Earth Day: The History of A Movement

Other discussions not related to the Permanent Portfolio

Moderator: Global Moderator

User avatar
Pointedstick
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 8864
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:21 pm
Contact:

Re: Earth Day: The History of A Movement

Post by Pointedstick » Tue Apr 23, 2013 10:50 pm

MachineGhost wrote:
Pointedstick wrote: Same here. I used to be a pretty hardcore austrian anarchist. Now I understand MR and think that anarchy is a nice principle that most of the world isn't ready for. If anything, the intellectual titans on this forum have pulled me from the brink of extreme libertarianism and closer toward mainstream libertarianism.
So, we are all minarchists now?  ;)
That's kind of the way I feel, but I draw a distinction between what I push for politically and what I ideologically believe. Ideologically, I think the state is a cancer, but realistically, we have to deal with it and work through it to reign in what I think most of us here actually agree are some of its abuses. My representatives wouldn't take me seriously if all I did was rant against the fact they exist in the first place. So I push for less government, while being nonspecific about where I would like the pushing to end.

And in truth, politically, I'd be happy as a clam living in a place with very low taxes, very permissive drug and gun laws, very loose building restrictions, and police forces that considered themselves a part of the community.
Human behavior is economic behavior. The particulars may vary, but competition for limited resources remains a constant.
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
User avatar
Benko
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1900
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2011 9:40 am

Re: Earth Day: The History of A Movement

Post by Benko » Tue Apr 23, 2013 11:17 pm

TennPaGa wrote: Do you guys  even bother to read what you're responding to?

PS, a libertarian to the core, is lamenting that the LIBERTARIAN movement gets too caught up in labels, and you blame it on him being too enamored of the state?
If you mean me, I was referring to multiple threads over the past several months where people were playing waht seemed to me mental games over various labels (including various kinds of libertarianism)  e.g. well if you believe in that label, then you really do belive in statism, etc. 
It was good being the party of Robin Hood. Until they morphed into the Sheriff of Nottingham
User avatar
MachineGhost
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 10054
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2011 9:31 am

Re: Earth Day: The History of A Movement

Post by MachineGhost » Tue Apr 23, 2013 11:24 pm

Pointedstick wrote: abuses. My representatives wouldn't take me seriously if all I did was rant against the fact they exist in the first place. So I push for less government, while being nonspecific about where I would like the pushing to end.
I think one of our biggest weaknesses as libertarians is that we blindly presume as given that regulation by consumers will not be corrupt, inefficient or unjust any more than regulation by government agencies is.  We presume that such consumer regulation would be free, fair and democratic, but I think the real world points out that the non-aggression principle is not universally shared by all of humankind as a moral or philosophical principle.  There are very bad actors out there and they will game and exploit whatever system there is.  At least under our socialist corporatist "democracy", we have some ability to induce coercive changes through the legislative branch and the sorely underutilized judicial branch.  What resort would we have without such democratic mechanisms?  If we look at how the rating agencies just kowtowed to rubber stamping whatever the investment banking clients wanted all for the sake of profit, anarcho-capitalism will simply not be viable.  It's not a matter of which theoretical argument wins the political philosophical battle, but the result of real-world outcomes.

And its troubling to me that extremely unethical behaviors such as sexual trafficking, pre-pubsecent sex and other extremely deviant behaviors that we all ignore for sanity reasons would lack an impartial enforcement mechanism free of bias.  Whats to stop a human trafficking organization from having a free market private police agency eventually kowtow to them by becoming their biggest and only customer?  Competition will not work to put bad actors out of business when there is regulatory capture, whether that is by consumers, bureaucrats or aristocrats.  As you say, police already don't feel like they're part of the community because their first allegiance is to themselves and then to the state; do we really want to risk their allegiance attaching to the scum of humanity?  In places like India where the local police are hardly part of an institutional state infrastructure; they simply turn a blind eye to heinious crimes such as abducting and raping a 5 year old girl and leaving her for dead.
Last edited by MachineGhost on Tue Apr 23, 2013 11:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"All generous minds have a horror of what are commonly called 'Facts'. They are the brute beasts of the intellectual domain." -- Thomas Hobbes

Disclaimer: I am not a broker, dealer, investment advisor, physician, theologian or prophet.  I should not be considered as legally permitted to render such advice!
User avatar
moda0306
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 7680
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 9:05 pm
Location: Minnesota

Re: Earth Day: The History of A Movement

Post by moda0306 » Tue Apr 23, 2013 11:47 pm

Benko,

Do you feel the debate around what libertarianism actually means is fundamentally flawed?

