My point isn’t that “lobertarians” are uneducated; it’s that it’s a philosophy that appeals to the intellectually juvenile and doesn’t provide satisfying or workable proposals for operating within the real world.
A bit like if I encounter modern-day communists or anarchists.
The problem with our political discourse nowadays, and probably the vast majority of the internet, is everybody across the political spectrum decides to use ad hominems (calling them idiots, etc) on their opponents instead of debating issues on an intellectual honest and respectful way, especially pertaining to their beliefs, which are subjective but founded on sincere principles.
“Workable proposals” differ widely between Marxists and Libertarians, and each have ideas well outside the mainstream.
It doesnt make either group “juvenile”.
Edit: Thomas Howell, who switched from being a Marxist to libertarian (he says it's as close a label to his actual beliefs) is smarter than ten of either you or me put together.
You’re probably right I didn’t need to be so snarky, but I do find libertarianism contains an appealing set of proposals that don’t sufficiently address complex aspects of society, family, politics, markets or security. A lot of the solutions proposed would end up looking like a reinvention of the systems we already have in place.
It’s fine to place a high ordinal value on individual negative freedom, it just always requires being tempered with other principles or compromises to end up being workable. For that reason I find the cousins - classical liberals or neoliberals - more willing to look reality in the face.
Also a lot of people who self identify as “libertarians” don’t really mean much other than they want the ability to behave selfishly. That’s not a politics or a philosophy but it sullies the name.
I think there are lots of us who could be labelled as "compassionate libertarians". I generally believe that governments do best when they stay (well) out of the way, but there are a few circumstances where direct intervention to assist those genuinely in need is warranted.
Milton Friedman would, for the most part, agree with that. But he was strongly opposed to governments delivering support services because they'll generally do an awful job of it. So if there were any libertarians (even compassionate libertarians) out there, I would have expected to have seen some evidence in the survey responses. '
For me, the bigger question is whether small government libertarianism is still viable in any form as a electoral movement in the 21st century.
Your bigger question nailed it. Libertarianism and liberty in general, cannot continue in a democracy (see Alexander Tytler as to why and the history of the US and the west in general as proof). Given the mindless tribalism and criminality of party politics (eg. re-election is an inherent conflict of interest as is cronyism, funding, lobbying etc) the appeal and natural decline are functions of professional politicians and only matched by the permanent bureaucracy. If I were writing a constitution for an independent Alberta for example, I would ban democracy per se and under constitutional limits on state activities and with such things as making peacetime deficits unconstitutional, I would instead randomly pick citizens to voluntarily sit for a staggered single term in a part time "citizens" legislature with a modest per diem and no perks in a manner similar to jury duty.
As to the loneliness of libertarianism and related mental health, I tend to not worry about what I have no control over and in politics, I liken it to the H.G. Wells' Time Machine' where I relate to the time traveler (a noisy observer) and the state is obviously the Morlocks leaving the Eloi as the voters in temporary but increasingly ovine bliss.
In my federal riding, about 250 people voted for the Libertarian candidate, so unfortunately, you may be right.
So, you’re a libertarian?
Finish your undergraduate and then pick a political ideology suited to the real world. Cmon in; the water’s great.
Plenty of libertarians are "educated" according to your definition.
My point isn’t that “lobertarians” are uneducated; it’s that it’s a philosophy that appeals to the intellectually juvenile and doesn’t provide satisfying or workable proposals for operating within the real world.
A bit like if I encounter modern-day communists or anarchists.
You got me on the typo 😀
The problem with our political discourse nowadays, and probably the vast majority of the internet, is everybody across the political spectrum decides to use ad hominems (calling them idiots, etc) on their opponents instead of debating issues on an intellectual honest and respectful way, especially pertaining to their beliefs, which are subjective but founded on sincere principles.
“Workable proposals” differ widely between Marxists and Libertarians, and each have ideas well outside the mainstream.
It doesnt make either group “juvenile”.
Edit: Thomas Howell, who switched from being a Marxist to libertarian (he says it's as close a label to his actual beliefs) is smarter than ten of either you or me put together.
You’re probably right I didn’t need to be so snarky, but I do find libertarianism contains an appealing set of proposals that don’t sufficiently address complex aspects of society, family, politics, markets or security. A lot of the solutions proposed would end up looking like a reinvention of the systems we already have in place.
It’s fine to place a high ordinal value on individual negative freedom, it just always requires being tempered with other principles or compromises to end up being workable. For that reason I find the cousins - classical liberals or neoliberals - more willing to look reality in the face.
Also a lot of people who self identify as “libertarians” don’t really mean much other than they want the ability to behave selfishly. That’s not a politics or a philosophy but it sullies the name.
According to you, what are the basic tenets of Libertarianism?
I think there are lots of us who could be labelled as "compassionate libertarians". I generally believe that governments do best when they stay (well) out of the way, but there are a few circumstances where direct intervention to assist those genuinely in need is warranted.
Milton Friedman would, for the most part, agree with that. But he was strongly opposed to governments delivering support services because they'll generally do an awful job of it. So if there were any libertarians (even compassionate libertarians) out there, I would have expected to have seen some evidence in the survey responses. '
For me, the bigger question is whether small government libertarianism is still viable in any form as a electoral movement in the 21st century.
Your bigger question nailed it. Libertarianism and liberty in general, cannot continue in a democracy (see Alexander Tytler as to why and the history of the US and the west in general as proof). Given the mindless tribalism and criminality of party politics (eg. re-election is an inherent conflict of interest as is cronyism, funding, lobbying etc) the appeal and natural decline are functions of professional politicians and only matched by the permanent bureaucracy. If I were writing a constitution for an independent Alberta for example, I would ban democracy per se and under constitutional limits on state activities and with such things as making peacetime deficits unconstitutional, I would instead randomly pick citizens to voluntarily sit for a staggered single term in a part time "citizens" legislature with a modest per diem and no perks in a manner similar to jury duty.
As to the loneliness of libertarianism and related mental health, I tend to not worry about what I have no control over and in politics, I liken it to the H.G. Wells' Time Machine' where I relate to the time traveler (a noisy observer) and the state is obviously the Morlocks leaving the Eloi as the voters in temporary but increasingly ovine bliss.