertarian ghetto thread where they can express their opinions freely than the Democrats or Republicans could do anything similar during the seemingly endless culture wars discussions.

I don't know, I'm liking the ghetto idea though!

At bottom, I don't think we should be suppressing ideas. I'd prefer to suppress personal attacks, long exchanges of insults going back and forth.

WORD!!

Originally Posted by Justin '77

One of these days I'm going to try to put together something informative on that topic based on my own experiences. In short, I find that it entirely possible to like it quite well. People in the USA (and perhaps other places as well; but I try to limit myself to only speaking about things I know about) seem to be excessively fixated on law and government as defining characteristics of a place/society.

It seems to me that the more critical factor in what makes a person free is not how much he gets to vote in elections or how many public initiatives he is asked to weigh in on, or the content of the laws written over him. Rather freedom -- in the sense that matters; that is, as experienced in one's own life -- is a function primarily of the people immediately around you and the way they relate to each other and with the rest of society. And politics only becomes a major issue in infringing on freedom to the extent that those people around you (and you yourself) allow it to. The fixation on laws and leaders as the solution to perceived problems -- in the USA, as people here so well demonstrate, as the sole viable solution -- not only does nothing to solve problems, but in fact tends to increasingly restrict freedom as the sphere of politics occupies an increasingly key role in society.

*Chas reads* Hmm... *blinks* mmm.... *blinks*

It makes sense...

~Chas'88

If there was no government

If there was no government, wouldn't there be chaos
Everybody running round, setting petrol bombs off?
And if there was no police force, tell me what you'd do
If thirty thousand rioters came running after you?
And who would clean the sewers? Who'd mend my television?
Wouldn't people lay about without some supervision?
Who'd drive the fire engines? Who'd fix my video?
If there were no prisons, well, where would robbers go?

And what if I told you to Fuck Off?

What if there's no army to stop a big invasion?
Who'd clean the bogs and sweep the floors? We'd have all immigration.
Who'd pull the pint at the local pub? Where'd I get my fags?
Who'd empty out my dustbins? Would I still get plastic bags?
If there were no hospitals, and no doctors too,
If I'd broken both my legs, where would I run to?
If there's no medication, if there were no nurses,
Wouldn't people die a lot? And who would drive the hearses?

And what if I told you to Fuck Off?

If there were no butchers shops, what would people eat?
You'd have everybody starving if they didn't get their meat.
If there was no water, what would people drink?
Who'd flush away the you-know-what? But of course MINE never stink.
What about the children? Who'd teach them in the schools?
Who'd make the beggers keep in line? Learn them all the rules?
Who's tell us whitewash windows? When to take down doors?
Tell us make a flask of tea and survive the holocaust?

Originally Posted by The Rani

Actually, what I think you were doing is changing the subject because you can't handle the idea that someone who knows something about an issue still sees libertarianism as the best option as related to that issue. Which is why you focused on the "mob rule" part and ignored the rest of the post.

Brian simply has pointed out where anarchism fails. Justin and I had this same discussion at least once. Mob action is arbitrary, random, and tends to be reactionary and emotional. Mobs often string up innocent people. A system of laws allows more objective parties to look at the situation and then pass judgment away from the heat of the moment.

Being "knowledgeable" about an issue does not necessarily mean that you know what is the best course of action to take.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Uh, Matt was the one who started the thread, and I doubt that was his goal. And geez ... "addiction" ... "ghetto" ... seriously? Don't you think those words kinda kinda rude, Mr. Protocol?

I doubt it was his intended goal, but that seems to be part of the intent. Isolate something he doesn't like into a contained area? I'm generally sympathetic with a desire to keep threads on topic, avoiding morphing every thread into a reprise of a common theme gone over too many times already, and avoiding degradation into personal attacks and ad-homs. Still, trying to isolate a particular set of values into one thread seems an unreasonable approach. I'm just dubious.

Hmm... Kinda rude, but you seem to enjoy putting obscenities into your recent signatures. Sure, propose a list of words you consider naughty, and throw it up as a proposal to clean up language if you like. Be sure you'd really like to live by a standard you propose, though. Criticizing folks for not meeting a standard you also fail to meet seems dubious. The impression is that you care less about cleaning up the board's language than for finding an excuse to launch another personal attack.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Actually, what I think you were doing is changing the subject because you can't handle the idea that someone who knows something about an issue still sees libertarianism as the best option as related to that issue. Which is why you focused on the "mob rule" part and ignored the rest of the post.

