What "an ideal society" means to libertarians and liberals

Libertarians are conservatives who want to smoke dope and get laid.

Liberals fall into two groups:

Average liberals don't seem to know a whole lot more than anyone else. But at least they are betting on the right side. Basically that's a result of their basic human decency and compassion which conservatives and libertarians clearly lack.

Educated liberals actually understand what needs to be done to fix the economy and solve other problems. Unfortunately the solutions fly in the face of the policies and brainwashed mindsets that created the mess in the first place. And we're up against the very rich who like it just the screwed up way it is because it benefits them at everyone else's expense. Plus they own the media.

The rest of the world will move on while America declines.

 

Libertarians are all about the individual and have conjured up some rights for individuals that they can exercise regardless of how anyone else feels about it.

Liberals, recognizing that people actually live in groups, put the rights of individuals within the context of the group so that everyone can get along with their lives without too much trouble while enjoying the vast freedoms and liberties that group living provides.

Personally, I would rather live in a society where there is some generally agreed upon rules of behaviour rather than one where any lunatic can crawl out from under whatever rock they have been living under to impose their crackpot ideas about individual rights on whoever passes by.

Libertarians have it all wrong because they seek to abstract one certain perspective on individual rights away from the social context. The way that Libertarians present, define, imply, assert, and argue their individual rights is by separating them from any social context. This is a definition of psychopathy.

 

A few examples of "educated" libs trying to fix anything? Rent control? Price control? Regulation Regulation Regulation? Those can hardly be considered "educated".

 

Then we have the worst possible conundrum don't we? A pakistani immigrant kick a crap out of his child for failing at math. Should we consider the "social context" and send in SWAT teams tazers-blazing to stop him, or we let a father do what needs to be done to educate?

You libs think everything is a collective matter: How people make money, How much people make money, how people use their money, how much people use their money...

 

Why do we need a swat team to deal with child abuse? The first step would be an intervention with social workers. Only if the Pakistani holds hostage at gunpoint do we need to send in a SWAT team.

 

Wow that's terrible. You could of at least read what liberalism is on Wikipedia. That's incidentally my idea to improve what you've written; ie educate yourself.

 

I don't have an ideal society. I can't speak for the actions of others - I have no control over them. I can only control what I do. I try to avoid the initiation of force (although retaliatory force is acceptable) - and I try to divorce myself from the state-controlled market. I prefer grassroots products over corporate-state ones.

I guess my ideal society would be one where everyone does the same, but that's never going to happen. I accept this and move on.

 

Swat team, typical hyperbolic extremism of libertarians, always needing to take everything into the realm of the improbable in their ridiculous attempts to make a point.

Not everything is a collective matter, just things that matter to a lot of people. The implication that collectivism is bad in and of itself shows just how extreme the improbability curve that libertarians live on really is.

 

I've decided I'm tired of these labels.

Unless you are an anarchist, you want some government telling some people somewhere what to do. At which point it's all about the quibbling over what and who and where.

I have my ideas on that, you will have yours.

 

No,...

Liberals are promoting society were in the name of equality, we treat people differentially WRT political identity-groups, for pandering exploitation.

The stated goals of the blatant discrimination is equality, though the method involves applying differential treatment until the goal of equal outcomes is seen... well, sort of...

See, under the rules of Liberal "Equality", equal outcomes MIGHT be when you stop applying differential treatment, but NEVER before.

But in most cases, the differential treat can and will continue, long after equal outcomes is achieved, so that the driver produces great inequality of outcomes, just in the opposite direction of the original imbalance.

Under Liberalism:

A corporation, career field, organization, school, or government agencies can have:

Too few Blacks, but it cannot have too many.

Too few women, but it cannot have too many.

Too many Whites, but it cannot have too few.

Too many Men, but it cannot have to few.



What is "Meant" by the term "Equality" really comes down to identity group political pandering, and has nothing to do with true equality in any way.

-

 

Name one case where collectivism is good.

Don't dodge the question, what "thing" can enjoy the liberty of not being considered in the "social context", by you libs? Name one

 

Going to the store is good and that would be not so easy as it is without living in a society based on collective cooperation.

