NationStates Jolt Archive

All libertarians claim that they have Asperger's.

Heh... ass burgers....



Edit: And I'm on ur internetz... stealin ur threadz!!

'I am not an Aspie, my libertarian ideology forbids me from using social skills!!!!111'

That pretty much summarizes libertarianism me thinks.

I'm one.

no but I'm rather eccentric

Heh... ass burgers....

ass burgers (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=ass+burgers&defid=2836792) actually more than likely sums up this threads target audience :p

I've studied physics. Guess if I know any ;)

All libertarians claim that they have Asperger's.

Heh... ass burgers....



Edit: And I'm on ur internetz... stealin ur threadz!!

I've met very few Aspies, and I'm not sure if any are libertarians (then again, I never asked, so who knows? :p).

No, I'm not, but I think about half the folks on NSG are. :)

(And I do know quite a few people with Asperger's IRL.)

How is it I've never heard of this until a year or so ago but then all of a sudden there are a ton of people that say they have it?

I'm not saying no one has it or it isn't real, I'm just saying that just because you're kind of a spazz who has a model train collection or reads Jane's military guides for no reason doesn't necessarily mean you're a kind of autistic.
















Or maybe that's exactly what it means. It's not like I'm a psychologist or anything...

'I am not an Aspie, my libertarian ideology forbids me from using social skills!!!!111'

That pretty much summarizes libertarianism me thinks.

Asperger Syndrome is nothing to joke about. You have no clue how difficult it is to live with. If you can't be respectful, please leave the thread.

ass burgers (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=ass+burgers&defid=2836792) actually more than likely sums up this threads target audience :p

No. I mean people who have been diagnosed with it.

How is it I've never heard of this until a year or so ago but then all of a sudden there are a ton of people that say they have it?

I was diagnosed with it in 2001.

Asperger Syndrome is nothing to joke about. You have no clue how difficult it is to live with. If you can't be respectful, please leave the thread.

Joking dude.

Joking dude.

I apologize.

I've met very few Aspies

Then start hanging around at science faculties of universities. Math, physics and chemistry are your best bets. Biology is also decent; though the Aspies there tend to be animal rights activists.

I've worked as a program councilor, funded by the dept. of developmental disabilities, with autistic adults for over 3.5 years. (Not Aspergers, but Kanners syndrome; straight across, usually nonverbal, highly autistic individuals) I've never met anyone diagnosed with aspergers, but have known many who claim that they or someone they know fits such a diagnosis.

I find many quirks of neurotypical personalities can fit the "autism-lite" spectrum, and it is my personal belief that the autistic spectrum in general is more than likely a bevy of different disorders classed into one name that actually have quite different causes.

There are autistics which tend toward certain traits with other autistics, and those who go in another direction with others who don't, but they cluster. Everybody has some tendencies toward certain personality quirks, which if taken too far, would be considered a 'disorder'. anything that interferes with life to the point of it becoming a strain on the rest of your life can be called a 'disorder'. When it comes to your compulsions or personality, the medical community just labels it "autism", when you can still function in all ways with some effort, it's called "aspergers syndrome". It's become a nice little community, but I believe it's mostly a flag rally to suit the need of belonging & self-labeling. It's just individuality, which is all that it is. Classifying it with a word which makes it a profound, potentially stifling, idiosyncratic individuality isn't going to help you much except as a label for needing attention.

I'm an Aspie; had the fortune to be diagnosed at a rather younger age than most.

The effects really are rather varied, and while I do see some of them as merely quirks, there's some quite nasty constraints in there. Easily the most frustrating at this point being my excessive sensitivity to... well, almost any sensory input. Which really really sucks when that makes me both interested in light and sound but terrified of excessive inputs... atmospheric dim lighting (e.g. the Millionaire set) is gorgeous, but anything too flashy makes me feel horribly overwhelmed. I had a pretty dreadful experience going to one student production that used strobe lighting; they warned about them at the front of the house, sure, but when I asked when they'd be used, they only told me about the second use of them. So I was there for the first one, and ended up leaving seconds later in a bewildered state.

(This rule generalises to music. I'll listen to most music, sure, but it's almost always at low volumes; I'd never go to a rock concert, but can and regularly do go to classical concerts, excluding large-scale orchestral performances. Chamber music is my drug, almost...)

My dad is an undiagnosed (and doesn't realize he is) aspie, his mum was undiagnosed OCD, and I'm undiagnosed BPD... these things tend to relate.
And, no, we dunt like doctors much.

My little brother

Didn't Kievan-Prussia, Potato Factory, etc say he was? I haven't seen him around for a while though.

Asperger Syndrome is nothing to joke about. You have no clue how difficult it is to live with. If you can't be respectful, please leave the thread.

It is indeed something to joke about. The fact that my abnormal psych text, if I can remember a few years back, listed Asperger's as affecting something like %1.2 of the population, while about half the internet claims to have it, is objectively hilarious. So "hah!"

Didn't The Plutonian Empire claim to be something like that, too?

It is indeed something to joke about. The fact that my abnormal psych text, if I can remember a few years back, listed Asperger's as affecting something like %1.2 of the population, while about half the internet claims to have it, is objectively hilarious. So "hah!"

God bless self-diagnosis.

I don't think 'half the Internet' claims to have it. A heck of a lot more than 1.2%, sure. But places for intellectual online debate (like this) are going to attract a disproportionate number of Aspies anyway.

