CuckFumbustion
Lo and Behold! The transformative power of Vapor.
Not sure where you are coming from on some of your points. But the sociological slant I do like. Very few people actually weigh things like group dynamics and sustainability or social contracts. FTM.I have no love for the deluded ideology of libertarianism.
Johnson and his ideology want to people to be free to be as bigoted as they want to be without government interference for one thing.
I posted the Johnsons party platform and it is full of antigovernment nonsense.
Why Libertarianism is BS
1,2 and 3 of 10 reasons. I can post the rest and will when needed
"1. It's impossible. Libertarianism is impossible except for survivalist nutters and hermits. Humans need a social structure because we're a social species. Trusting that humans can moderate their own behavior on their own is just a fantasy. If we were as sparsely distributed as wolf packs, we could get along in our small groups without intervention from a higher authority in theory.... but the matriarch or patriarch would be the higher authority so even that isn't strictly libertarian. Anyway, we're long past the point in evolution where we could manage our behavior without a formal structure. Michael Shermer theorizes the optimal size for a human community to manage without any oversight is about 150. Those days are gone."
2/ "It's naive. It assumes people are basically good. This is a nice thought, and a refreshing break from the Christian belief that all people are sinners who need to be saved, but it's just plain wrong. Just as we differ in our DNA we differ in our personalities. Some of us will go through life making very few decisions that negatively impact others, and some of us are sociopaths. At its best, government protects the truly good from the sociopaths. Without a government, we would be reduced to lynch mobs which can only avenge bad deeds, not prevent them. And we certainly wouldn't have something like the FBI, which can trace the path of a serial killer from one area to the next based on DNA evidence, etc. I think the people who believe that "survival of the fittest ergo libertarianism" probably assume they are the fittest themselves. They don't think that they would be the victims of a sociopath."
3/ "It's cold-hearted. For example, regulations about safety in cars aren't needed because over time car companies would be forced to make safer cars or they'd go out of business. So the people who died in fires caused by exploding gas tanks in Ford Pintos, or in wrecks caused by the design of their Corvair were just collateral damage in the evolution of better cars. People who died because of unregulated businesses did nothing to deserve that fate, except perhaps not be able to afford better cars. And the pseudo-Darwinism of libertarianism really doesn't care what the strong do to the weak. Rich and powerful people are good and deserve to be rich and powerful. The poor and powerless deserve what they get."
You seem to confuse libertarian with some form of anarchism. Not all that uncommon. Even anarchism believes in group structure. They also believe that people can form a small group, solve a small problem an dissolve said group.
I don't need a matriarch or patriarch or a 'leader' of any type. Just a good administrator. Will check out M. Shermers musings tho'. But not seeing the direct correlation here.
Libertarianism doesn't mean someone can form a lynch mob. It protects the individual from said groups. They draw the line right where harm comes to another person. How would they possibly handle environmental pollution? Severely protected property rights. If someone intentionally causes harm to another, they would be arrested in a Lib gov whether it was a hate crime or they simply assaulted someone unprovoked.
Any group with power can push a single person in the corner, presently. Libertarians are entirely against that. Protect the rights of the individual. Just what are you going on about? What government has been accused of if preventing those who wish to do good or come up with a better idea
It allow those who want to form a commune or collective or social groups to do so. So you can form that 150 tribe in the desert and conduct your social experiment. Everybody shares their duties. Just don't harm your neighbors. Short version 'Your Liberty to swing your arms ends where my nose begins.' The regulations and talk about removing things like the EPA is more on the cold-hearted wild west that you envision. Admitting, the average person doesn't have the time to sort out political theory, they want job security the first.
My point in my last post was that Gary doesn't sound like the less flexible definition you describe. And Gary says he unlike other candidates, will admit when he is wrong. He didn't try to do all the extremes that you mentioned. But seeked solutions in many cases. He didn't remove whole departments or demagogue any group. Unlike the two parties.
I don't absolutely subscribe to any political philosophy and are skeptic of all claims made by any candidate and will delve a little deeper if it passes the initial smell test. What I was trying to convey in the last post is that he (Gary) already has a different tone from the others from the onset, he understands and mentions what power that he actually will have once in office and will work with congress as opposed to shaking things up. He doesn't feel he can rightfully declare war without congress approval. Only the Executive power allowed by the constitution not an extension for more power over people like the Democrats or Neo-cons.
I will put out an old time classical argument as an example where some will split with the movement.
Admitting, there are some subjects that someone who is more accustomed to the 2 party construct could see the extremes and are not comfortable with others having the same freedom they themselves willfully exercise. "I simply don't trust others with making their own personal decisions." Well true , I can see both sides of the argument of somebody owning say a lunch counter and not wanting to give service to someone unlike them. That owner paid their taxes, they payed for their property. They should be able to decide who can be served in their restaurant. If somebody comes in and starts trouble and upsetting customers, they should be ejected. Right? But as you can point out, that same person could kick a person of another color, race or belief system due to their unfamiliarity of said person. The naive view is that particular owner will lose business by not allowing more customers to sit at their counter. Like a person who only hires white racist people are missing out in a much larger pool of possibly good employee candidates. And the lunch counter across the street will get all the business and all the talent to pool from. So they are a success and the racist either turns over a new leaf or face bankruptcy. Unfortunately, if you live in a small town where there is only enough town revenue to support one counter then their is no competitor. There is no lunch counter to compete against. So the bigot/racist/nativist runs a segregated lunch counter.So the crux of the problem is when there is less choices. More choices = more friendly competition.
When government limits your choices, free-er ideas are stunted. Sometimes it is better to work through a solution without necessarily limiting choices with knee jerk laws.
Truth is, if we properly enforced the laws we already have, there wouldn't be a need for all these secondary laws to correct the oversight problem. We wouldn't have to have such a large government that shrinks the choices and freedoms of the individual and comes up with more agency to solve a problem instead of making the current ones take on a wider and deeper responsibility.
Wow did I just type all that?
Well try to vote your conscious this year. I'm going to see who Trump's troll of the day...
Last edited:
