Asperger syndrome and Libertarianism idea
11 Oct 2012, 10:43 pm
I could never understand why just about everyone laughed at my 'bulletproof' Libertarian arguments but I've since realized why. While I still have libertarian beliefs, they are FAR from mainstream Libertarianism.
I wont stop my Libertarian stand..
I also like Ron Paul..
11 Oct 2012, 10:45 pm
I want my freedom and I'm sure you do too. But how are you going to get YOUR freedom when you ARE under mind control from the government?!
I'm definitely not buying socialism. NEVER. I don't want the Stalin era EVER AGAIN, to happen.
I want the Constitution restored..
We sure can be friends
Bartolome
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Joined: 13 Oct 2012
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 53
Location: Pennsylvania
16 Oct 2012, 5:56 am
http://www.wrongplanet.net/posts212347-start45.html
Check out this argument for a pretty good smackdown of this psuedo intellectual libertarian/I'm not a libertarian celebrity on the political and philosophy forum. The really good part is at my last post.
16 Oct 2012, 5:58 am
What - what!! You think that the only way to find unity is to throw away my individualism? How about you throw away your individualism and follow after me for unity! The call of all dictators is unity above all else. No, I think that we should keep our individualism.
Really -- we (a large number of Auts & Aspies) can come together to do some great things as cooperating individuals. Lets learn to be cooperative and not strive for unthinking unity!
What he was saying is that individualism is just easy and comfortable for us but that ultimately we are not learning anything to further the goal of learning to get along better with the world. We can learn to get along better if we just add a degree of unity. How you got an advocation of dictatorship is funny.
17 Oct 2012, 12:02 pm
I also like Ron Paul..
That's too bad. I used to be the same way as you until I really got into the belly of the beast and saw who was really behind mainstream Libertarianism and how the whole Constitution was set up and why (even though I'm Canadian not American). I don't have the time to get into a debate but I would suggest all Libertarians read this. Old, but still highly relevant.
http://world.std.com/~mhuben/pk-is-against-liberty.html
Bottom line, I was a useful idiot for many years before I wised up. I have to give credit though: those who set up mainstream Libertarianism are very slick and know how to fool many people: they certainly fooled me good. Again, freedom and liberty are great but there are much better ways of obtaining it than thinking Ron Paul or some Libertarian will ride in and save the day. Power is much more than getting rid of some guy in Washington D.C.!
17 Oct 2012, 2:59 pm
I also like Ron Paul..
That's too bad. I used to be the same way as you until I really got into the belly of the beast and saw who was really behind mainstream Libertarianism and how the whole Constitution was set up and why (even though I'm Canadian not American). I don't have the time to get into a debate but I would suggest all Libertarians read this. Old, but still highly relevant.
http://world.std.com/~mhuben/pk-is-against-liberty.html
Bottom line, I was a useful idiot for many years before I wised up. I have to give credit though: those who set up mainstream Libertarianism are very slick and know how to fool many people: they certainly fooled me good. Again, freedom and liberty are great but there are much better ways of obtaining it than thinking Ron Paul or some Libertarian will ride in and save the day. Power is much more than getting rid of some guy in Washington D.C.!