To me it appears to be a great discussion had well in few places but this forum. What "liberty" truly means when we're stuck on a rock together seems to be the ultimate question.
"Men did not make the earth. It is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property. Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds."

- Thomas Paine
User avatar
Pointedstick
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 8864
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:21 pm
Contact:

Re: Earth Day: The History of A Movement

Post by Pointedstick » Tue Apr 23, 2013 11:58 pm

Those are tough questions, MG. I wrestle with many myself. But in the end, adding more government rarely seems like a useful approach. In your India example, the government police actively ignores the problem. In all sorts of places, the government police/soldiers are basically thugs who cause new problems (I have personal experience with this in a 3rd world country).

On one hand, the government could work to curb human trafficking. On the other hand, in a place corrupt and impoverished enough to have a substantial human trafficking problem, the government could well join in, and often does. Those soldiers bunk in all-male barracks if you catch my meaning...

Let me return to one of my favorite quotations of all time:
http://www.newapproachtofreedom.info/pe ... ction.html
Because man has not mastered the problem of achieving prosperity, he has turned to government for its solution. Thus he has complicated his problem, for government offers no solution to the problem of prosperity, while its intervention in this primary problem brings the additional problem of how to govern government. When government undertakes to solve man's problem for him it undertakes the mastery of society and it cannot be both master and servant. Thus it has failed in both spheres. By intertwining the prosperity problem with the political problem man has snarled the threads and no solution of either is possible without separation.
In the end, the more barbaric we are to each other, the more we're going to call for government to prevent the barbarism we see in others (never in ourselves, of course). The way we reduce our reliance on government is by improving ourselves. We can all start with ourselves; this need not be a macro problem. By being a better person yourself, you're already reducing your reliance on government, whether that be their services in arbitration, protection, cash payments, loan assistance, product research, you name it. The more responsible we all become, the nicer a place we'll all live in, and the more we can interact with one another through trade and cooperation (which it seems is desired by everyone--including liberals). But it always starts with the individual.
Human behavior is economic behavior. The particulars may vary, but competition for limited resources remains a constant.
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
RuralEngineer
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 686
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 10:26 pm

Re: Earth Day: The History of A Movement

Post by RuralEngineer » Wed Apr 24, 2013 12:00 am

MachineGhost wrote:
Benko wrote: I think there is far too much discussion of labels (rather than what people believe or wish to have done) here.  I think part of this is people overly enamored of the state (and imposing their wishes on others) trying to muddy the waters.  Or perhaps I'm just being too cynical.
Labels are necessary to communicate and communicating with people that don't have labels for referrants that you do in your own mind makes it an eventual reductionist proposition to sound bites at the worst.  I don't think you're being cynical; idealogues intentionally confuse language because that is their power over the muppets.  I've been guilty of this myself except I don't have an ulterior agenda of muppet control, so I assume I can be forgiven.

If anything, I'm becoming more and more troubled by the lack of diversity in the forum.  We tend to drive away more liberal-leaning members because we set a high barrier for effective communication and tend to circle jerk around the forum's center-right ideaology.  That's getting boring.

My participation in the forum has actually moderated my own ideaology (real not utopian).  Facts are brutal.
As long as the focus is on personal liberty and the "tent" is kept as big as possible as long as possible, maybe Libertarianism will amount to something some day. If we start subjecting it to ideological purity tests and purges it's toast.

