The Glade 4.0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwxBj5OfeGM



What is your opinion on the video? Do you agree or disagree?

_________________

I believe he has some valid points. Certainly helps me to understand why I butt heads with some "Libertarians" and not others.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

Or perhaps more than others.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

MY opinion is that I generally dislike threads where the OP is a video of this sort; i.e. it's analysis and opinion, not an unedited video of a specific event.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Classical Liberal and I take the minarchist label proudly.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

I think that his classifications are pretty accurate, but I wouldn't include "Liberaltarians" or the Tea Party under the umbrella of "libertarianism". Then again, I'm not sure that the video was really trying to say that they should be, so much as it was acknowledging that the label is applied to them in popular contexts. Liberaltarians and Tea Partiers are what the traditional Democrat and Republican (not to be confused with liberal and conservative) platforms would be respectively if both parties hadn't taken an enormous step towards authoritarianism. You could say I half agree with both of them (i.e. not much at all), but a shift towards either would probably be less disasterous than what we have now. This "half agreement" is why you can find libertarians that involve themselves with either or both of things like the Occupy movement or Tea Party protests, but I don't know many libertarians who identify as such or wholly throw themselves into these movements.

In contrast, what he calls Paleo-Conservative, Cosmotarian, and Classical Liberal have far more in common with one another than they don't. The differences are mostly one of degree with respect to certain areas. It's not always that easy to say exactly which of these categories a person belongs to. Which is to say, lumping all three together with the label "Minarchist" makes a certain amount of sense in most contexts. Perhaps Cosmotarian is a little less so than the other two, but I think most Paleo-Conservatives and Classical Liberals would still look at it and say that it's at least "pretty close" to what they want/believe.

Anarchists are anarchists. I wouldn't include that in Libertarianism. However, there are all kinds of anarcho-libertarian hybrids that probably should be. For instance, you could properly include me as a "voluntarist", up to a point. I believe in government by consent, which is essentially a voluntarist perspective. However, putting that directly into practice is ... problematic. For the time being, I don't see a practical way to avoid the necessity of geographic governmental boundaries. Thus I think entire states should have the right to secede (and thus have the boundaries changed), but I don't think that there's any practical way to allow an individual to secede and have their real property carved out of the nation. Or worse, if they own no real property, to allow them to revoke consent of government while remaining within the nation's boundaries.

As for myself, I would say I am Classical Liberal in terms of philosophy and mostly in terms of policy. There's at least a shade of the voluntarist philosophy he attributes to Anarchism, as I said above. I do lean a bit towards the Paleo-Conservative camp with respect to some policy matters. The broader the level of government, the more "pure libertarian" (and perhaps even anarchist) I become.

_________________
Sail forth! steer for the deep waters only!
Reckless, O soul, exploring, I with thee, and thou with me;
For we are bound where mariner has not yet dared to go,
And we will risk the ship, ourselves and all.

I don't feel any of the labels fit me well. Most of what I think about government has everything to do with what I believe to be true about the fundamental nature of mankind. It'd rather be identified by that anyway. Which leads me back to an epiphany I had over IMs earlier this week. My problems with the various brands of Libertarianism aren't political, they're philosophical.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

Well said Stathol.

Rori, that might be because (as I see it) Libertarianism is more about philosophy than it is about politics. Sadly, the only way, at present, for the authoritarian-leaning status-quo of the political process in the US to be peacefully (and hopefully, successfully) confronted is by becoming involved politically. What, if I might ask, are the philosophical problems you have with Libertarianism?

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

Most brands of libertarianism as i see it see people as basically good and government as an interloper and stealer of their rights. Basically leave people alone and they'll make the right choices.

I see people as being born with a sin nature(the basic desire to serve self over others) and government as ordained by Creator God and a protector of every ones rights. Basically people left to their own devices will choose to please themselves unless there is a power (Godly or Mundane) overruling in their lives at that moment in time.

That doesn't mean we don't ever correct or change government, but not for light and transient things such as having to park within a set of white lines.

The parking space issue is a great example of this. Libertarian Philosopy says we don't need the lines, people can handle themselves and the lines are just the government being a bully. My philosophy says we need the lines, because people want to please ourselves. The government putting on the lines (and punishing offenders) helps protect our rights to safe and easy access to shared resources.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

You live in a country that rejected government ordained by God with force of arms.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.

