LGP Political Discussion Thread

[Troy Loney]

[Shyster]

[/quote]

[Troy Loney]

I always love taking this every 6 months or so

Are you ever the libretarian you claim to be?

[Gaucho]

Never mind.

[Hockeynut!]

Economic Left/Right: -4.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.31

[Kraftster]

Interesting link.

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: 3.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.49



I'm really thrown by this Libertarian thing. Any conversations I've been in lately remotely involving politics has seen the other individual ask if I am a libertarian. I usually say, "No, I'm an Elitist." but I can't figure out where that would be on this graph - it has some authoritarian and libertarian components to it so I guess somewhere in the middle and I'm not too far from there.

[doublem]

No, I'm an Elitist."

LOL

[Guinness]

Are you ever the libretarian you claim to be?

These things take time...

[doublem]

doublem, you're a damn commie.

[Kraftster]

So I'm trying to get a grasp on this Libertarian thing. Would you (fellow? ) Libertarians agree that its rather axiomatic that people only ever act to serve their self-interest? That is, for "selfish" reasons? I hesitate to use the word selfish because of the negative connotation. I don't mean it negatively at all. Just basically that people only act to advance some self-interest (this may be unconscious at times). This is one of the talking points that has led me down conversations where I get accused of being a libertarian lately, so, that's why I ask.

[shafnutz05]

[youtube][/youtube]

Outstanding "rant" by Jack Cafferty on the ongoing healthcare "negotiations" and the blatant broken promises and outright lies that are pouring out of this administration like a sieve. The part about Press Secretary Gibbs being his usual smarmy, arrogant self is infuriating.

[Troy Loney]

So I'm trying to get a grasp on this Libertarian thing. Would you (fellow? ) Libertarians agree that its rather axiomatic that people only ever act to serve their self-interest? That is, for "selfish" reasons? I hesitate to use the word selfish because of the negative connotation. I don't mean it negatively at all. Just basically that people only act to advance some self-interest (this may be unconscious at times). This is one of the talking points that has led me down conversations where I get accused of being a libertarian lately, so, that's why I ask.

I scored on the libretarian side....but i think it's because of my answers on social issues.

acting in your own self interest is not selfious, its only natural to act in a way that benefits yourself....but that doesn't mean you have to snub your nose at poor people i guess...

[Guinness]

So I'm trying to get a grasp on this Libertarian thing. Would you (fellow? ) Libertarians agree that its rather axiomatic that people only ever act to serve their self-interest? That is, for "selfish" reasons? I hesitate to use the word selfish because of the negative connotation. I don't mean it negatively at all. Just basically that people only act to advance some self-interest (this may be unconscious at times). This is one of the talking points that has led me down conversations where I get accused of being a libertarian lately, so, that's why I ask.

I don't know if I'd agree that people only act to advance some self-interest or not. I'm not entirely sure it's axiomatic among libertarians, or even relevant, either. I think what is axiomatic - fundamental, even - is the principle of non-aggression.

I think that the person best suited to make decisions for an individual is that person himself.

[doublem]

So I'm trying to get a grasp on this Libertarian thing. Would you (fellow? ) Libertarians agree that its rather axiomatic that people only ever act to serve their self-interest? That is, for "selfish" reasons? I hesitate to use the word selfish because of the negative connotation. I don't mean it negatively at all. Just basically that people only act to advance some self-interest (this may be unconscious at times). This is one of the talking points that has led me down conversations where I get accused of being a libertarian lately, so, that's why I ask.

I think that is a complicated issue. The Randian "L" even though she never used that word would say that altruism is evil but I don't think other Libertarians would say that. I think the issue boils down to how you view human nature. Human beings are selfish by nature, it's just biological, for survival reasons and to what level should individualism vs collectivism should order society. I would think a reasonable person would think that we would need some level of both altruism vs "selfishness" in society either one would lead to extreme imbalances either way. Communism vs Randism. I also that it is an extremely narrow view of people becasue other needs need to be met then just self-interest. I just don't think it is possible or right to promote that kind of behavior to live in a world with other human beings and be "completely self- interested".

[Guinness]

part about Press Secretary Gibbs being his usual smarmy, arrogant self is infuriating.