As to the left/right slant of the forums, that's tough anytime there's an imbalanced population. This isn't the real world where we argue about gun control and then go drink beer and watch football. I can understand why someone wouldn't want to participate online where they felt "outnumbered" but don't believe the problem can be corrected without censoring legitimate and interesting topics. I don't believe there's any real issue with forum behavior. Discussions are spirited, but I feel like they are real debates and not just attacks.
User avatar
Benko
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1900
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2011 9:40 am

Re: Earth Day: The History of A Movement

Post by Benko » Wed Apr 24, 2013 12:56 am

moda0306 wrote: Benko,

Do you feel the debate around what libertarianism actually means is fundamentally flawed?

To me it appears to be a great discussion had well in few places but this forum. What "liberty" truly means when we're stuck on a rock together seems to be the ultimate question.
FLawed?  Probably not, but I'm not big on labels and i'm not sure how much it helps. 

No clue where I'd fall.  I believe in abortion, equality for gays (no clue if gay marriage per se is a good idea for society though) and I'm very live and let live.  And smaller gov't and as local as possible (but not anarchist).  I used to think this made me some sort of libertarian, but I really have no idea.
It was good being the party of Robin Hood. Until they morphed into the Sheriff of Nottingham
User avatar
MachineGhost
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 10054
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2011 9:31 am

Re: Earth Day: The History of A Movement

Post by MachineGhost » Wed Apr 24, 2013 1:44 am

Benko wrote: No clue where I'd fall.  I believe in abortion, equality for gays (no clue if gay marriage per se is a good idea for society though) and I'm very live and let live.  And smaller gov't and as local as possible (but not anarchist).  I used to think this made me some sort of libertarian, but I really have no idea.
Based on your public postings, I would peg you as a quasi-Rockefeller Republican obsessed with liberals and Obama, to the left of Reub, RuralEngineer, craigr but to the right of the Libertarians such as PS, MT, TennPaGa (and needless to say, waaay to the right of doodle!).  How's that for labels, y'all? :D  My apologies if I left anyone out.
"All generous minds have a horror of what are commonly called 'Facts'. They are the brute beasts of the intellectual domain." -- Thomas Hobbes

Disclaimer: I am not a broker, dealer, investment advisor, physician, theologian or prophet.  I should not be considered as legally permitted to render such advice!
User avatar
Pointedstick
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 8864
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:21 pm
Contact:

Re: Earth Day: The History of A Movement

Post by Pointedstick » Wed Apr 24, 2013 10:10 am

The reason why I don't find labels very illuminating is because we give ourselves labels based on what those labels mean to us, not what they mean to other people.

For example, I know New York City liberals who believe that radical Islam is a threat and an appropriate response to a nuclear terrorist attack on an American city would be a nuclear attack on Mecca. I know conservatives (like Benko) who believe that abortion ought to be legal and that gays are just fine.

IMHO it's important to respect what people think of themselves and not get too caught up in whether the labels people adopt for themselves are accurate from your own perspective. None of us adhere with 100%  fidelity to all the tenets of the labels we apply to ourselves.
Human behavior is economic behavior. The particulars may vary, but competition for limited resources remains a constant.
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
User avatar
moda0306
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 7680
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 9:05 pm
Location: Minnesota

Re: Earth Day: The History of A Movement

Post by moda0306 » Wed Apr 24, 2013 11:44 am

I guess I don't like labels either.  That might seem untrue based on my focus on libertarianism, but my main reason for hitting on labels so hard is that left unchallenged, we hear non-anarchists refer to anyone who thinks government should do different things than they do referred to as "statists."  We're "holding a gun to their head" and "stealing" from them when we suggest government should provide a social safety net.

I consider anything short of anarchy "government holding a gun to our head," and I think it's a cop out to be able to rest your arguments on such a strong moral claim (that people you disagree with are essentially fascists).