Im aware of that, Corolinth. As I said that doesn't mean you don't ever change government. If you read the Declaration, you'll see that the premise is that the Government had broken its covenant and it was no longer serving God as the protector of basic rights. In fact it was interfering with man's relationship with God.

I don't think we are there yet. It doesn't mean we don't have room for improvement.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

I just realized he left out a major category. Well, maybe not major, but definitely significant:

Objectivists. I.e., your real Ayn Rand types. Objectivism =/= Libertarianism, and in fact, old Ayn had a lot of contempt for Libertarians. However, while there are some major philosophical differences, I don't think anyone can deny that there's a significant amount of overlap in the political aims of Objectivists and Libertarians.

For instance, Objectivists and Libertarians might both agree that the government shouldn't force its citizens to participate in charity. But the reasoning behind this political view is quite different. For an Objectivist, the underlying problem is that even voluntary altruism violates both their sense of ethics and aesthetics. It represents a sort of aphanisis of the self (feel free to blame Khross for my use of this word). A true Objectivist regards acts of charity as a suicide-by-inches. Libertarianism, if we regard Objectivism as being separate from it, does not have this subtext. The issue is purely a matter of coercion, and nothing more. Different Libertarians might of course have different opinions on the value of charity in general, or the wisdom of specific acts of charity, but the Libertarian philosophy itself is unconcerned with such matters entirely. The Libertarian credo is actually pretty succinctly summarized by the "Wiccan Rede": an it harm none, do as ye will, or as I'll more irreverently phrase it: as long as you aren't hurting anyone, do whatever the hell you want.

Objectivism differs from Libertarianism in that it actively espouses an, ah...meritocratic and self-interested philosophy. The implications of this philosophy in terms of government wind up being pretty similar to Libertarianism, though. When you think about it, it isn't very surprising that a philosophy which promotes selfishness would wind up having a lot in common with a philosophy that doesn't promote it, but thinks that it should be permitted. As well, you'll see quite a bit of "comorbidity" between Libertarianism and economic theories that could be labeled as "Objectivist" because, well...Adam Smith. Rand latched on to Smith's "invisible hand" and ran with it to an extent well beyond what Smith ever really intended (IMHO). It's been my experience that most Libertarians and other laissez-faire economists agree with a sort of "weak sense" of the invisible hand, but regard Rand's stronger sense of it as naive and potentially dangerous. Or maybe I'm just projecting my own thoughts.

_________________
Sail forth! steer for the deep waters only!
Reckless, O soul, exploring, I with thee, and thou with me;
For we are bound where mariner has not yet dared to go,
And we will risk the ship, ourselves and all.

I'd have to disagree with the tenet that most libertarians hold people as "good". I think that most libertarians hold that people should be able to make decisions that only have consequences to themselves without undue restrictions by anyone else. When their decisions cause harm to others the person suffering should have a legal recourse. In short, people should prove that they are "not good" before action is taken against them. The status quo should be one without good/bad judgements.


The problem, I have with that is that the Governmental "power overruling their lives" is the one that decides what is "good" and that may not be what the individual sees as being "good". I know that many things advocated and undertaken by our Gov't are not viewed as "good" by the God in which I place my faith.

Undoubtedly, the belief that there needs to be a governmental "power overruling their lives" will place your belief system directly opposite of the beliefs held by most libertarians.



Nah, most "Libertarian Philosophy" holds that local governments can do what they see fit to govern the areas within their purview. Parking regulations surely fall under that scope.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

Perhaps in most cases, but it was a discussion where someone espoused this view that lead me to this epiphany.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

Ahh, got it.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

Government is either unecessary or counter-productive if a person views people as inherently good or evil.

If they are inherently more good then government is simply unnecessary as good people will make good choices most of the time and those that don't will be shunned and shamed by the mass of good society.

If they are inherently evil then the sum of their motives (via an elected government) will be towards more evil ends (such as stealing from others to make life easier for one's self) along with a diminished sense of individual responsibility (as Kitty and many subsequent psychological studies have shown. Thus if people are evil it becomes a competition of the most evil to the top to create a government that makes rules championed by the evil people.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

I'm fairly certain you can leave out "... of the self." The self-inflicted destruction of the Self of the self ...

Yeah, that's too much "self" ...

"Aphanisis" is self-obliteration; in the Lacanian sense, that's because the Subject actually possesses the objet petit a; and doing so immediately and irrevocably causes a conscious altering crisis of some sort. Whoever you were ceased to be and whoever you are is no one you know ... More literally, "aphansis" occurs because the desire function ceases to operate in the Freudian; that's not limited to sexual desire and the wikipedia entry is a bit scant on what Jones meant by it. It also doesn't help that any real explanation includes achtung and jouissance and a bunch of stuff none of you want to read.