When I submitted my last post, the only part of your message I could see on my screen was the above. As soon as I read it, I knew it was you. You're a hoot, shaf! Perhaps a bit predictable but a hoot none the less.

[Kraftster]

So I'm trying to get a grasp on this Libertarian thing. Would you (fellow? ) Libertarians agree that its rather axiomatic that people only ever act to serve their self-interest? That is, for "selfish" reasons? I hesitate to use the word selfish because of the negative connotation. I don't mean it negatively at all. Just basically that people only act to advance some self-interest (this may be unconscious at times). This is one of the talking points that has led me down conversations where I get accused of being a libertarian lately, so, that's why I ask.

I scored on the libretarian side....but i think it's because of my answers on social issues.

acting in your own self interest is not selfious, its only natural to act in a way that benefits yourself....but that doesn't mean you have to snub your nose at poor people i guess...

Well, I think it is selfish. I think it only seems like a problematic word given the strong negative connotations of the word. But, what we seem to be in agreement on can pretty accurately be described as "devoted to or caring only for oneself; concerned primarily with one's own interests, benefits, welfare, etc., regardless of others." (Dictionary.com definition of selfish) I think the problem comes in where you have someone who's self-interest is to help others. I'd still call that selfish but I suppose it doesn't fit the contemporary definition.

I'm confused about the snubbing nose at poor people comment? Where's that fit in?

[Guinness]

So I'm trying to get a grasp on this Libertarian thing. Would you (fellow? ) Libertarians agree that its rather axiomatic that people only ever act to serve their self-interest? That is, for "selfish" reasons? I hesitate to use the word selfish because of the negative connotation. I don't mean it negatively at all. Just basically that people only act to advance some self-interest (this may be unconscious at times). This is one of the talking points that has led me down conversations where I get accused of being a libertarian lately, so, that's why I ask.

I think that is a complicated issue. The Randian "L" even though she never used that word would say that altruism is evil but I don't think other Libertarians would say that. I think the issue boils down to how you view human nature. Human beings are selfish by nature, it's just biological, for survival reasons and to what level should individualism vs collectivism should order society. I would think a reasonable person would think that we would need some level of both altruism vs "selfishness" in society either one would lead to extreme imbalances either way. Communism vs Randism. I also that it is an extremely narrow view of people becasue other needs need to be met then just self-interest. I just don't think it is possible or right to promote that kind of behavior to live in a world with other human beings and be "completely self- interested".

Not only did he not ask you (you (fellow? ) Libertarians), this is all wrong...

[shafnutz05]

part about Press Secretary Gibbs being his usual smarmy, arrogant self is infuriating.

When I submitted my last post, the only part of your message I could see on my screen was the above. As soon as I read it, I knew it was you. You're a hoot, shaf! Perhaps a bit predictable but a hoot none the less.

haha......I will admit to being predictable. Who would have thunk that the Obama Administration would be 10x more corrupt, secretive, and intrusive than the Bush Administration? Not I.

[Guinness]

part about Press Secretary Gibbs being his usual smarmy, arrogant self is infuriating.

When I submitted my last post, the only part of your message I could see on my screen was the above. As soon as I read it, I knew it was you. You're a hoot, shaf! Perhaps a bit predictable but a hoot none the less.

haha......I will admit to being predictable. Who would have thunk that the Obama Administration would be 10x more corrupt, secretive, and intrusive than the Bush Administration? Not I.

I'm willing to bet that if someone dug deep enough, they could find a post by you using the exact words, "the Obama Administration will be 10x more corrupt, secretive, and intrusive than the Bush Administration" sometime between November 2008 and January 2009.

[eddysnake]

Economic Left/Right: -1.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.41


last time i did it I was at -.62, -4.31

[shafnutz05]

I'm willing to bet that if someone dug deep enough, they could find a post by you using the exact words, "the Obama Administration will be 10x more corrupt, secretive, and intrusive than the Bush Administration" sometime between November 2008 and January 2009.

Just call me the Nostradamus of politics

[Troy Loney]

I'm willing to bet that if someone dug deep enough, they could find a post by you using the exact words, "the Obama Administration will be 10x more corrupt, secretive, and intrusive than the Bush Administration" sometime between November 2008 and January 2009.