I also think it's worth pointing out how much of our wealth isn't earned outright, but simply claimed and defended as our own.  Further, when the good ol' days of "small government" are looked fondly upon, even though in the South we basically had slavery-enforcing (and later terrorist-sympathizing) police states and at the federal level we had an entity that could force me at gunpoint to put my life on the line, I think it's laughable to call this "small government" with a straight face.  It was the government that some felt was small because it didn't feel like it was bothering them.  Tell that to someone who died in a trench in WWI or was returned from the North just to be whipped back into work for trying to escape the slavery of the South.  Try to tell them that they're free because taxes are lower or because government spending as a percentage of GDP is super low.  This wasn't "small government."  It was hunky-dory for some and murderous coercion for others.

That's where I think labels are important.  Unless you're an anarchist, don't come to me with grand moral claims that I'm a "statist" or that I'm "holding a gun to your head," because you're holding the same gun to my head, but just for different things.  We need to argue about what those things that are worth having government for on merits OTHER than whether the government's holding a gun to our head because that's what government is... A coercive entity... one that we can hopefully use in the most fair, productive, prosperous, and "free" ways possible.

My main measure of how "evil" government coercion is (with the knowledge that everything it does is essentially coercion) lies in how many true options citizens have.  The holocaust and slavery were so bad because people were treated like trash and had NO options.  They were going to live their life in servitude or die.  Pure and simple.  The draft is far less horrible but still pretty bad, because if you're a man of physical means you have to go fight in a horrible war.  Taxes, on the other hand, leave people with plenty of options: Leave the country, don't earn as much, pay your taxes and enjoy what's left over with your family, or even cheat and probably get away with it most of the time.

Is it a value judgement to decide taxes aren't as bad as slavery?  Maybe... but I think I'm using a pretty objective measure.  Or as objective as you can when you're talking about an entity that is, in and of itself, coercive in nature. 

How to measure any good that government does (as opposed to how "evil" its coercion is) is a very different discussion.  I'll leave that for another time. :)
"Men did not make the earth. It is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property. Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds."

- Thomas Paine
User avatar
Pointedstick
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 8864
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:21 pm
Contact:

Re: Earth Day: The History of A Movement

Post by Pointedstick » Wed Apr 24, 2013 11:59 am

Moda, I would agree with you that taxes are less bad than slavery. But we don't have slavery any more. We do have taxes though--very high taxes for a lot of people, even many who would not consider themselves wealthy by any stretch of the imagination. So saying, "well, slavery was worse," isn't a satisfying response to me because you're bringing up an already-solved problem.

To me, what matters less than our ultimate goals is the direction we want to go in. I would call someone a "statist" who generally approaches problems by asking what the government can, should, or ought to do about it. Doesn't matter to me if they would stop short of total centralized control of everything. If the default attitude is, "what's the state's role?", then that seems like a statist attitude to me.

Conversely, one doesn't have to believe in total anarchy to favor less state action. One who approaches problems by asking what individuals can do, and generally favors a rollback of existing state action isn't in my mind a statist for failing to endorse total anarchy any more than a statist is a libertarian for failing to endorse total government control of everything. It's so much more about what direction you want to go in than what your end goal is, because most likely none of us will ever live to see our desired societal end goals realized.

At least, that's the way I see it.
Simonjester wrote: my definition of statists VS non statists is probably not the dictionary approved version, i have heard some here define anyone who believes there should be any level of state at all, as "statist", and only anarchists as being true non statists, but i don't know if that is a terribly useful definition of the label.
the way i view it is if your answer to all, or most problems is more state and more government then you are a statist if your answer to all or most problems is less government/better quality government and more individual liberty and systems that foster it and the type of individuals that can handle it, you are "not a statist"

[edit] pointedstick beat me to it but i will post anyway :)
Last edited by Pointedstick on Wed Apr 24, 2013 12:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Human behavior is economic behavior. The particulars may vary, but competition for limited resources remains a constant.
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
User avatar
moda0306
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 7680
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 9:05 pm
Location: Minnesota

Re: Earth Day: The History of A Movement

Post by moda0306 » Wed Apr 24, 2013 12:32 pm

Pointedstick wrote: Moda, I would agree with you that taxes are less bad than slavery. But we don't have slavery any more. We do have taxes though--very high taxes for a lot of people, even many who would not consider themselves wealthy by any stretch of the imagination. So saying, "well, slavery was worse," isn't a satisfying response to me because you're bringing up an already-solved problem.

