@ChaosEngine, I'm a big Moore fan, too. He's pretty great, isn't he? Curious what you thought of the Watchmen movie. And if you watched the Ultimate Cut or not. Now on to the more unpleasant stuff...


You wrote: "The problems I'd like to see addressed are what happens when this idyllic utopia breaks down. What happens in the absence of a leviathan when someone robs or steals from you using force? How is that righted? What happens when a crime is perpetrated and there is no single victim, but the act is still damaging? Pollution, for instance."

First off, I'm not sure small "l" libertarianism creates a utopia, idyllic or otherwise, It makes very little promises in that area, because the pragmatic argument is: freedom is dangerous. And libertarianism doesn't seek to create a perfect socially engineered society. It knows human problems are messy and complex, and there's no way to solve them from a monolithic, and often clumsy, top-down approach.

As for redressable damages (wrongs being righted), well, most small "l" libertarians still believe in civil courts and even administrative roles for government, believe it or not. Even Moore thought the government would work best in an administrative role, and he was a bonafide anarchist. This video is about the more extreme anarchist perspective of voluntaryism, which is a political philosophy of non-aggression, and couldn't be leapt into overnight. So, if someone pollutes your air, you have a grievance even in a libertarian society.


You wrote: "The biggest gang was chosen by it's people. And if they start acting like dicks, then we choose another gang. Now whether one gang is as bad as the previous one is another debate..."

Really? I could argue that the two party system holds our electorate system hostage, but let's just assume that's not true. Bush ran on a platform in 2001 that completely contradicted his policies while in office. So has Obama.


You wrote: "It actually describes a potential problem with anarchy, but it doesn't say how the problem would be solved..."

Right. Because anarchist aren't utopians. And small "l" libertarians don't want to replace a bad socially engineered political system with a new socially engineered political system. They really just want to leave it up to the people.

Simple as fear. It is not only a wonderful experience it is also very terrifying. Psychedelics, if that is even what it is, have been ostracized by society, for whatever reason, politics, philosophy, culture, people making OSs due to their inspiration since the 60s. DMT was known about back then, but not widely known about, back then it was super rare. Getting the main ingredients would have been a pain and required going to South America.

Now that the ingredients are not difficult to get, thanks to the digital information system, more and more people are seeing what this thing is. And many of them that take enough come back with stories right out of a Phillip K Dick novel, or information that seems so New Agey, frequencies, cymatics, fractals, entities, etc, it is too weird or difficult for people to even want to look at this as something more than a really crazy drug and look into what it is doing to the brain. This has been done to small extents in providing details into which serotonin receptors DMT is affecting. What is clear is that one would have to take HUGE amounts of mushrooms to get to what this state is, if it is even possible. This takes a person there in two seconds then ten minutes, you are back. How is it possible?

By all means, I would LOVE for this to be studied by science ; then the Singularity would be right around the corner, mann...JK.

You guys accusing libertarians of lack of empathy, and even sociopathy is typical intellectual short-sightedness. The libertarian considers further consequences to political actions that others usually ignore, they care about longer-term priorities. They can be easily accused of being less emotional for not caving in to perceived short-term benefits, but I assure you they're as human and caring as proponents of any other political philosophy. Please stop hating.

That being said, as a libertarian, I think workers should unionize if they want, they should be fired if Walmart doesn't want to hire unionized workers (contract permitting), let them figure this out. Letting anyone use force, be it the union, government laws, or a criminal cartel to set working conditions is a recipe for disaster down the road.

Agreed. American conservatives have completely bastardized the term "libertarian". Modern American right libertarianism has nothing to do with liberty, it's capitalist fundamentalism. >> ^enoch:

rusty is talking about the twisted definition of libertarian we see bantered about in political circles these days.
but his commentary is spot on with the ripping giant vortex of mangled logic these zombified "libertarians" use to promote an ideology that was spike-injected into their brains.
and any libertarian that states that ayn rand inspired their political philosophy...
is by definition..
a cunt.

rusty is talking about the twisted definition of libertarian we see bantered about in political circles these days.
but his commentary is spot on with the ripping giant vortex of mangled logic these zombified "libertarians" use to promote an ideology that was spike-injected into their brains.

and any libertarian that states that ayn rand inspired their political philosophy...
is by definition..
a cunt.