I see you are grossly misguided and i wont chat further with you
18 Oct 2012, 4:48 am
everyone's trying to argue ideology here
if you look at the historical context, modern day liberalism, that's slightly left of center, when it works with the red tory movement (progressive conservatives) are a superior combination to all other groups - america's green party/ralph nader is more progressive than conservative but red tories are *kinda like that*
however, due to a dynamic I've noticed repeatedly in social bodies, it doesn't last at it's peak
the dynamic is essentially a SQUARE. NOT TRIANGLE(reason for edit), the bottom left represents totalitarianism (this is not a left/right spectrum thing it's just I have to start somewhere and decided to use a square, a diamond would work well enough and it'd be straight bottom (was using a paper, thought it was easier to put notes onto it using a square instead of diamond shaped flow-chart thingy)
anyways, totalitarianism absolutely despises liberalism, if we refer to the 1900-1960 (american) versions of liberalism at least (yes prior to the hippy movement being a big thing - you americans really have a skewed idea of names compared to the rest of the world's view on it)
there's two "pure" ideological states, nietzsche's master morality (actual conservative, think eisenhower) and slave morality (think norway or sweden or something) - one focuses it's leveraging power in a good way, on the individual (master morality) and the other on the system (slave morality)
this does not describe politics well enough yet though, so I add another dynamic, mentality
for lack of a better word I use the term conservative and socialist to represent these pure ideal/concept
in this case, slave mentality, master mentality, a gregarious generous "nobless oblig" type is the master mentality, conservatives do master morality + master mentality
the slave mentality is base, uneducated, not generous, but fair at a largescale conceptualization of society and how people should deal with each other
liberalism is the master mentality (generosity and talent) that follows slave morality (a focus on systemic good)
totalitarianism is when the slave mentality (not in my backyard we have rules around here) focuses on "heroic ideals and pomp" - the 1900's type dictators are quite "small minded jerks" if you really look at them, obsessed with glory and narcissistic self popularization, (for the good of society of course)
what happens is a society (we'll start at it's worst state, totalitarianism) finally segregates more and more to naturalize things, into a "feudal state" where the slave mentality/slave morality people are more together, and the master morality/master mentality type people are more together, in terms of who/what they support
as they work together and collaborate, bit by bit because they find specific ways that everyone can benefit through cooperation, they form the liberal state, however this is very taxing, people get sick of working with "those other people that just don't get my needs" and eventually a vicious societal spiral down to contempt amongst all quarters becomes the norm
the way this occurs in a regular household is kinda hard to explain but I think many of you might have seen this happen before
in a society... what happens is that the new generations don't have the experience necessary to fully understand why the liberal state works so well, and as such don't know the full range of arguments required to support a liberal state (because it requires a very thorough explanation, by proofs or by experience) and because it's easier to pass on logically consistant ideological drivel/convictions (sorry just had to throw my kick in there) then liberalism looks worse and worse to more people
when I was 16-17 I predicted troubles in 2010-15ish, using this kind of idea, I even thought of what it might be like for the government to pull SOPA out on people or something, I was worried sick at the time, but I decided that I'd worry *when that stuff actually started happening* and I tried to focus on "being normal" for a long time, didn't go so well, and I've only started to get back into the natural autistic habits I possessed since childhood, but there you go (hence why I'm undiagnosed, having only really had the idea click about 2 weeks ago) and why I can't give you *all* the arguments necessary in support of liberalism
I can only give you the model I found to be most explanatory in a simple manner, and tell you how I learned it, I studied detail after detail after detail after detail of "stuff that happened" aka history
forest, trees, etc. I'm not a math god but I can detect rough patterns in places of high variance due to my obsessive nature, and I'm telling you, this society is going to become more and more patriarchal for a while because the resistance to this is going along the "split manner"
oh, when a society is doing this, one of the best things to do is separate the ideological groups, neo-liberalism and neo-conservatism combine to make fascism, it's best to separate groups into "master mentality/master morality" and "slave mentality, slave morality" again
because each of those is the slave mentality preaching the master morality, in the economic, and the military/foreign policy domain, respectively
I hope you appreciate this paradigm in time
you can actually find quotes from the nazis, fascists and communists about hating the liberals
the french politics of left wing and right wing (red and blues) I believe is the origin of the terms left and right, in regards to where the ideology holders stood relative to robespierre post-french revolution - there's a good yale course on france, and the same guy does one on european politics up to a certain point - he's a self admitted lefty but he goes into some detail about the stuff and he probably has autistic traits too
one can also youtube the speeches from those 3 groups, translated and everything
one will find that the meanings to the names change, but if you look enough into the history you'll find that there's definite cycles, and if you look hard and long enough at each time period you'll see the same "patterns of philosophy" emerge constantly... that's why I have to explain and say 1900-1960's liberalism, because nowadays it's called progressivism (green party style) in america
AND, I have to explain the psychological aspects that really make the difference, I suspect these are difficult to see, but I have personally experienced treatment that unmistakeably suggests "red tory" behaviour isn't all that bad at all compared to far right or left wing ideology - the trick here is that "looks good on paper/in my head" doesn't translate very well to "looks good in reality" and history serves as a good "checking device" if you go full on autistic on it (although I'm still gimped in regular social interaction, the book "games people" play helps with that though)
18 Oct 2012, 5:38 am
It's not appropriate to infer this from what I said and you know it. I specifically qualified my discussion on value and importance to invalidate this response.
Then how would you deal with such a situation? I am not just talking about a case of someone born into a family capable of supporting them but in the case of someone born into a family without means or where both parents are addicts or otherwise incapable of ever producing much? The problem is not that you qualified the statement but rather that you did not provide an actual answer to the questions it raises. Taken to it's extreme, this is the way such a society would value such an individual and how they would be treated. Thus, it is an ugly little loose end that needs to be tied up in order for more people to be swayed into voting for Libertarian candidates. Otherwise, if you don't deal with issues of this sort, it will continue to be a fringe political philosophy bandied about by theoreticians who do not really believe it will ever be implemented in reality. I mean, it all sounds great in theory but then again so did communism and we all know how that turned out.
The big thing that most people just don't get about libertarians, is that there is an expected change in culture to go along with the beliefs.
Obviously not every parent would be able to take care of their kids, but the value of charity and the responsibility of the person would go up.
To many problems in today's society are products of no one taking ownership of certain problems.
A simple example is how japan has a second economy to take care of it's elderly. They basically trade i o u's so that the families of the elderly can get brakes in the care of their parents. In our society it'd be almost illegal because it'd be consider tax evasion to trade services without paying taxes. In short people are much better at caring for their families than the governments services in a lot of ways.
Anyhow it gets alot of more complicated, when you factor in everything else.
The thing is we live in such a restricted society most of us have trouble understanding how things would work with actual freedom.
There are many examples, of minimum wage, income tax, and labor restrictions cause alot of problems. The laws get in the way of people making decisions.
18 Oct 2012, 12:58 pm
if you look at the historical context, modern day liberalism, that's slightly left of center, when it works with the red tory movement (progressive conservatives) are a superior combination to all other groups - america's green party/ralph nader is more progressive than conservative but red tories are *kinda like that*
however, due to a dynamic I've noticed repeatedly in social bodies, it doesn't last at it's peak
the dynamic is essentially a SQUARE. NOT TRIANGLE(reason for edit), the bottom left represents totalitarianism (this is not a left/right spectrum thing it's just I have to start somewhere and decided to use a square, a diamond would work well enough and it'd be straight bottom (was using a paper, thought it was easier to put notes onto it using a square instead of diamond shaped flow-chart thingy)
anyways, totalitarianism absolutely despises liberalism, if we refer to the 1900-1960 (american) versions of liberalism at least (yes prior to the hippy movement being a big thing - you americans really have a skewed idea of names compared to the rest of the world's view on it)
there's two "pure" ideological states, nietzsche's master morality (actual conservative, think eisenhower) and slave morality (think norway or sweden or something) - one focuses it's leveraging power in a good way, on the individual (master morality) and the other on the system (slave morality)
this does not describe politics well enough yet though, so I add another dynamic, mentality
for lack of a better word I use the term conservative and socialist to represent these pure ideal/concept
in this case, slave mentality, master mentality, a gregarious generous "nobless oblig" type is the master mentality, conservatives do master morality + master mentality
the slave mentality is base, uneducated, not generous, but fair at a largescale conceptualization of society and how people should deal with each other
liberalism is the master mentality (generosity and talent) that follows slave morality (a focus on systemic good)
totalitarianism is when the slave mentality (not in my backyard we have rules around here) focuses on "heroic ideals and pomp" - the 1900's type dictators are quite "small minded jerks" if you really look at them, obsessed with glory and narcissistic self popularization, (for the good of society of course)
what happens is a society (we'll start at it's worst state, totalitarianism) finally segregates more and more to naturalize things, into a "feudal state" where the slave mentality/slave morality people are more together, and the master morality/master mentality type people are more together, in terms of who/what they support
as they work together and collaborate, bit by bit because they find specific ways that everyone can benefit through cooperation, they form the liberal state, however this is very taxing, people get sick of working with "those other people that just don't get my needs" and eventually a vicious societal spiral down to contempt amongst all quarters becomes the norm