And for what it's worth, I was given a formal diagnosis...

I wouldn't say so much it's something to joke about - well certainly not Asperger's itself. The supposed proliferation of Aspies in places like this, maybe.

The assertion that the autistic spectrum as a whole Doesn't Work Like That (as mentioned by Accrued Constituencies) is an interesting one, and probably one worthy of further consideration. I'm not asocial at all under the strict condition that I'm on home territory, if you like, in the conversation - which means politics, or economics, or singing, or to a decreasing extent technology, or to an increasing extent sport. I am excessively sensitive to my surroundings, and have a love-hate relationship with stage lighting that is driving me towards wanting to be a lighting designer for a show or two on campus.

Probably the biggest unexpected problem is my oversensitivity to taste. There are many, many foods I can't bear to eat because the flavours overwhelm me, and whaddya know, I'm 5'11" and 135 at most. That's 1.80m and 61kg, metric fans.

I've met very few Aspies, and I'm not sure if any are libertarians (then again, I never asked, so who knows? :p).There does seem to be a correlation, at least as far as NSG goes.

I've never been diagnosed, but I show traits... to see one, ask me about dinosaurs. I'd suggest bringing a chair, a blanket and at least a week's provisions.

Nope, I'm not.

Well...I don't think I am, properly at least. My school thought that I might be, but they couldn't be bothered to pursue it. I do have some of the stuff thats associated with it. I'm very social with groups of people I know, in an environment I'm comfortable with, but throw in just a few I don't know (especially if they are male, but theres other reasons for that maybe) or add an unfamiliar environment then my main reaction is to hide in the corner. If I'm forced to do anything new, I also have to go through in my head a thousand time exactly what I'm going to have to do, in what order, usually meaning I don't sleep for about a week before. I have that thing with oversensitivity to taste to quite a large degree too. But I generally cope alright with this stuff and just work around it. The fact that I'm slightly obsessional and am able to concentrate on one thing has also helped me quite a lot academically. As it doesn't cause a huge problem in my life, in my case it probably doesn't merit a diagnosis I guess. Especially as I know someone who has got it properly, and has had quite a few real problems as a result

I work in IT. It's hard to tell the difference.

I work in IT. It's hard to tell the difference.

Mmm a bit like librarianship and OCD.

I remember seeing a special on TV about autism, and realized that it matched me very well. My parents, however, didn't agree.

A few years later, I was diagnosed with Asperger's, which is (surprise!) a form of autism.

Asperger Syndrome is nothing to joke about.

Joking dude.

I apologize.

wtf?

redwulf hasn't been diagnosed, but I took him through the DSM criteria, and he meets every single frickin' one of them! And it would explain so very, very much...

Would it be worth it to get him diagnosed this late in the game? Are there therapies or drugs that could help? I know the push for early diagnosis in kids is to make sure they can get the assistance they need, but what's in ot for adults?

Asperger Syndrome is nothing to joke about. You have no clue how difficult it is to live with. If you can't be respectful, please leave the thread.

Yes, I have it as well and it is certainly no cakewalk.

No i'm not diagnosed with Aspergers. Don't know anyone who is.

Technically, no. Effectively....

I'm kinda anti-social, but I'm fairly sure I don't have Aspberger's...at least I think I'm sure...

Aspie is a stupid word.

My sister has autism. She can talk, read, and write normally. She can draw and visualize at a level so advanced it is off the charts. She can hardly do math or anything else though. She doesn't really have a single friend and she talks to herself constantly.

I've been tested for aspergers about a billion times, but I don't have it. I don't have any excuse for my sucky social skills.

I've met very few Aspies, and I'm not sure if any are libertarians (then again, I never asked, so who knows? :p).

I've always wanted to have Asperger Syndrome. Is there a name for that, wanting to have a certain syndrome or condition?

For those who don't study asperger's/autism, basically people with that have more math skills and less social skills. No, we're not suddenly psychopaths or soemthing -- we're simply not good at social situations.

For those who don't study asperger's/autism, basically people with that have more math skills and less social skills. No, we're not suddenly psychopaths or soemthing -- we're simply not good at social situations.Don't be stupid. People with aspergers are often unusually good at something, but not always math. People with aspergers aren't any more likely to be good at math than anybody else.

Show me an example.

I'm one.
Go back to your hugbox you ass pie.

I don't get it. Is everyone pretending to have poor social skills, or is there really a streak of Aspergerphobia running through this forum? I didn't know such a thing existed.
I have nothing against people with aspergers. I personally know a lot of them because it seems to run in my family. I simply hate the word aspie.

Go back to your hugbox you ass pie.

This post has been brought to you by the letters W, T, and F.

Show me an example.I don't see why I should have to show you an example, because what I said is reasonable. Saying everyone with aspergers is good at math is crazy, you should provide evidence for that.

As far as I know any book you read, website you look at, tv show you watch, and psychologist you ask, will tell you that not everyone with aspergers is good at math.

Don't be stupid. People with aspergers are often unusually good at something, but not always math. People with aspergers aren't any more likely to be good at math than anybody else.

Correct.

I have AS and I'm terrible at math.

This post has been brought to you by the letters W, T, and F.It's just some 4chan thing, it should be ignored.

Aspie is a stupid word.


Go back to your hugbox you ass pie.
I don't get it. Is everyone pretending to have poor social skills, or is there really a streak of Aspergerphobia running through this forum? I didn't know such a thing existed.