Anyways, redundant Stathol is redundant: aphanisis is self-referential.

_________________

Maybe good and evil is too strong a word, but everyone has an inherent desire to please oneself over others in their default state.

When people say we don't need a speed limit, for example, because folks will drive at whatever speed they can safely operate a vehicle, that flys against what I believe about people and what I observe about them in general. Take the reins off and you'll have more people who drive at speeds that are unsafe for thenselves and more importantly others in the area.

It's a question of balance I understand between restricting for the sake of freedom and absolute freedom. If my view of the proper balance makes me a jack booted thug, then I guess I am.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

Except that when studied removing traffic signs reduced accidents. Distributed responsibility makes people act less responsible.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/spi ... 47,00.html


European Cities Do Away with Traffic Signs

By Matthias Schulz

Are streets without traffic signs conceivable? Seven cities and regions in Europe are giving it a try -- with good results.
Info

"We reject every form of legislation," the Russian aristocrat and "father of anarchism" Mikhail Bakunin once thundered. The czar banished him to Siberia. But now it seems his ideas are being rediscovered.

European traffic planners are dreaming of streets free of rules and directives. They want drivers and pedestrians to interact in a free and humane way, as brethren -- by means of friendly gestures, nods of the head and eye contact, without the harassment of prohibitions, restrictions and warning signs.

A project implemented by the European Union is currently seeing seven cities and regions clear-cutting their forest of traffic signs. Ejby, in Denmark, is participating in the experiment, as are Ipswich in England and the Belgian town of Ostende.

The utopia has already become a reality in Makkinga, in the Dutch province of Western Frisia. A sign by the entrance to the small town (population 1,000) reads "Verkeersbordvrij" -- "free of traffic signs." Cars bumble unhurriedly over precision-trimmed granite cobblestones. Stop signs and direction signs are nowhere to be seen. There are neither parking meters nor stopping restrictions. There aren't even any lines painted on the streets.

"The many rules strip us of the most important thing: the ability to be considerate. We're losing our capacity for socially responsible behavior," says Dutch traffic guru Hans Monderman, one of the project's co-founders. "The greater the number of prescriptions, the more people's sense of personal responsibility dwindles."

Monderman could be on to something. Germany has 648 valid traffic symbols. The inner cities are crowded with a colorful thicket of metal signs. Don't park over here, watch out for passing deer over there, make sure you don't skid. The forest of signs is growing ever denser. Some 20 million traffic signs have already been set up all over the country.

Psychologists have long revealed the senselessness of such exaggerated regulation. About 70 percent of traffic signs are ignored by drivers. What's more, the glut of prohibitions is tantamount to treating the driver like a child and it also foments resentment. He may stop in front of the crosswalk, but that only makes him feel justified in preventing pedestrians from crossing the street on every other occasion. Every traffic light baits him with the promise of making it over the crossing while the light is still yellow.

"Unsafe is safe"

The result is that drivers find themselves enclosed by a corset of prescriptions, so that they develop a kind of tunnel vision: They're constantly in search of their own advantage, and their good manners go out the window.

The new traffic model's advocates believe the only way out of this vicious circle is to give drivers more liberty and encourage them to take responsibility for themselves. They demand streets like those during the Middle Ages, when horse-drawn chariots, handcarts and people scurried about in a completely unregulated fashion. The new model's proponents envision today's drivers and pedestrians blending into a colorful and peaceful traffic stream.

It may sound like chaos, but it's only the lesson drawn from one of the insights of traffic psychology: Drivers will force the accelerator down ruthlessly only in situations where everything has been fully regulated. Where the situation is unclear, they're forced to drive more carefully and cautiously.

Indeed, "Unsafe is safe" was the motto of a conference where proponents of the new roadside philosophy met in Frankfurt in mid-October.

True, many of them aren't convinced of the new approach. "German drivers are used to rules," says Michael Schreckenberg of Duisburg University. If clear directives are abandoned, domestic rush-hour traffic will turn into an Oriental-style bazaar, he warns. He believes the new vision of drivers and pedestrians interacting in a cozy, relaxed way will work, at best, only for small towns.