the way this occurs in a regular household is kinda hard to explain but I think many of you might have seen this happen before
in a society... what happens is that the new generations don't have the experience necessary to fully understand why the liberal state works so well, and as such don't know the full range of arguments required to support a liberal state (because it requires a very thorough explanation, by proofs or by experience) and because it's easier to pass on logically consistant ideological drivel/convictions (sorry just had to throw my kick in there) then liberalism looks worse and worse to more people
when I was 16-17 I predicted troubles in 2010-15ish, using this kind of idea, I even thought of what it might be like for the government to pull SOPA out on people or something, I was worried sick at the time, but I decided that I'd worry *when that stuff actually started happening* and I tried to focus on "being normal" for a long time, didn't go so well, and I've only started to get back into the natural autistic habits I possessed since childhood, but there you go (hence why I'm undiagnosed, having only really had the idea click about 2 weeks ago) and why I can't give you *all* the arguments necessary in support of liberalism
I can only give you the model I found to be most explanatory in a simple manner, and tell you how I learned it, I studied detail after detail after detail after detail of "stuff that happened" aka history
forest, trees, etc. I'm not a math god but I can detect rough patterns in places of high variance due to my obsessive nature, and I'm telling you, this society is going to become more and more patriarchal for a while because the resistance to this is going along the "split manner"
oh, when a society is doing this, one of the best things to do is separate the ideological groups, neo-liberalism and neo-conservatism combine to make fascism, it's best to separate groups into "master mentality/master morality" and "slave mentality, slave morality" again
because each of those is the slave mentality preaching the master morality, in the economic, and the military/foreign policy domain, respectively
I hope you appreciate this paradigm in time
you can actually find quotes from the nazis, fascists and communists about hating the liberals
the french politics of left wing and right wing (red and blues) I believe is the origin of the terms left and right, in regards to where the ideology holders stood relative to robespierre post-french revolution - there's a good yale course on france, and the same guy does one on european politics up to a certain point - he's a self admitted lefty but he goes into some detail about the stuff and he probably has autistic traits too
one can also youtube the speeches from those 3 groups, translated and everything
one will find that the meanings to the names change, but if you look enough into the history you'll find that there's definite cycles, and if you look hard and long enough at each time period you'll see the same "patterns of philosophy" emerge constantly... that's why I have to explain and say 1900-1960's liberalism, because nowadays it's called progressivism (green party style) in america
AND, I have to explain the psychological aspects that really make the difference, I suspect these are difficult to see, but I have personally experienced treatment that unmistakeably suggests "red tory" behaviour isn't all that bad at all compared to far right or left wing ideology - the trick here is that "looks good on paper/in my head" doesn't translate very well to "looks good in reality" and history serves as a good "checking device" if you go full on autistic on it (although I'm still gimped in regular social interaction, the book "games people" play helps with that though)
Thanks but No thanks..
Defend The Constitution if you call yourself an American..
But you sure can believe what you want..
19 Oct 2012, 5:24 am
Yeah, I'd say the media hard sells the idea of how lots of taxes to "help the poor" are a good thing. Then, when and if the truth comes out, too often, we find the money confiscated from taxpayers goes to billionaire crony bailouts, all in the name of "helping the poor". Okay, maybe a tiny percentage actually goes to the cause it was supposed to go to, but the intended recipients are just being used. What a scam!
BTW, I consider myself libertarian, and lean Republican / Conservative, but sometimes vote Democrat--just depends on the candidate.
Too bad our bills/laws can't be simple, limited to 2-3 pages, and 1 bill for 1 thing, with ACTUAL oversight and tranparency. Then, when money was supposed to go to a specific cause, maybe it really would, and 100% of it, not 2% to 10%, while the rest goes to bureaucratic fatcats.
A lot of libertarians are very humanitarian in nature, they just get misrepresented a lot, and don't like laws that say they do one thing, but really do another.
19 Oct 2012, 9:12 am
Defend The Constitution if you call yourself an American..
But you sure can believe what you want..
I'm confused by your attempt at refutation, were you talking about using the model I was referring to?