Go back to your hugbox you ass pie.

How mature.

I don't get it. Is everyone pretending to have poor social skills, or is there really a streak of Aspergerphobia running through this forum? I didn't know such a thing existed.

Humour, explained:

Aspie is a stupid word.

Go back to your hugbox you ass pie.

Aspie = As-pie = Ass-pie = Ass pie...

Get it? Got it? Good!

Asperger Syndrome is nothing to joke about. You have no clue how difficult it is to live with. If you can't be respectful, please leave the thread.

Joking dude.

I apologize.

Ok this has really confused me. You just criticised Andaras for joking about AS, then Andaras further admitted he was joking, so how come you suddenly forgave him? :confused: :D

Ok this has really confused me. You just criticised Andaras for joking about AS, then Andaras further admitted he was joking, so how come you suddenly forgave him? :confused: :D

lol

Anyone remember time time when nobody knew what autism or aspergers was? I do. It was only about 5 years ago.

I would tell people my sister is autistic, and sometimes they would have their own theories and they would argue them with me as if they knew my sister better than I did. My parents often got the same reaction from other parents. People often insisted that my sister was retarded. Some people thought she had schizophrenia. A lot of lunatics told my parents she had to be put on a wheat free diet or she will never be "cured."

One thing people have to understand about autism is that it will never be cured. People like this can be taught basic social skills, but they will remain autistic forever. Bill gates, for example, still rocks back and forth at meetings. He's never been officially diagnosed because usually only people who are failing at something are diagnosed, but he acts just like a guy with aspergers. Go to 3:26 of this video if you don't believe me http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f15JexiQt4U&eurl=http://poshhill.blogspot.com/2007/12/my-family.html

Autism is not a disease. It is a personality type, like being born musical or athletic. It's a personality that is considered a disorder because it doesn't fit into our society, but that doesn't mean there will ever be a cure for it. I get really angry whenever I see a poster asking me to donate money to cure autism.

Asperger Syndrome is nothing to joke about. You have no clue how difficult it is to live with. If you can't be respectful, please leave the thread.

This may be a prejudice I have, but you don't strike me as somebody with Asperger's. Of course I've never really met someone with Asperger's...

On a side note, I've always considered myself to have undiagonsed ADD, don't know if that really counts.

Just very mildly autistic here. Inherited it from my Dad. It often seems like I've got it worse than him, since he does medicine and runs into people all the time whereas I'm a techie, but I think we'd both rather be in each others' careers if we could arrange a switch.

Go back to your hugbox you ass pie.

Do you have turrets?

There does seem to be a correlation, at least as far as NSG goes.

I wonder how much of it is genuine, and how much of it is just an attempt to rationalize a political ideology with "I'm just wired that way." It would be ironic to seek a biological/psychological source for one's ideological beliefs in this case, since libertarians presumably champion free will and choice over causal determinism.

Then again, arguments about how "human nature" or "natural law" make a particular system of economics inevitable also ooze causal determinism while being very popular among libertarians.

But then, playing fast and loose with metaphysical axioms if and when convenient is not all that uncommon, regardless of the particular -ism. I would expect similar misuse of manuals of diagnosis and statistics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagnostic_and_Statistical_Manual_of_Mental_Disorders).

Do you have turrets?
Yes. I have many turrets and sentry guns to fight off the battletoads and defend my mudkips which I treasure a great deal.

I think Cleopatra was an Aspie.

Anyone remember time time when nobody knew what autism or aspergers was? I do. It was only about 5 years ago.

I knew about autism over ten years ago, but that's because my mom works in special ed, and worked with just about every kind of developmental disability that exists - ask her about the kid who tried to kill himself with a folding chair sometime.

And redwulf's nephew is severely autistic, nonverbal and... well, not doing much of anything. He's so wrapped up in his own world, he can't seem to interact with ours. He used to like me, he doesn't any more. :(

Do you have turrets?

You don't know joy until your sister in law (who has tourette's) answers the phone "fucking bitch." I know it's horrible and traumatic for her, but it was kind of funny for me. I think I might be going to hell... :(

You don't know joy until your sister in law (who has tourette's) answers the phone "fucking bitch." I know it's horrible and traumatic for her, but it was kind of funny for me. I think I might be going to hell... :(

Don't worry you'll have plenty of company down here.
;)

I think Cleopatra was an Aspie.

...that was terrible. :p

A lot of lunatics told my parents she had to be put on a wheat free diet or she will never be "cured."I guess you don't like Jenny McCarthy's theories (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk_About_Curing_Autism#National_spokesperson) on the subject, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casein#Opioid) eh?

I wonder how much of it is genuine, and how much of it is just an attempt to rationalize a political ideology with "I'm just wired that way." It would be ironic to seek a biological/psychological source for one's ideological beliefs in this case, since libertarians presumably champion free will and choice over causal determinism.

Then again, arguments about how "human nature" or "natural law" make a particular system of economics inevitable also ooze causal determinism while being very popular among libertarians.

But then, playing fast and loose with metaphysical axioms if and when convenient is not all that uncommon, regardless of the particular -ism. I would expect similar misuse of manuals of diagnosis and statistics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagnostic_and_Statistical_Manual_of_Mental_Disorders).I'm not sure if it's genuine or not.
It does seem that many people tend to misdiagnose themselves, though, so it wouldn't be surprising that some libertarians would also.

I'm one.