Hi,

Here is a thread that gives some background on why Africa was chosen: http://videosift.com/poll/What-should-I-choose-as-a-channel

Basically the guidelines for this channel would be:

Africa is:

-Culture, History, Politics, Philosophy, Technology, & News of Africa and her Diaspora
-about Northern and Sub-saharan Africans of all races, and diaspora members
-Geological and Geographic Africa
-Travel within Africa, or within diaspora communities
-Individual stories that speak to the unique cultural experience of Africans & diaspora members

Africa is not:

-Insulting animations or images of black people
-People behaving badly towards black people
-Any old video with a black person in it that does not speak to larger issues of culture, history,
etc (e.g., some black dude just washing his car)
-racist or disproven theories about black people
-Black sports, movie, or music stars, unless they have made a very significant social/cultural impact
-Videos whose central theme is race or racism, and not Africa as defined above

Looks like one choice stands out. Please comment on my take on an *Africana channel:

Africana is:

-Culture, History, Politics, Philosophy, Technology, & News of Africa and her Diaspora
-about Northern and Sub-saharan Africans of all races, and diaspora members
-Geological and Geographic Africa
-Travel within Africa, or within diaspora communities
-Individual stories that speak to the unique cultural experience of Africans & diaspora members


Africana is not:

-Insulting animations or images of black people
-People behaving badly towards black people
-Any old video with a black person in it that does not speak to larger issues of culture, history,
etc (e.g., some black dude just washing his car)
-racist or disproven theories about black people
-Black sports, movie, or music stars, unless they have made a very significant social/cultural impact
-Videos whose central theme is race or racism, and not Africana as defined above

>> ^gorillaman:

It's funny how this word that apparently everyone but me is able to apply accurately suddenly becomes so elusive when it's time for you to spit out a definition. Historically it has been difficult; but so many experts have weighed in here, thirty of them so far echoing Inigo Montoya, that together you ought to have a pretty solid consensus.
But you don't.
Well, I use two definitions of fascism. Both equally valid, both describe Obama.
My broad definition of fascism is anything that restricts freedom for a bullshit reason. You guys might not like that one.
My narrow definition of fascism is any political movement characterised by most or all of the following: nationalism, collectivism, authoritarianism, militarism, and stupidity. Obama's regime is five out of five by that measure.
Narrower definitions exist - they're not useful to anybody but historians.
I believe fascists should be killed. I want all of you to believe it too.


How about instead we go down the (admittedly controversial) route of using a dictionary to define fascism, as opposed to your "anyone who disagrees me" definition. Here, I'll even look it up for you.

"Fascism : noun
1: often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2: a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control Now, if you truly believe that Obama satisfies those requirements, you're either a) an idiot or b) suffering from a severe case of first world problems.

Hyperbole adds nothing to the discussion.

So which breed promotes "citizens taking their duties seriously" the most? And what if one doesn't breed it at all?

Liberalism, Conservatism, or Libertarianism?

And yes, there is an answer to both of those questions--but I won't give it because I don't know it truthfully.

If you think it is Liberalism, then why? (The short version plz ) If you never questioned whether this was important, which belief breeds better citizens, then that is bad indeed, but most never do.

>> ^NetRunner:

@GeeSussFreeK there's a lot in here I like and agree with. Just going to randomly interject some thoughts I had as I read it:
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
[Ron Paul] is an advocate of declaring war, not the president just going in willy nilly. We can never really answer the question of if a particular war is good or not morally for every person at once, but we don't want to leave that moral choice in the hands of one man for no good reason other than self defense.
But Congress declared the wars that Ron Paul, as one man, wants to end. Paul's adherence to the constitution is selective on quite a wide range of topics, this one included.
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
That is one of the major dangers I see in Statism is when you outsource responsibility, you usually don't relegate much thought to it. The plumber fixes my pipes, I don't concern myself with how they work.
Except that's not "statism," that's division of labor. Specifically the kind that is the cornerstone of a market economy.
As an aside, you need to just remove the word "statism" from your vocabulary. No one is an advocate of "statism" -- statists only exist in the imaginations of right-wing ideologues.
Case in point, you're specifically talking about markets and the kind of "rational self-interest" inherent in the "free" market gospel of the right, but somehow think it's something entirely the opposite, even though your example is a purely market-based example.
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
Likewise, when you place all sorts of powers in agents hands, you tend to concern yourself with the goings ons...till they break. I think a Statism and Libertarianism have the same net effect if the people don't take an active concern in all forms of domestic affairs.
Right, like investment banking.
Liberals/social democrats/European socialists are united in saying what you're saying: the system will never work unless people take their responsibility as citizens seriously.
From where I sit, it's the right who are saying the opposite. They say "freedom" is defined by how completely you can abdicate your civic duties. You should never have to worry about anyone or anything that doesn't directly relate to your own direct personal interest.
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
I think that Statism markets might have a higher entropy, though, because it invokes an active outsourcing of all matters of life to agents. While that could work if you are always haggling your agent to make sure he is doing his best, and not up to shenanigans, why not just cut out the middleman and keep up with the basic concern yourself?
Agreed, once I correct the label.
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
I think the idea of the Democracy is starting to fail, not because of some flaw in it that wasn't already widely known, but the culture we find ourselves in. For a Democracy to exist in a healthy way, each citizen has to see his role as a citizen to provide enrichment for the body politic. In this way, the Wests focus on individual rights and Libertarian ethics sorts of causes entropy on this notion. We would much rather be watching a movie, or some other form of playboy recreation, then running down to our local City Council and partake of our duty (not only to others, but ourselves).
I don't mean to ramble, but I wanted to make that point, that it doesn't matter if you are a federalist, or a anti-federalist. If your voting body is poor in intellect, will, and a toxic cultural environment, then no matter of political philosophy will save you. I think Jefferson foresaw that this entropy, and the saying, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." comes from; that things have to get really bad enough for us to actually care about democracy for it to work again for us, and more importantly, us for it.
I totally agree with this, and it's very well put to boot.
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
Sometimes, dare I say most times, it is actually better to let those whom are convicted on the goodness of something to take the risk themselves and not try and hedge everyone in with them.

I don't really want to wade into the debate about Libya in particular (I think it was all shades of grey, and what we did was neither commendable nor reprehensible), but I will point out that it seems you're expressing the very abdication of civic duty you were condemning a few paragraphs before.
It's exactly the same attitude people have about their pipes -- they don't think they should have to think about them unless it's creating a problem for them directly. Either that's their inalienable right to liberty that we're morally obligated to respect, or that's the apathy that's causing our whole world to crumble around us which we're morally obligated to condemn.
I think I've made it clear which one I think it is.

@GeeSussFreeK there's a lot in here I like and agree with. Just going to randomly interject some thoughts I had as I read it:
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

[Ron Paul] is an advocate of declaring war, not the president just going in willy nilly. We can never really answer the question of if a particular war is good or not morally for every person at once, but we don't want to leave that moral choice in the hands of one man for no good reason other than self defense.

But Congress declared the wars that Ron Paul, as one man, wants to end. Paul's adherence to the constitution is selective on quite a wide range of topics, this one included.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
That is one of the major dangers I see in Statism is when you outsource responsibility, you usually don't relegate much thought to it. The plumber fixes my pipes, I don't concern myself with how they work.

Except that's not "statism," that's division of labor. Specifically the kind that is the cornerstone of a market economy.

As an aside, you need to just remove the word "statism" from your vocabulary. No one is an advocate of "statism" -- statists only exist in the imaginations of right-wing ideologues.

Case in point, you're specifically talking about markets and the kind of "rational self-interest" inherent in the "free" market gospel of the right, but somehow think it's something entirely the opposite, even though your example is a purely market-based example.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
Likewise, when you place all sorts of powers in agents hands, you tend to concern yourself with the goings ons...till they break. I think a Statism and Libertarianism have the same net effect if the people don't take an active concern in all forms of domestic affairs.

Right, like investment banking.

Liberals/social democrats/European socialists are united in saying what you're saying: the system will never work unless people take their responsibility as citizens seriously.