I wasn't changing the subject, and I can handle it just fine. I focused on the "mob rule" part because that's the key to the whole argument you raised. You were asserting a preference for private group action to punish offenders, rather than government action. That's not just wrong-headed but bloody dangerous. Public sentiment is fickle, irrational, changeable as the weather, and not to be trusted. Rather like the love of a woman.

As for the rest of the post, it amounted to pointing out that law is imperfectly efficient, which is true. But to go from this to saying that it's useless and that we should trust to mob rule instead is, quite candidly, lunacy.

I do have to admit, though, that I was wrong: It's possible to retain libertarian convictions when knowledgeable about a specific subject, as long as one's general ignorance is sufficient to override that specific expertise.

BTW, the last thing that I would ever do if someone mistook me for a Muslim terrorist, another issue that I have more awareness about than most

Which is, of course, why I brought it up . . .

is call the police. Or file a lawsuit. Or write my congressperson. Etc. etc.

Your choice. But that's beside the point.

Ah, come on. Seriously. This entire forum is an exercise in libertarianism (not anarchy, since we do have an admin who will police the place if called upon to do so). I haven't given a rat's patootie for some time as to whether threads are staying on topic or not.

WE start the threads. WE choose to comment on the threads that we're interested in, and avoid those that we don't care for. WE maintain our own Ignore Lists, and Contact Lists, and Friends Lists. WE can log in 24/7/365 (assuming the forum isn't being hacked, or Craig isn't in maintenance mode).

This is my favorite place to post, bar none -- simply because I feel free to talk about or read about any subject under the sun, no matter how much it may or may not relate to The Theory.

My view is that if the libertarians/anarchists are taking extra shit right now on other threads, it's because the saeculum is pulling away from their highest level of influence (2T and especially 3T), and their philosophy is (temporarily) on the outs. They've had a long run. For some of the younger folks here, it's all they've known. So no wonder there's resistance.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Actually, that was a joke, referring back to an exchange between CoS and Justin.

And it was a damn good discussion. Wish I could find it again....

Edit: Bingo! Starts here, pretty much.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Maybe, maybe not. Nobody wastes their time on trying to defeat something that's already on the outs. We'll have to wait and see. Should be interesting.

Well, I am one of those left libertarians that seem to baffle JPT so much. And I know there are several of us here. Economic lefties and civil libertarians. Hence, I am impatient with Obama for not going after the Bush torture policy more aggressively, and yet I applaud things he's doing like the stimulus package and universal health care.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

My view is that if the libertarians/anarchists are taking extra shit right now on other threads, it's because the saeculum is pulling away from their highest level of influence (2T and especially 3T), and their philosophy is (temporarily) on the outs. They've had a long run. For some of the younger folks here, it's all they've known. So no wonder there's resistance.

I wouldn't say I've known any sort of liberty-loving society. The words may have been there, but little else.

The 3T I grew up in was one of pre-emptive war, torture, and an explosion of the domestic prison population. Police had been giving sweeping power and generous funding to fight a war on pot. Uttering something about the Bill of Rights would just earn you more hostility from authority.

So is tha 3T the closest thing to freedom we're supposed to have? The horror!

Then again, isn't it that libertarian left that "wins" most of the American crises? I'd say the New Deal was the only exception - and even that one fixed our prohibition problem.

Originally Posted by independent

I wouldn't say I've known any sort of liberty-loving society. The words may have been there, but little else.

The 3T I grew up in was one of pre-emptive war, torture, and an explosion of the domestic prison population. Police had been giving sweeping power and generous funding to fight a war on pot. Uttering something about the Bill of Rights would just earn you more hostility from authority.

So is tha 3T the closest thing to freedom we're supposed to have? The horror!

Then again, isn't it that libertarian left that "wins" most of the American crises? I'd say the New Deal was the only exception - and even that one fixed our prohibition problem.

Your exceptions are noted -- but I was thinking more about cultural expression and economic deregulation.