I'm one and I admitted it on multiple occasions.

I'm one and I admitted it on multiple occasions.
Then go back to your hugbox on multiple occasions you ass pie. A hugbox is a purported remedy for Asperger's Syndrome and other forms of autism. It is a machine wherein an aspie crawls inside, and is squashed, thus producing the feeling of being loved.

Asperger Syndrome is nothing to joke about. You have no clue how difficult it is to live with. If you can't be respectful, please leave the thread.

I have aspergers and I thought that was pretty funny, I think people should lighten up a bit. If you're that offended by that then you should look at yourself. I think people should be able to laugh at themselves or at something that effects them if it's not offensive which that really wasn't.

As to a cure for autism, my thought is that maybe the autistic spectrum is actually a common set of symptoms for an interrelated set of causes. Why else would mercury chelation or wheat free diets or early intervention work for only some people? If there was only one cause for autistic disorders, then one cure would work for everyone, right?

Of course, I'm not a scientist, I was just raised by one. I might be talking out my ass.

Because of that I'm taking that medal (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13449393&postcount=7) back. Secondly you are mistaken about Asperger's syndrome, I really do have it, it runs in the family, Asperger's is not being emo and has nothing to do with being loved or not being loved. It is a genetic disorder in which social skills are lacking, no more no less.

Okay, you need to put warnings on videos like the ones in that link. I think I'll just go over into the corner and have a panic attack now.

Then go back to your hugbox on multiple occasions you ass pie. A hugbox is a purported remedy for Asperger's Syndrome and other forms of autism. It is a machine wherein an aspie crawls inside, and is squashed, thus producing the feeling of being loved.

Because of that I'm taking that medal (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13449393&postcount=7) back. Secondly you are mistaken about Asperger's syndrome, I really do have it, it runs in the family, Asperger's is not being emo and has nothing to do with being loved or not being loved. It is a genetic disorder in which social skills are lacking, no more no less.

Some of you people are being real cruel. I feel guilty when I think negative thoughts about mentally handicapped people. But Ausperger's Syndrome is ... not really on the same level. People with Ausperger's can be pretty normal. My first intro to Ausperger's was through (my guilty pleasure) America's Next Top Model
Contestant Heather.
Her Awkwardness http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mc4f9mGtdP0
Her Beauty http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i288/pandacharmed/ANTM/cw-antm09-heather-container-mo_0078.jpg
http://fourfour.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/09/23/heather_hot_2.jpg

You don't know joy until your sister in law (who has tourette's) answers the phone "fucking bitch." I know it's horrible and traumatic for her, but it was kind of funny for me. I think I might be going to hell... :(

Man....I don't have anything like that family wise. A coworker though had something of a mental scare. His mom got severe Alzheimer's. During one visit she propositioned him :eek:

I wonder how much of it is genuine, and how much of it is just an attempt to rationalize a political ideology with "I'm just wired that way." It would be ironic to seek a biological/psychological source for one's ideological beliefs in this case, since libertarians presumably champion free will and choice over causal determinism.

Then again, arguments about how "human nature" or "natural law" make a particular system of economics inevitable also ooze causal determinism while being very popular among libertarians.

But then, playing fast and loose with metaphysical axioms if and when convenient is not all that uncommon, regardless of the particular -ism. I would expect similar misuse of manuals of diagnosis and statistics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagnostic_and_Statistical_Manual_of_Mental_Disorders).

I was apolitical until I turned about 18 or 19.

Oh, and since I never "blamed" my ideology on AS, your post automatically fails.

Some of you people are being real cruel.

QFMFT

I wonder how much of it is genuine, and how much of it is just an attempt to rationalize a political ideology with "I'm just wired that way." It would be ironic to seek a biological/psychological source for one's ideological beliefs in this case, since libertarians presumably champion free will and choice over causal determinism.

Then again, arguments about how "human nature" or "natural law" make a particular system of economics inevitable also ooze causal determinism while being very popular among libertarians.

But then, playing fast and loose with metaphysical axioms if and when convenient is not all that uncommon, regardless of the particular -ism. I would expect similar misuse of manuals of diagnosis and statistics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagnostic_and_Statistical_Manual_of_Mental_Disorders).

I knew a guy who argued exactly what you posted, but then he was diagnosed with a mental disorder.

Some of you people are being real cruel. I feel guilty when I think negative thoughts about mentally handicapped people. But Ausperger's Syndrome is ... not really on the same level.

Next time I have to try to get redwulf to actually interact with someone he doesn't know/doesn't like, I'll call you and you can see how his inability to deal with people 'isn't really on the same level.'

Man....I don't have anything like that family wise. A coworker though had something of a mental scare. His mom got severe Alzheimer's. During one visit she propositioned him :eek:

I'll second that :eek:. That's both scary and gross.

Man....I don't have anything like that family wise. A coworker though had something of a mental scare. His mom got severe Alzheimer's. During one visit she propositioned him :eek:

I second that ":eek:".

Formally diagnosed Aspie and political leftist. What's libertarian?

Also, above deleted message was mine.

Then go back to your hugbox on multiple occasions you ass pie. A hugbox is a purported remedy for Asperger's Syndrome and other forms of autism. It is a machine wherein an aspie crawls inside, and is squashed, thus producing the feeling of being loved.

Indri, while you're away for the next two days, you might give a few minutes' thought to why your fellow posters were telling you off.