I was only saying that it is the model I used to predict political events that occurred 8 years later (in regards to things that breach the constitutional barrier) and increasing patriarchal/authoritarian behaviours worldwide
before I even graduated high school
I guess I should also mention that before 9/11 I wondered when someone would hit america (although I was naive and for some reason thought someone would do operation mayhem on an empty building or something as a symbol instead - yay fightclub), and quickly deduced the military and economic centers of america were hit for symbolic reasons within 2-3 days, I was about 13-14 at the time
also, as for constitutionality, it actually could be considered unimportant - if one follows thomas jefferson's lament about it (or was it madison) and alexander hamilton's disdain for it
although one could consider it important as a guiding ideal, however one should realize that there are far larger ideals out there than "does a piece of paper say so" since it risks becoming outdated, the reason there are amendments to it in the first place
a good studying of history will reveal that taxes did not originally exist to help the poor, but rather that aspect was hard fought for and won over in the socialist states, and even to a degree in the USA
one of the things I dislike about libertarianism and communism is that they claim to represent the interests of the little people but if you look at what they do when push comes to shove, it's quite a liberal socialist trend or something of that sort
the intellectual institutes will consistently criticize the workers' strikes for greater socialism in practice, and say "there there now" about police beating them down, as opposed to actually go there and support the workers' in their struggle for rights, and farmers, and students
this is why noam chomsky said "propaganda is to democracy what the bludgeon is to a dictatorship" economic plato style republicanism endorses the attempt to put into action his utopia via primarily economic means as opposed to military means, but if one takes into account noam chomsky's acknowledgement of the power of propaganda, then the enforcers don't have to just be spear/shield/archer policemen, but miniTRU types as well
the imperfections of liberalism are there but "social liberalism" (I guess is another idea I'd consider good) has been practiced before, because many people viewed it as a good thing, this is not a libertarian view of things but if you look at the results of living conditions it's the best of all of them in general
*however* some of the time, due to special factors like huge war loan profits or the increase of a military industrial complex leading to expensive makework project endowments (the war time production "economic miracle" - google it) then some of the stuff can seem better
however the issue is that while libertarianism preaches laissez faires, it assumes automatic social activism, which isn't the case, that stuff only happened because of the worst treatment ever, children in coal mines were allowed even before sheer rage and frustration drove the social movements
anyways, there was a time where there existed these folks called "robber barons" whom even teddy roosevelt couldn't agree with despite his colonial behaviour outside of america, a similarity between himself and bismarck actually
to some extent, the libertarian argument is that one wouldn't have the government sending people like smedley butler over in the name of corporations in a libertarian society
the issue there is that corporations are so powerful that they amount to OCP from robocop, one of the reasons the movie was made actually, and so a sort of economic feudalism with security guards serving as the sheriff of nottingham with "ostensibly neutral/fair laws" existing but enforced as far as a corporation can without extreme backlash (a known property of power structures without huge counterbalances)
due to the knowledge of socialism as an environment anti-thetical to corporate power, individual corporate powerhouses will seek to prevent even the most benign and helpful versions of this stuff under a libertarian government, and due to the breakup of the society along libertarian lines due to increasingly decentralized government aspects, then it amounts to the romans romping through gaul, despite higher numbers the decrease in organization and mobilization severely harms the majority
the worst parts of the american political system is all they can think of is communism or capitalism, in their most extreme forms
you'd do very well to understand the origins of the constitution, the articles of confederation
did you know that the east indian trading company's flag is where the american flag came from?
as a form of protest against a corporate (mercantile) power being unfair to them, hence the boston tea party and so on?
check out howard zinn on youtube as well, he got stories about the conscript's situation in the continental army and all that
and one more thing, I'm from canada :>
and we have a variety of first nations' tribes, and quebec and we still get along, and our society is doing worse and worse because of libertarian attitudes, we weathered the storm better because the liberal government put limitations on the private sector
by putting limitations in various ways on the private sector, we avoid "cash is a drug high/crash" syndrome, and in the business of living, crashes are generally 10 times as bad, as the high is good
and if you look at the history of "people who want to tell other people what to do" they'd better offer a lot to do it, and I mean a lot, unless they're threatening to kill those people
so if services aren't rendered then you'll need brutal control methods, it's bribery societal wide or bullying societal wide, that's the lesson of history, period
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| Sunflower Lanyards - digitalisation/color coding idea |
18 Sep 2024, 12:42 am |
| Beck–Fahrner syndrome as a cause for Autism? |
18 Nov 2024, 3:05 pm |
| Autistic could be first executed for “shaken baby syndrome” |
04 Oct 2024, 7:56 pm |
| Abused Because of Asperger's? |
22 Nov 2024, 9:30 pm |
