Making people unhappy
I need to stop having such high expectations for other people (in general). I'm completely serious. It makes them uncomfortable or unhappy.
It's not that I would ever do anything to anyone who didn't meet my unreasonable expectations, but they don't like hearing what I expect of those who call themselves "libertarians" when they aren't willing to live up to it. I'm not even talking about calling out specific individuals-- I don't usually do that-- just pointing out what libertarianism means, and pointing out things that don't meet the criteria.
I'm actually harder on myself than I am on others. I usually know the right thing to do, even if I don't manage to stay on course. I suspect others are the same.
I guess I shouldn't point out ways in which people who call themselves "libertarian" don't live up to the label they claim in certain areas. I shouldn't point out inconsistencies in what they advocate that could lead observers to the wrong conclusion.
Just like Christians should be quiet about some guy who worships Satan while claiming to be a Christian. Who are they to say he's not acting like a Christian? He may be doing the best he can, in the society and circumstances in which he finds himself. Expecting that he pick a side and either stop claiming Christianity or stop worshiping Satan is unreasonable. Right? How much Satan worship can a Christian engage in without tainting the label "Christian"?
Well, how much State/State employee worship (or apologetics) can a libertarian engage in without tainting the label "libertarian". I'm thinking none. Maybe that's just me.
If there could be a State that wasn't built on theft and aggression, and if there could be State employees who didn't advance the agenda of the State in any way-- not even by giving it a veil of legitimacy-- and who NEVER participated in the State's theft and aggression, and never supported those State employees who do, then maybe a little Statism would be OK. But that's a magical unicorn of a different color.
As I see it, if you are OK with some aspects of the State, that's between you and your conscience. I'm not going to excuse those parts of the State you like just because I like you or agree with you in every other area. If you truly believe you are right, then don't worry about my opinion on that point. I'll be disappointed, but I'll survive. It's my problem, not yours. As long as you keep your filthy government off my life, that is.
.
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com.
Donations and subscriptions are always appreciated!
Hi @dullhawk, I guess, it would be good to refocus your energy on things that excite you more.
My perspective is that, we have a bigger problem, that affects us all and in a way it also affects our moralities as well.
It's the system of money, that we know exist, once you tie people's livelihoods to a worthless piece of paper, and this paper is printed out of thing air by a minority 1%. The rest of us struggle to survive, especially those who try to hold good moral practices. Because the system encourage fear, greed and scarcity, which leads good people to throw away their good principles and integrity out the window. Libertarians, and everyone one else for that matter is no different.
That to me, is why I know block-chain, will help us start a new, because of it's transparent nature and ability to distribute wealth and abundance.
The world will be a better place. Apologies for the massive detour, but I hope it helps..:)
Libertarians cover half of the libertarian/authoritarian spectrum, so it sounds like your definition of "libertarian" is what many libertarians might call "libertarian extremist". Do you think it's fair to say that you're deep into that end of the spectrum?
@OriginalWorks
I just see no justification for justifying small amounts of cancer and pretending it's necessary or good. If that's "extreme", so be it.
If we take the extreme end point of authoritarianism as 'being authoritarian' and the extreme end point of libertarianism as 'being libertarian', then what would you say the people in between are? (Don't just say "they're wrong").
If they're somewhere between the midway point (centre) and the libertarian extreme, I can understand that they may identify themselves as libertarian. But is there a point where they're centrist rather than libertarian? If so, where is it?
Any amount of belief in governing others with "laws" is statism. There can be more or less, obviously, but even "slightly statist" is still statist. I'm not saying they are wrong, just that I don't believe there's any excuse for it, and I won't do it.
I know a lot of "libertarians" who only have one tiny "but"- and they are statists who are almost libertarian. If this is what a person truly believes, why do they get so upset at having it noticed by others? Unless, deep down, they know they are wrong for protecting that one favored nodule of cancer.
Slightly statist is still statist and slightly libertarian is still libertarian. Is that what you’re saying?
Slightly libertarian is still statist,
The @OriginalWorks bot has determined this post by @dullhawk to be original material and upvoted(1.5%) it!
To call @OriginalWorks, simply reply to any post with @originalworks or !originalworks in your message!
Well the area of this that I disagree with is your characterization of libertarianism. Are you saying that there is no room in the movement for anything other than ancaps? I am a minarchist, and certainly consider myself a libertarian.
You are a statist with libertarian leanings. That's better than being a full-blown authoritarian monster, obviously. That's your business, but "libertarian" means "maximum liberty". Some state is less than the maximum liberty. Like I say, a little cancer is still cancer.
There is room for you in libertarianism, but you need to be honest with yourself as to what you are advocating. Who is it you want to initiate force or theft against without feeling you are doing something you have no right to do? Without feeling like the bad guy?