Just call me incorrigible

Agreed.

[Kraftster]

So I'm trying to get a grasp on this Libertarian thing. Would you (fellow? ) Libertarians agree that its rather axiomatic that people only ever act to serve their self-interest? That is, for "selfish" reasons? I hesitate to use the word selfish because of the negative connotation. I don't mean it negatively at all. Just basically that people only act to advance some self-interest (this may be unconscious at times). This is one of the talking points that has led me down conversations where I get accused of being a libertarian lately, so, that's why I ask.

I think that is a complicated issue. The Randian "L" even though she never used that word would say that altruism is evil but I don't think other Libertarians would say that. I think the issue boils down to how you view human nature. Human beings are selfish by nature, it's just biological, for survival reasons and to what level should individualism vs collectivism should order society. I would think a reasonable person would think that we would need some level of both altruism vs "selfishness" in society either one would lead to extreme imbalances either way. Communism vs Randism. I also that it is an extremely narrow view of people becasue other needs need to be met then just self-interest. I just don't think it is possible or right to promote that kind of behavior to live in a world with other human beings and be "completely self- interested".

Yeah, Rand really comes to mind in this conversation. Its funny I did all of my Rand reading (Anthem and Fountainhead) years ago and was turned off by the caricature-ish-ness of her protagonists, but, lately I've been finding myself pretty heavily drawn to her philosophical/moral leanings.

I think you are probably a good person to flesh this out with because "other needs need to be met than just self-interest" is the idea that I'm usually met with. But, it seems that you agree that naturally/biologically/etc. we are selfish creatures/we do things because of selfish reasons. It seems like 50/50 chance I have a hard time getting people to at least buy that starting premise. I think you do, though. Incidentally, it don't think its really anything particularly profound, I think its just a statement of the obvious.

To me the interesting thing is where one develops the concept that other needs need to be met. An altruist acts with the same level of self-interest in mind, it just so happens that his/her self-interest is helping others meet particular needs. I feel like (but am not convinced) altruism is unnatural. I want to explore what serves as the impetus for being altruistic.

This is similar to another point that is really the pillar of my elitist views - all humans are inherently unequal. The inevitable question I get is "how are they unequal?" But, I think that's putting the burden on the wrong person. They are unequal in every way -- there is no way in which they are equal, to me, someone contending otherwise bears the burden of showing me why they are unequal. I try to build off of this base in the same way as the self-interest premise (and again, here, its nothing particularly profound, I feel like its just stating the obvious when saying that people are unequal).

So, again similar to self-interest point, I feel like the concept of "moral equality" is unnatural. When I say people are unequal I mean that in the sense of abilities, intelligence, size, weight, etc, etc. I'm not talking amorphous stuff like morality. So, so many people hold beliefs rooted in "moral equality" and to me it just seems unnatural. We have no concept of "equality" in nature, so, where's it develop. I'll reserve my thoughts on where it develops for the time being.

[Gaucho]

[youtube][/youtube]

[Kraftster]

So I'm trying to get a grasp on this Libertarian thing. Would you (fellow? ) Libertarians agree that its rather axiomatic that people only ever act to serve their self-interest? That is, for "selfish" reasons? I hesitate to use the word selfish because of the negative connotation. I don't mean it negatively at all. Just basically that people only act to advance some self-interest (this may be unconscious at times). This is one of the talking points that has led me down conversations where I get accused of being a libertarian lately, so, that's why I ask.

I don't know if I'd agree that people only act to advance some self-interest or not. I'm not entirely sure it's axiomatic among libertarians, or even relevant, either. I think what is axiomatic - fundamental, even - is the principle of non-aggression.

I think that the person best suited to make decisions for an individual is that person himself.

For me, personally, the reason that it matters is that if we have this starting point of -- people naturally act in their own self-interest -- that's a defensible reason as to why the person best suited to make decisions for an individual is that person himself. And maybe this is why I'm getting some of the libertarian barbs thrown my way now that I read this response from you. I do agree with that central premise and I think the entire reason that you can reaosonably defense that position is that people act for their own self-interest only. Taking that as true, it would be impossible for another to ever make the right decision for you unless it was by pure happenstance.