Clue: It has a lot to do with your ridiculing posters who are trying to deal with a difficult condition.

Formally diagnosed Aspie and political leftist. What's libertarian?

As it's generally understood, a combination of liberal social values and right-wing economics. Very much 'small-government'; I'd imagine that the Aspie connection is something to do with the emphasis on individualism and freedom.

I can actually see Aspies pulling in multiple political directions - especially on the social scale, where I can see some calling for individualism but also some seeking order and control...

This "So called Syndrome" seems to me to be nothing but a bourgeois disorder.

I know several liberatariaspies, and one or two socialist aspies. But then again, what do I know? I'm just a virgin until death.

This "So called Syndrome" seems to me to be nothing but a bourgeois disorder.

That may be. Then again, it may be that that decision should be left to psychologist, psychiatrists, and other people who know anything at all about autism.

This "So called Syndrome" seems to me to be nothing but a bourgeois disorder.

Are you being moronic on purpose? You don't think people have autistic spectrum disorders in socialist/communist countries? You think only rich people have them in the 'developed world'? redwulf, his severely autistic nephew, and my mild/mid autistic godson are all from the proletariat. Do some research and get some actual facts. Please.

I'm one.

I probably am, although back in the darkages (30 years ago) they called me 'voluntary autistic' and explained no more than that. The diagnosis spectrum for AS works, though.

It's become a nice little community, but I believe it's mostly a flag rally to suit the need of belonging & self-labeling.

People are pretending to have AS for the sense of community? Because, of course, a sense of community is what autism spectrum disorders are famous for?

There does seem to be a correlation, at least as far as NSG goes.

I don't know - I'd identify as AS, but think Libertarianism is one of the greatest evils conceivable.

I don't know - I'd identify as AS, but think Libertarianism is one of the greatest evils conceivable.

A person can be one without being the other. I've met conservative Aspies, libertarian Aspies, anarchist Aspies, socialist ones, etc. Ideologically, we're as diverse as NTs.

This "So called Syndrome" seems to me to be nothing but a bourgeois disorder.

Oh, for fuck's sake.

You cannot be serious. :rolleyes:

A person can be one without being the other. I've met conservative Aspies, libertarian Aspies, anarchist Aspies, socialist ones, etc. Ideologically, we're as diverse as NTs.

Agreed. I was just presenting a counterpoint to the assumption that all AS 'sufferers' must be libertarians.

Agreed. I was just presenting a counterpoint to the assumption that all AS 'sufferers' must be libertarians.

Ah, okay.

Formally diagnosed Aspie and political leftist. What's libertarian?

There's right-libertarianism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-libertarianism) and left-libertarianism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-libertarianism). Often times, members of one group will dismiss members of the other group as not being "real" libertarians.

I don't know - I'd identify as AS, but think Libertarianism is one of the greatest evils conceivable.Okay, maybe it's a weak correlation. :p

You guys can add me to that list, as a person who has it himself. *goes back to lurking*

Next time I have to try to get redwulf to actually interact with someone he doesn't know/doesn't like, I'll call you and you can see how his inability to deal with people 'isn't really on the same level.'

I don't know who redwulf is, but there are different degrees of autism. Ausperger's is called highly functional autism. If you watch the girl in the video I linked, she can obviously hold a job and handle being around people and interacting.

People are pretending to have AS for the sense of community? Because, of course, a sense of community is what autism spectrum disorders are famous for?

well, even if you don't have ausperger's but are socially awkward and kind of an outsider then you likely dont have much interaction with people and see these online community as a good, low stress way to talk to people who understand when you say something odd, and won't judge you for having no friends, and know what kind of things you struggle with.

I was formally diagnosed by an psychologist who specialised in Asperger's Syndrome as having high functioning autism. Basically I don't all the symptoms of Asperger's, at least not to the same degree, but I have enough to qualify for a related disorder. This was about a decade ago when Asperger's first became a popular.

I don't know who redwulf is, but there are different degrees of autism. Ausperger's is called highly functional autism. If you watch the girl in the video I linked, she can obviously hold a job and handle being around people and interacting.

That would be me. I'm functional, I just don't interact well with anyone that I haven't developed set protocols for.

That may be. Then again, it may be that that decision should be left to psychologist, psychiatrists, and other people who know anything at all about autism.Some psychologists know nothing about autism and haven't read a single book about it. They can be lazy and decide to treat all their customers the same weather they have downs, cerebral palsy, autism, or whatever.

This "So called Syndrome" seems to me to be nothing but a bourgeois disorder.

I think Josef Stalin might have been an aspie.

I don't know - I'd identify as AS, but think Libertarianism is one of the greatest evils conceivable.

You must not get out much. Wanting to live without being stolen from to pay for things I don't want is hardly "evil." I understand why some people don't like it, but there is a lot out there that is much more (overtly, even) evil than Libertarianism. Calling it "one of the greatest evils conceivable" smacks of naïveté.

But more to the point, my brother has it, and I supsect my father does too. I'm pretty sure I got away without it; even if I do go batshit crazy at the drop of a hat sometimes when I'm playing games (they say inappropriate emotional responses are common). From what I've heard, my great grandfather on my dad's side may have had it, which would explain a lot. I'm curious as to where the link to Libertarianism comes from--although I confess to not being very surprised that NSG would postulate that their political opponents must suffer (by and large) from a psychological disorder. My brother used to be a Socialist right around the time he was 16 or 17--but I think that had more to do with being 16 or 17 than it did with AS; and his turning into a Libertarian had more to do with my father than anything else.