To me, what matters less than our ultimate goals is the direction we want to go in. I would call someone a "statist" who generally approaches problems by asking what the government can, should, or ought to do about it. Doesn't matter to me if they would stop short of total centralized control of everything. If the default attitude is, "what's the state's role?", then that seems like a statist attitude to me.

Conversely, one doesn't have to believe in total anarchy to favor less state action. One who approaches problems by asking what individuals can do, and generally favors a rollback of existing state action isn't in my mind a statist for failing to endorse total anarchy any more than a statist is a libertarian for failing to endorse total government control of everything. It's so much more about what direction you want to go in than what your end goal is, because most likely none of us will ever live to see our desired societal end goals realized.

At least, that's the way I see it.
PS,

That's fine.  Good points.  The reason I bring up slavery and the draft is only to point out that in a few important ways "small government" of yesteryear is a myth, and trying to root how we think about everything to back then, as opposed to taking some of there ideas that worked and incorporating fresh ways of thinking about things.

And your statist/non-statist decision tree is fair.  You always handle these discussions fairly.  I got the impression that some of us "quasi-statists" (people like myself who see more of a role of government in some areas and far less in others) were being grouped into a moral corner where we were morally bankrupt because we wanted government to provide a safety net for citizens "at gunpoint" from other citizens.  I felt it was unfair and decided it was worth getting more particular with labels so I didn't have to argue from the position of "holding a gun to someone's head." :)
"Men did not make the earth. It is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property. Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds."

- Thomas Paine
User avatar
Benko
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1900
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2011 9:40 am

Re: Earth Day: The History of A Movement

Post by Benko » Wed Apr 24, 2013 2:37 pm

moda0306 wrote: we wanted government to provide a safety net for citizens "at gunpoint" from other citizens. 
I view this as one of the key issues.  I am willing to take my personal time/energy and provide some medical services at minimal cost to people who can't affort it (and give to e.g. the local food bank).  But when the gov't starts doing it, it becomes trickier.  How much/what level do you provide?  How do you provide so as to prevent suffering, but not give people invcentive to game the system.  Decades ago this (I don't think) was much of a problem, but we have rewarded people for doing nothing for so long and the hard work ethic that I believe was more prevelant is no more.  So this is now a huge problem.

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits"
Not sure who said this.
It was good being the party of Robin Hood. Until they morphed into the Sheriff of Nottingham
User avatar
rocketdog
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 688
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2012 3:35 pm

Re: Earth Day: The History of A Movement

Post by rocketdog » Wed Apr 24, 2013 2:51 pm

Benko wrote: "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits"
Not sure who said this.
Alexander Tytler.  I've previously posted this quote twice on this forum.  8)
Last edited by rocketdog on Wed Apr 24, 2013 2:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
- H. L. Mencken
User avatar
Benko
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1900
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2011 9:40 am

Re: Earth Day: The History of A Movement

Post by Benko » Wed Apr 24, 2013 3:46 pm

TennPaGa wrote:
In some sense, much of life, for many people, is about gaming the system.
While true to an extent, this is so misleading and off the point that I can only conclude you are either trying to distract, mislead, or avoid discussion of the issue.

Providing assistance e.g. welfare for people but making them do some work to earn it is a step in the right direction.  We used to have that until it was removed by the law Obama passed ;-)

We have done great harm to large numbers of people and we now have large numbers of people who e.g. want their Obama free phone.    Perhaps this was all done with good intentions, but I don't think any of us is going to like the 100% fully predictable consequences.
It was good being the party of Robin Hood. Until they morphed into the Sheriff of Nottingham
User avatar
MachineGhost
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 10054
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2011 9:31 am

Re: Earth Day: The History of A Movement

Post by MachineGhost » Thu Apr 25, 2013 12:48 am

moda0306 wrote: I guess I don't like labels either.  That might seem untrue based on my focus on libertarianism, but my main reason for hitting on labels so hard is that left unchallenged, we hear non-anarchists refer to anyone who thinks government should do different things than they do referred to as "statists."  We're "holding a gun to their head" and "stealing" from them when we suggest government should provide a social safety net.