Here's the thing that people like you seem to be blindly ignorant of, the world we live in would not exist if there was not some underlying collective spirit of cooperation to make it all possible. The libertarian meme that there is no such thing as a general collective society but only individuals acting consciously in their own best interest is easily observed to be completely wrong by just watching people walking down a busy sidewalk cooperate unconsciously, avoiding contact without conscious thought while blabbing on their cell phones.

Words like liberty and freedom express relative degrees of abstract concepts that have meaning only within context. What is freedom? What is liberty? What do those words mean to an individual in a society? What do they mean to any group? What do they mean to the large conglomerations of disparate groups that are nations? What do they mean to mankind?

 

It is in their rational self interest not to bump into everyone. If you like collectives, go join a co OP store.

 

The military, the police, economic safety nets, there you go; some good collectivism right there. And yes, go ahead and tell me you'd rather prefer a society without a military and police despite the chaos that would follow, go ahead and tell me that you'd rather see people starve in the streets: anything, as long as you can cling to your near-suicidally stupid idea that collectivism is inherently bad and always so.

 

Rational self interest..
Rational decision making is usually defined as including conscious consideration.
For you to be right rational self interest must include unconscious cooperation with others.

If cooperation with others is unconscious, rational self interest that is not cooperative has to be a conscious decision to disregard the cooperative impulse. It is a typical behaviour of psychopaths to rationalize their every behaviour as rational self interest. What sets them apart as psychopaths is their view that everyone else is just as consumed by their own self interests as they are so they do not see any behaviour as anything but people acting in their own rational self interest.

 

Nope, not in this scenario. Everyone takes care of themselves. It is unorganized order. Same reason you dont get into head on collisions with the people driving the other way down the street. The farmer doesn't sow and plow because he wants to cooperate with you, he wants to feed and clothe his family, which is why you work too.

It isnt though. Self interest is unconscious.

That is irrational self interest. Every try logic on a psychopath?

 

If unconscious self interest is to be cooperative it cannot be anything else than collective thought.

 

col·lec·tiv·ism
noun \kə-ˈlek-ti-ˌvi-zəm\

: a political or economic system in which the government owns businesses, land, etc.

Full Definition of COLLECTIVISM
1
: a political or economic theory advocating collective control especially over production and distribution; also : a system marked by such control
2
: emphasis on collective rather than individual action or identity
— col·lec·tiv·ist adjective or noun
— col·lec·tiv·is·tic adjective
— col·lec·tiv·is·ti·cal·ly adverb

Now, which one should I call you, a self-righteous ignorant liberal idiot, or, just an idiot?

Volunteer exchange of goods or services based on self-interest = precisely free-market capitalism ≠ collectivism.

Thank you very much for proving my point and at the same moment defeating yourself.

 

Bad. The iraqi war caused 600,000 civilian deaths.

Definitely bad. You ain't never seen white cops beating up black people before, eh?

Worst of them all. People starving in the street while bank CEOs got paid millions from the feds.


And about military, the conscription in the United States had been abolished for quite some time now. Most kids join the military for "selfish" reasons: college subsidies, citizenship, love for the nation... but since you have a collectively operated military system, no one can stop the military from being ordered into doing something unjustified and unjustifiable.

The last invading army on US soil got defeated by a group of militias, not really a collectively operated military.

 

I for some reason get the feeling you are not very serious right now.

 

In 1635, the people of Boston tried something that had never been done before, tax supported schools that were free to students.
I'd say the idea caught on.
That first public school is still in operation, it's still tax supported, it's still free and it's probably the finest high school in the United States.
Education, paid for by taxes, is a great idea.
So is Police Departments paid for by taxes, so is tax supported fire departments.
Do you have examples of any of these, that have been successfully provided by private enterprise?

 

I agree with you completely.

 

That means you somehow mistaken me with some neocons. Or some conservatives in the first place

 

You are not serious about exhibiting your celestial ignorance, are you?
Private schools and private security has been in place since the dawn of humanity. And they all do a better job than public ones.

As for private firefighters:

http://seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnology/2003982350_richfire30.html

But then again, I have to make it clear I'm not an anarchist. I for one support 100% government providing support for those who can't afford A,B,C and D, in other words losers. But I support the government just give them enough juice to keep them up and running.

And you losers came up online getting fixed from time to time, by me. Hahahaha.

 

No, not really, I assume you are a right wing libertarian borderline-anarchist, american nationalist.