AS doesn't strike me as a disorder that lends itself to Libertarianism, to be honest. I don't know if my brother is atypical of AS sufferers (I'm not terribly familiar with the disorder outside of what I've experienced with him), but he is almost slavishly devoted to a working routine and becomes most distressed if the routine is altered in some way. It seems to me that if he were interested in perpetuating this policy on a national scale--thankfully he isn't--his leanings may be elsewhere. I don't think AS sufferers are any more prone to a specific ideology than the rest of us.

You must not get out much. Wanting to live without being stolen from to pay for things I don't want is hardly "evil." I understand why some people don't like it, but there is a lot out there that is much more (overtly, even) evil than Libertarianism. Calling it "one of the greatest evils conceivable" smacks of naïveté.


Well, that wasn't quite the point, but it's nothing to do with being naive - quite the contrary, in fact. By 'libertarinism' I have assumed we are using the common version - to whit: minimal regulation of commerce and industry, maximal 'do-it-yourself' economics, etc.

The problem I have with it is that it is conscience-less. If capitalism is institutionalised greed, libertarianism is greed without conscience. That means people dying of starvation while others hoard food.

Various political models have been bad for varying proportions of the population, but very few of them have been genocidal by indifference. Libertarian dehumanises and devalues.

I'd rather live under Nazism than Libertarianism - at least there's some pretence that SOME of the people give a shit about each other.


But more to the point, my brother has it, and I supsect my father does too. I'm pretty sure I got away without it; even if I do go batshit crazy at the drop of a hat sometimes when I'm playing games (they say inappropriate emotional responses are common). From what I've heard, my great grandfather on my dad's side may have had it, which would explain a lot. I'm curious as to where the link to Libertarianism comes from--although I confess to not being very surprised that NSG would postulate that their political opponents must suffer (by and large) from a psychological disorder. My brother used to be a Socialist right around the time he was 16 or 17--but I think that had more to do with being 16 or 17 than it did with AS; and his turning into a Libertarian had more to do with my father than anything else.

AS doesn't strike me as a disorder that lends itself to Libertarianism, to be honest. I don't know if my brother is atypical of AS sufferers (I'm not terribly familiar with the disorder outside of what I've experienced with him), but he is almost slavishly devoted to a working routine and becomes most distressed if the routine is altered in some way. It seems to me that if he were interested in perpetuating this policy on a national scale--thankfully he isn't--his leanings may be elsewhere. I don't think AS sufferers are any more prone to a specific ideology than the rest of us.

I agree - I don't think it especially connects to any ideology, either. What it might connect to, would be that the AS 'sufferer' is far more likely to have considered their position deeply - because taking ANY stand is a big step. Maybe. Not to say they'd all come to the same conclusions, but I think their decisions are less likely to be arbitrary or easily-swayed than neurotypicals.

I also agree with what (I think) you were saying vis-a-vis libertarianism... it does SUGGEST a lower probability of being a common ideology simply for it's lack of order.

On right-libertarianism; I would argue that there is a lot of merit in it, ruined only by the fact that human greed will lead to the kind of grotesquely unequal outcomes mentioned in the last post.

On Aspie ideology; I can see Aspies being rather unusually passionate about whatever ideology they wind up gravitating towards, should they be politicised (because it'd be one of their intense specialist interests), but that ideology itself is going to be diverse, and I can see how Aspies could gravitate to any corner of the political compass (right-liberal perhaps by seeing it as simply the most efficient use of resources, left-authoritarian through simple control-freak tendencies (and trust me, when you have a disorder that makes much of the outside world full of seeming threats, there's a better than average chance you'll wind up as a control freak), et multiple cetera).

I suspect you get fewer centrists though, what with Aspie desires to generally see the world in black and white more than NTs. Beyond that, I really don't think you can generalise.

- a left-liberal Aspie (-5, -5 on the compass, there or thereabouts) but one who identified as conservative until about 15 (he's 21 now)

Well, that wasn't quite the point, but it's nothing to do with being naive - quite the contrary, in fact. By 'libertarinism' I have assumed we are using the common version - to whit: minimal regulation of commerce and industry, maximal 'do-it-yourself' economics, etc.

The problem I have with it is that it is conscience-less. If capitalism is institutionalised greed, libertarianism is greed without conscience. That means people dying of starvation while others hoard food.

Various political models have been bad for varying proportions of the population, but very few of them have been genocidal by indifference. Libertarian dehumanises and devalues.

I'd rather live under Nazism than Libertarianism - at least there's some pretence that SOME of the people give a shit about each other.
I'd pull one of those feet out of your mouth if I were you--you'll need it to run when the Nazis bust down your door for not being a Nazi. Whether you know it or not (I suspect you do, but you're laboring to make a point), you don't mean what you just said--if only for the fact that you, specifically, would not live for very long under a Nazi regime.

Still, it's striking that you would rather live in a society that tortures and murders different races than one that doesn't subsidize labor for the benefit of others. Just because I'm not willing to spend 20-25% of my workday laboring for their benefit (slavery) doesn't mean I "don't give a shit about people." I'll give you the shirt off my fucking back if you ask for it (and yes, I have actually physically done this), but forcing similar "charity" at the barrel of a gun or under the threat of a cage is moral cannibalism.