I consider anything short of anarchy "government holding a gun to our head," and I think it's a cop out to be able to rest your arguments on such a strong moral claim (that people you disagree with are essentially fascists).
But its literally true in reality.  You just want to ignore or overlook it for sake of ease in arguing, practicality or to justify your own inaction that has diminished aspects of your own individual liberty.  That's called a compromise.  And compromise is the root of all evil, especially when you give in to bad actors such as power-control freaks masquearding as "government".  How is what you pooh-pooh any different than the NeoCon's incredible rationalizing to not see cause and effect of their ideology?  It is clear that their beliefs and actions forment blowback terrorism against the USA even if they don't physically perform the act!
"All generous minds have a horror of what are commonly called 'Facts'. They are the brute beasts of the intellectual domain." -- Thomas Hobbes

Disclaimer: I am not a broker, dealer, investment advisor, physician, theologian or prophet.  I should not be considered as legally permitted to render such advice!
User avatar
Pointedstick
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 8864
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:21 pm
Contact:

Re: Earth Day: The History of A Movement

Post by Pointedstick » Thu Apr 25, 2013 9:03 am

MachineGhost wrote: That's called a compromise.  And compromise is the root of all evil [...]
Now THAT sounds like the start of a very interesting discussion!
Human behavior is economic behavior. The particulars may vary, but competition for limited resources remains a constant.
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
User avatar
Mountaineer
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4959
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:54 am

Compromise, roots and evil

Post by Mountaineer » Thu Apr 25, 2013 10:05 am

PS, good idea.
Thus the statement "compromise is the root of all evil" could mean:  acceptance of standards lower than desired is the source of profound immorality and wickedness (see below) - makes total sense to me, especially when thinking about congressional and executive order output  ;)

compromise |?kämpr??m?z|
noun
• a middle state between conflicting opinions or actions reached by mutual concession or modification.
• the acceptance of standards that are lower than is desirable.

root |ro?ot, ro?ot|
noun
the basic cause, source, or origin of something.

evil |??v?l|
noun
profound immorality, wickedness, and depravity, esp. when regarded as a supernatural force.
• a manifestation of this, esp. in people's actions.
• something that is harmful or undesirable.
DNA has its own language (code), and language requires intelligence. There is no known mechanism by which matter can give birth to information, let alone language. It is unreasonable to believe the world could have happened by chance.
User avatar
rocketdog
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 688
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2012 3:35 pm

Re: Earth Day: The History of A Movement

Post by rocketdog » Thu Apr 25, 2013 10:15 am

Pointedstick wrote:
MachineGhost wrote: That's called a compromise.  And compromise is the root of all evil [...]
Now THAT sounds like the start of a very interesting discussion!
I thought the love of money was the root of all evil?  (Oh wait, where am I again? ::))
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
- H. L. Mencken
User avatar
moda0306
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 7680
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 9:05 pm
Location: Minnesota

Re: Earth Day: The History of A Movement

Post by moda0306 » Thu Apr 25, 2013 11:02 am

In reality, if we demand perfection everywhere we end up with perfection nowhere and a much higher chance of being far below even good in other areas because we were so damned obsessed with perfection in one area.

Even if you could achieve perfect liberty, it would appear that societies that have these uber free traits don't last very long. They appear to either get swallowed by power grabs within or from the outside.

Lastly, when you put a bunch of people on an island together with limited resources, perfect liberty is pure myth.  It simply does not exist.  Withholding valuable resources for someone else's labor is not liberty. Seeking perfect liberty on Earth is like seeking immortality in human form.
"Men did not make the earth. It is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property. Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds."