From where I sit, it's the right who are saying the opposite. They say "freedom" is defined by how completely you can abdicate your civic duties. You should never have to worry about anyone or anything that doesn't directly relate to your own direct personal interest.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
I think that Statism markets might have a higher entropy, though, because it invokes an active outsourcing of all matters of life to agents. While that could work if you are always haggling your agent to make sure he is doing his best, and not up to shenanigans, why not just cut out the middleman and keep up with the basic concern yourself?

Agreed, once I correct the label.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
I think the idea of the Democracy is starting to fail, not because of some flaw in it that wasn't already widely known, but the culture we find ourselves in. For a Democracy to exist in a healthy way, each citizen has to see his role as a citizen to provide enrichment for the body politic. In this way, the Wests focus on individual rights and Libertarian ethics sorts of causes entropy on this notion. We would much rather be watching a movie, or some other form of playboy recreation, then running down to our local City Council and partake of our duty (not only to others, but ourselves).
I don't mean to ramble, but I wanted to make that point, that it doesn't matter if you are a federalist, or a anti-federalist. If your voting body is poor in intellect, will, and a toxic cultural environment, then no matter of political philosophy will save you. I think Jefferson foresaw that this entropy, and the saying, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." comes from; that things have to get really bad enough for us to actually care about democracy for it to work again for us, and more importantly, us for it.

I totally agree with this, and it's very well put to boot.
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
Sometimes, dare I say most times, it is actually better to let those whom are convicted on the goodness of something to take the risk themselves and not try and hedge everyone in with them.


I don't really want to wade into the debate about Libya in particular (I think it was all shades of grey, and what we did was neither commendable nor reprehensible), but I will point out that it seems you're expressing the very abdication of civic duty you were condemning a few paragraphs before.

It's exactly the same attitude people have about their pipes -- they don't think they should have to think about them unless it's creating a problem for them directly. Either that's their inalienable right to liberty that we're morally obligated to respect, or that's the apathy that's causing our whole world to crumble around us which we're morally obligated to condemn.

I think I've made it clear which one I think it is.

>> ^Grimm:

RP wants to end all the needless wars. If any war is worth fighting then he would only require that Congress "declares war" as it is outlined in the Constitution.


Exactly, I think that would answer some of @bcglorf 's hold up on isolationism. Like isn't so black and white, especially on matter of war. Which is why he is an advocate of declaring war, not the president just going in willy nilly. We can never really answer the question of if a particular war is good or not morally for every person at once, but we don't want to leave that moral choice in the hands of one man for no good reason other than self defense. My like the recent stop to the SOPA legislation due to pressure from the outside, the same kind of pressure could of been used to help in Libya..but only if the supporters of that action could sway enough people to support that decision...just like a democracy should. And I don't think hiding behind things like NATO or the US should undermine our Presidents responsibility to us, he works for us first after all. Like in most questions of this nature, there isn't really a right or wrong when the action is taken or not taken in the most strict sense...only what was the most supported.

I think it is a little, in that light, to say that we couldn't declare war on the Libyan government. We are just so used to the President going to war for us, that we have basically abdicated our responsibility in this area. That is one of the major dangers I see in Statism is when you outsource responsibility, you usually don't relegate much thought to it. The plumber fixes my pipes, I don't concern myself with how they work. Likewise, when you place all sorts of powers in agents hands, you tend to concern yourself with the goings ons...till they break. I think a Statism and Libertarianism have the same net effect if the people don't take an active concern in all forms of domestic affairs. I think that Statism might have a higher entropy, though, because it invokes an active outsourcing of all matters of life to agents. While that could work if you are always haggling your agent to make sure he is doing his best, and not up to shenanigans, why not just cut out the middleman and keep up with the basic concern yourself?

I think the idea of the Democracy is starting to fail, not because of some flaw in it that wasn't already widely known, but the culture we find ourselves in. For a Democracy to exist in a healthy way, each citizen has to see his role as a citizen to provide enrichment for the body politic. In this way, the Wests focus on individual rights and Libertarian ethics sorts of causes entropy on this notion. We would much rather be watching a movie, or some other form of playboy recreation, then running down to our local City Council and partake of our duty (not only to others, but ourselves).