You don't have to like Libertarianism (I'd never want to live on a planet where everyone agreed about everything), but the philosophy is entirely benign, whereas Nazism openly advocates government-sanctioned slaughter for the "greater good." Even assuming you wouldn't be incarcerated immediately as a result of your views (which are obviously incongruent with National Socialism), saying you'd rather live in a Nazi state than a Libertarian one only proves my point about your shocking naïveté.

I agree - I don't think it especially connects to any ideology, either. What it might connect to, would be that the AS 'sufferer' is far more likely to have considered their position deeply - because taking ANY stand is a big step. Maybe. Not to say they'd all come to the same conclusions, but I think their decisions are less likely to be arbitrary or easily-swayed than neurotypicals.

I also agree with what (I think) you were saying vis-a-vis libertarianism... it does SUGGEST a lower probability of being a common ideology simply for it's lack of order.

Agreed; I think one's political leanings is more likely the result of their thoughts and experiences (just like the rest of us) than anything else. But AS folks have divergent interests and I'm sure some (or even many) of them do not particularly care for politics. But if it is a subject that interests them, they are more likely to have considered their position very deeply.

I'd pull one of those feet out of your mouth if I were you--you'll need it to run when the Nazis bust down your door for not being a Nazi. Whether you know it or not (I suspect you do, but you're laboring to make a point), you don't mean what you just said--if only for the fact that you, specifically, would not live for very long under a Nazi regime.

Still, it's striking that you would rather live in a society that tortures and murders different races than one that doesn't subsidize labor for the benefit of others. Just because I'm not willing to spend 20-25% of my workday laboring for their benefit (slavery) doesn't mean I "don't give a shit about people." I'll give you the shirt off my fucking back if you ask for it (and yes, I have actually physically done this), but forcing similar "charity" at the barrel of a gun or under the threat of a cage is moral cannibalism.

You don't have to like Libertarianism (I'd never want to live on a planet where everyone agreed about everything), but the philosophy is entirely benign, whereas Nazism openly advocates government-sanctioned slaughter for the "greater good." Even assuming you wouldn't be incarcerated immediately as a result of your views (which are obviously incongruent with National Socialism), saying you'd rather live in a Nazi state than a Libertarian one only proves my point about your shocking naïveté.


I said it wasn't really the 'point' of the comment, and I stick by it. I gave a quick response to show that the comment wasn't entirely flippant.

I choose not to indulge your threadjack any further, and I also choose to ignore your repeated flamebaiting.

If you want to discuss the evils of libertarianism, I'll gladly address it in a different thread.


Agreed; I think one's political leanings is more likely the result of their thoughts and experiences (just like the rest of us) than anything else. But AS folks have divergent interests and I'm sure some (or even many) of them do not particularly care for politics. But if it is a subject that interests them, they are more likely to have considered their position very deeply.

I didn't suggest that everyone with AS would be political - just that, if they choose to take a stance, it's more likely to be a big deal - and thus, perhaps, there'll be more real attention put to the subject than might be neurotypical.

I said it wasn't really the 'point' of the comment, and I stick by it. I gave a quick response to show that the comment wasn't entirely flippant.

I understand that the message of your comment is that you "identify as AS," and yet do not conform to the AS = Libertarian "stereotype." But to turn around and put Libertarianism on par with (or even morally inferior to) Nazism kind of implies that you're pretty serious about the remark that it's one of the "greatest evils conceivable."

I choose not to indulge your threadjack any further, and I also choose to ignore your repeated flamebaiting.
Example please? Calling someone naïve and telling them to remove their foot from their mouth is hardly "flamebait." It may be aggressive debating--I'm sure you'd expect no less from me--but hardly an actionable rules violation.

If you want to discuss the evils of libertarianism, I'll gladly address it in a different thread.
Been there, done that. But I'm going to have a hard time taking you seriously after the "I'd rather live under Nazism" remark.

I didn't suggest that everyone with AS would be political - just that, if they choose to take a stance, it's more likely to be a big deal - and thus, perhaps, there'll be more real attention put to the subject than might be neurotypical.

Again (and this is weird because we're agreeing so much in the second half of our posts), I estimate you are correct in this. I can't speak for everyone else of course, but my brother has considered his position very deeply, partly due to the frequent political arguments he had with my father during his late teens. I seem to remember him making the Socialism pitch to me in 8th or 9th grade, and I roundly rejected it.

But that's not to say that anyone else ("neurotypicals") can't have equally strong convictions--but it might mean that the AS crowd will be more stubborn and less prone to change, even over time. Then again, my brother did a political about-face in a few short weeks so I suppose anything is possible.

I'm one.

Though I'm ambivalent on it myself, I have actually been diagnosed by two mental health workers as having Asperger's Syndrome.

I used to think it was bull, but I don't know. I really want to play my 360 games online, but speaking to other people over a headset and microphone gives me a level of anxiousness most people associate with giving a speech in front of the class or an auditorium.

I suppose I do spend 22 hours a day in my room (and that's not an exaggeration).

Though I'm ambivalent on it myself, I have actually been diagnosed by two mental health workers as having Asperger's Syndrome.

I used to think it was bull, but I don't know. I really want to play my 360 games online, but speaking to other people over a headset and microphone gives me a level of anxiousness most people associate with giving a speech in front of the class or an auditorium.

I suppose I do spend 22 hours a day in my room (and that's not an exaggeration).