- Thomas Paine
User avatar
Pointedstick
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 8864
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:21 pm
Contact:

Re: Earth Day: The History of A Movement

Post by Pointedstick » Thu Apr 25, 2013 11:05 am

I agree with moda. We shouldn't let the perfect become the enemy of the good. It's great to strive for liberty, but we will indeed never reach it in its perfect, pure form. That doesn't mean we should stop trying, or reject things that get us closer incrementally, or even things that take two steps forward and one step backwards.
Human behavior is economic behavior. The particulars may vary, but competition for limited resources remains a constant.
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
User avatar
moda0306
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 7680
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 9:05 pm
Location: Minnesota

Re: Earth Day: The History of A Movement

Post by moda0306 » Thu Apr 25, 2013 11:45 am

I would add that liberty is only one thing.  Perfect liberty (assuming it's possible, which I reject) may come at huge expenses to security, economic certainty, productivity, equality, etc. I'm not saying all these are all equally important. Just that liberty isn't everything.  Just ask someone stranded on a deserted island who can do whatever his heart desires.
"Men did not make the earth. It is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property. Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds."

- Thomas Paine
User avatar
MachineGhost
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 10054
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2011 9:31 am

Re: Earth Day: The History of A Movement

Post by MachineGhost » Thu Apr 25, 2013 10:41 pm

moda0306 wrote: Seeking perfect liberty on Earth is like seeking immortality in human form.
I'm unclear how you think not shooting for the moon and falling short in the sky is superior to not shooting for the moon and getting off the ground at all?

Assuming you're not actively involved in promoting liberty or what not, all I see is you using your beliefs as limitations to not to do this or that.  It is your prison.  You raise some good philosophical points, but it doesn't change the fact that being human is all about striving for the impossible.  Crikey, you sound like a goddamn pessimistic Republican at times! >:(
Last edited by MachineGhost on Thu Apr 25, 2013 10:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"All generous minds have a horror of what are commonly called 'Facts'. They are the brute beasts of the intellectual domain." -- Thomas Hobbes

Disclaimer: I am not a broker, dealer, investment advisor, physician, theologian or prophet.  I should not be considered as legally permitted to render such advice!
Libertarian666
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 5994
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 6:00 pm

Re: Earth Day: The History of A Movement

Post by Libertarian666 » Fri Apr 26, 2013 11:02 am

MachineGhost wrote:
moda0306 wrote: I guess I don't like labels either.  That might seem untrue based on my focus on libertarianism, but my main reason for hitting on labels so hard is that left unchallenged, we hear non-anarchists refer to anyone who thinks government should do different things than they do referred to as "statists."  We're "holding a gun to their head" and "stealing" from them when we suggest government should provide a social safety net.

I consider anything short of anarchy "government holding a gun to our head," and I think it's a cop out to be able to rest your arguments on such a strong moral claim (that people you disagree with are essentially fascists).
But its literally true in reality.  You just want to ignore or overlook it for sake of ease in arguing, practicality or to justify your own inaction that has diminished aspects of your own individual liberty.  That's called a compromise.  And compromise is the root of all evil, especially when you give in to bad actors such as power-control freaks masquerading as "government".  How is what you pooh-pooh any different than the NeoCon's incredible rationalizing to not see cause and effect of their ideology?  It is clear that their beliefs and actions foment blow-back terrorism against the USA even if they don't physically perform the act!
We need a term for "non-anarchists": let's use "archists", as that is a neutral term that doesn't have the emotional baggage of "statists".

I believe you are saying that advocating anything but anarchism is advocating the government's holding a gun to our heads. This is obviously correct, but it is a task worthy of Tantalus to get most archists to agree, since it puts anarchists in an unassailable moral position.

Yes, there are some archists who don't care about that (e.g., Dick Cheney), but they are a small minority; most archists prefer to think of themselves in a better light, and the cognitive dissonance engendered by that admission is too painful for them to accept.
Post Reply