I don't mean to ramble, but I wanted to make that point, that it doesn't matter if you are a federalist, or a anti-federalist. If your voting body is poor in intellect, will, and a toxic cultural environment, then no matter of political philosophy will save you. I think Jefferson foresaw that this entropy, and the saying, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." comes from; that things have to get really bad enough for us to actually care about democracy for it to work again for us, and more importantly, us for it.

But more to @bcglorf 's point on genocide, and cowardice. I don't think it is fair to say cowardice when your only course of action is making more widows and orphans. And more importantly, it is an entirely different thing for some president to commit you to that course of action without any "due process", in this case, a declaration of war. I don't think it is cowardice, persay, to not want to kill someone that doesn't want to kill you, and might have a legitimate claim to kill the person they want to kill. But that is neither here nor there, a moral question that most likely will never see commonly, the point is, that each of us should have a voice in the action we collectively have to take, action or inaction. The benefit of defaulting to inaction is that it doesn't stop someone morally convicted like yourself to fund operations of support for whatever side. That is why I usually side with Libertarian answers for complicated issues, sometimes, you don't need one answer for everyone. Sometimes, dare I say most times, it is actually better to let those whom are convicted on the goodness of something to take the risk themselves and not try and hedge everyone in with them.

Agreed, It's extremely frustrating knowing that I agree with him in matters of foreign policy and getting out of the drug war and out of people's bedrooms, but he's a complete nutbag when it comes to other things like economic policy. He's a perfect example of how you simply can't apply one political philosophy (liberalism, libertarianism, conservatism, etc) to all situations. Not all situations are equal. some things are served better by liberalism, some things are better served by conservatism, etc. You can't apply one formula to all things.

I agree completely with ChaosEngine, it has been demonstrated time and time again that you simply cannot trust a business to do the right thing when profit motive is involved. Yes, public retaliation plays a role, but the bigger a company is, the harder it is retaliate because it requires more and more dissatisfied customers to put a big enough dent in profits to motivate them to change.

I don't recall who said it, but Capitalism is an awesome engine for progress and innovation, but it's a shitty way to run a just and fair society. Forget separation of church and state..we need separation of profit and ethics

>> ^chilaxe:

What kinds of problems do we solve in life outside of career? However we would describe those problems, they're all simplistic compared to solving complex professional problems, like writing a 30 page technical specifications document for an innovative product that's going to make people's lives better, or planning and executing a business strategy to outcompete our undeserving competitors.
In my experience, people who don't invest themselves in their professional lives are boring to talk to because their not really engaged with the world and they're not meaningfully challenged by life so they don't develop their human potential.

These challenges are typically a distraction from our personal goals. It's axiomatic that if you spend all your time concentrating on professional expertise then you'll be less developed in other areas. My choice has been not to spend years on something that's just going to handicap me.

Advancing political philosophy makes people's lives better too. An idle lifestyle is necessary to that study in particular, but beneficial to intellectual growth generally.

Is one's political philosophy an inner "moral code" or is it a function of where you sit on the economic ladder? Is it coincidence that the wealthy are conservative and largely Republican and the poor are largely liberal and Democratic? If you reversed the economic standing of a group of one versus the other, would that change their political view? Do the poor who win lotteries usually go a spending spree or immediately set about philanthropy and working for social justice? How far down the economic ladder does entitlement stop? If we are a truly a world community, should the US citizen living at the poverty level give up their cell phone so that a child can eat in Rwanda? After all, isn't that person at the US poverty level still earning in the top 10% of world income earners? Isn't that person uber-rich to the child in Rwanda? The group on the bottom will always look up at the next class above and think they're "greedy" for their excesses, however modest they may be. In the end, the world economy is driven by individuals pursuing their personal and separate interests. To paraphrase historian Will Durant on what lessons we learn from history, concerning economics, "freedom and equality are sworn enemies.......the greater the freedom, the greater the economic disparity in the classes, until it creates such tension that wealth is redistributed by legislation, or poverty is redistributed by revolution."

>> ^VoodooV:

Conservative Think Tank? Isn't that an oxymoron?


Welle someone has to be thinking pretty hard to figure out how to turn all that nonsense into a semi-coherent political "philosophy" without making them look like a spoiled kindergartner.