But one German borough is already daring to take the step into lawlessness. The town of Bohmte in Lower Saxony has 13,500 inhabitants. It's traversed by a country road and a main road. Cars approach speedily, delivery trucks stop to unload their cargo and pedestrians scurry by on elevated sidewalks.

The road will be re-furbished in early 2007, using EU funds. "The sidewalks are going to go, and the asphalt too. Everything will be covered in cobblestones," Klaus Goedejohann, the mayor, explains. "We're getting rid of the division between cars and pedestrians."

The plans derive inspiration and motivation from a large-scale experiment in the town of Drachten in the Netherlands, which has 45,000 inhabitants. There, cars have already been driving over red natural stone for years. Cyclists dutifully raise their arm when they want to make a turn, and drivers communicate by hand signs, nods and waving.

"More than half of our signs have already been scrapped," says traffic planner Koop Kerkstra. "Only two out of our original 18 traffic light crossings are left, and we've converted them to roundabouts." Now traffic is regulated by only two rules in Drachten: "Yield to the right" and "Get in someone's way and you'll be towed."

Strange as it may seem, the number of accidents has declined dramatically. Experts from Argentina and the United States have visited Drachten. Even London has expressed an interest in this new example of automobile anarchy. And the model is being tested in the British capital's Kensington neighborhood.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Yeah, I am and it is. I actually realized that when I wrote it, but couldn't be assed to go back and edit it out.

_________________
Sail forth! steer for the deep waters only!
Reckless, O soul, exploring, I with thee, and thou with me;
For we are bound where mariner has not yet dared to go,
And we will risk the ship, ourselves and all.

I just want to interject that I love the dialogue in this thread.

Really. A thread in hellfire, with logical, respectful, and intelligent dialogue.

Much of this is why I cringe at identifying myself as any kind of libertarian - I don't believe in it as a philosophy. What's right and what's wrong doesn't matter. There's no handy ideology that represents the best way to do things in every situation, no all-encompassing guidebook that can tell you what to think. Each situation needs to be taken individually.

However, as a very general rule, I believe small, unobtrusive government that acts solely as a forgettable framework for society's infrastructure is the best way to go about things for the prosperity and happiness of society as a whole. I believe that recognizing the supremacy of the individual and basing policy on that, rather than attempting to please artificial groups and lobbies, results in the most appealling results for everyone involved. And very importantly, I believe that governmental financial wisdom is no different than individual financial wisdom - do not spend money you do not have except in the most dire of emergencies, and in those cases always have a plan to pay it back as quickly as possible. That sure sounds libertarian, doesn't it? But you won't hear me arguing at the indignity that some afront to people's imaginary "inherent rights" might have caused. Arguing from a moralist standpoint, in my mind, is in fact an afront to my individuality. Nobody else has a right to decide for me what is right or wrong - that's a personal thing. Society's rules exist for a reason, yes, and you can either follow them or risk the consequences, but none of that has anything to do with morality. (In the end, law-abiding is not a virtue, nor is law-breaking a vice. Laws exist to provide an influence to societal behavior that protects the legally defined rights of individuals. Ultimately, choosing to break a law is no different than choosing to take a financial risk. It can work out in your favor or not. Weigh the risks and benefits carefully.) And so I butt heads with libertarians as much as I agree with them.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

I believe you're speaking about our conversation in the Rants forum the other day, and I would like to point out that you've misidentified my motives. I'm not in opposition to parking lines because they are government imposed, as surely individual municipalities have the authority to administer in that area. I'm opposed to them because they are largely unnessecary.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

Our government as it is, spends much of it's time convincing us that the unnecesary things it does is for our best interests. Having spend 11+ years in the DoD, I can see for myself the kind of incentives that are created. It's a self-perpetuating leviathan. It's no different for the civillian parts of our government.

@Ror
I'm agnostic now, but as a "backsliding Baptist", I can't say I trust "God's word" coming out of the men who speak from both sides of their mouths. Men use The Word as it pleases them. If men are sinful by nature, so will our government be. Sinful people will elect a sinful government, right? All governents, regardless of their type, are made of people who are flawed in some way. It sounds like you wish a theocracy, but I know you can't want that truly. I think there may be some confusion regarding your expectations.

If God exists, he gave us free will and I imagine he planned on us using it. YMMV.

If only the God-Emperor from 40k were here. Purge the xeno, the mutant, and the heretic!

_________________
"...the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?" -Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

Yep Wren. They sure do. Which is why I think we tried at our founding to limit the amount of power any one person (and the government as whole) could have over our everyday life.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"