Ah but you don't have to use the headset to play online, as you can turn it off or throw away the headphones.
As for giving speeches, well i can only recall my days at school from giving presentations in class, gave me the willies (so to speak), same with everyone.

The link to the DSM criteria for Asperger's Syndrome is here: http://web.syr.edu/~rjkopp/data/as_diag_list.html

There will be people who hate those with autism, just like there are those who hate gay people, those political leanings and those who hate peanut butter stuck to the roof of their mouths (arachibutyrophobia, incidentally). As soon as awareness of anything rises, people crawl out of the woodwork, either to jump on the next big thing or to rubbish it, possibly because neither of them have anything else better to do and are shallow or insecure enough to need to do it.

I understand that the message of your comment is that you "identify as AS," and yet do not conform to the AS = Libertarian "stereotype." But to turn around and put Libertarianism on par with (or even morally inferior to) Nazism kind of implies that you're pretty serious about the remark that it's one of the "greatest evils conceivable."


Which I entirely believe... but it's really not the 'point'.

The point was rejecting the 'AS = libertarian' model.


Example please? Calling someone naïve and telling them to remove their foot from their mouth is hardly "flamebait." It may be aggressive debating--I'm sure you'd expect no less from me--but hardly an actionable rules violation.


If your 'argument' is that I am 'shockingly' naive, I'd say that's not only flamebait, but also an ad hominem logical fallacy.


Been there, done that. But I'm going to have a hard time taking you seriously after the "I'd rather live under Nazism" remark.


Well, why wouldn't I? You admit, yourself, that there is at least the pretense of 'the greater good', and that might even be true - provided you are lucky enough to be one of the chosen majority.

On the other hand, libertarianism is entirely morally bankrupt. It doesn't even place the will of the individual above the collective, it places 'me' wherever 'I' choose, and 'screw the rest of you'.

Plus - 6'4" and blonde... Nazism might not be as much of a threat to me as it might to most, but again - not the point.


Again (and this is weird because we're agreeing so much in the second half of our posts), I estimate you are correct in this. I can't speak for everyone else of course, but my brother has considered his position very deeply, partly due to the frequent political arguments he had with my father during his late teens. I seem to remember him making the Socialism pitch to me in 8th or 9th grade, and I roundly rejected it.

But that's not to say that anyone else ("neurotypicals") can't have equally strong convictions--but it might mean that the AS crowd will be more stubborn and less prone to change, even over time. Then again, my brother did a political about-face in a few short weeks so I suppose anything is possible.

Are you taking 'neurotypical' as some kind of accusatory or insult? The quotation marks seem.... odd.

I also did a political aboutface, although almost the mirror image of your brother - but my position was deeply reasoned on each occassion. Maybe that's symptomatic of the AS things also... a gradual buildup until there is really no escaping the argument, and then you are forced to change position...?

Normally I wouldnt dig this up (especially since it will likely rekindle a largely pointless discussion) but I just moved into a new apartment and I didnt get a chance to get to this earlier. Sorry for doing this, but I'm not going to sit idly by and suffer a moral comparison to the Nazis...

Which I entirely believe... but it's really not the 'point'.

The point was rejecting the 'AS = libertarian' model.

I understand. I'm simply suggesting that you are calling it "one of the greatest evils conceivable" more for shock value (to highlight the point that you manifest a striking contradiction to the "AS= Lib" stereotype) than because it's actually true. As much as I think I'd love watching you attempt to defend this viewpoint, I'm pretty sure you'd realize pretty soon how indefensible it is.

Don't get me wrong--I can sympathize with trying to make a point about conclusions people often jump to (especially if you defy them), but don't get carried away. I may despise Socialism, but I would never call it worse than a model of government that even allowed for--much less carried out mass, organized murders. I mean, shit. Come on man.

If your 'argument' is that I am 'shockingly' naive, I'd say that's not only flamebait, but also an ad hominem logical fallacy.
Okay, here's the thing...

If you actually read my post, you'll quickly notice that "Grave is naive" is not the thesis of my argument--it is not the basis on which the rest of my statements operate. Ad hominems start when someone bases their argument or response on his opponent's characteristics.

My argument is that libertarianism can't possibly be "as evil" or "more evil" than Nazism because Libertarians haven't been known to incite racial murder (or violence of any kind, really). Invoking your naïveté was simply my prediction concerning the origin of your viewpoints. Even though it came up before you directly compared us to Nazis, my dismisal of your reasoning as naïve wasn't actually the basis of my argument, although you happily assumed it was. I'm not saying "You're wrong because you're naïve," I'm saying "You're wrong because Libertarians don't slaughter millions of people."

Well, why wouldn't I? You admit, yourself, that there is at least the pretense of 'the greater good', and that might even be true - provided you are lucky enough to be one of the chosen majority.
Don't assume that because I acknowledge the existence of a "greater good" that I think it's a moral point in favor of anything. Doing things for the greater good doesn't automatically make someone right anymore than it makes them wrong; what matters is the actions and their consequences. There hasn't (to my knowledge) been a dyed-in-the-wool Libertarian in power in modern times, so their rhetoric is really about the only way we can compare them to anyone else (especially since the Nazis have been in power and we've seen what they did with it).

The doctrine of Libertarianism has, to date, not accounted for the physical destruction of nearly an entire continent. The Nazis' killed millions in the Holocaust alone--nevermind that the blood for the entire war was on their hands already (so technically they killed more like "everyone who died in the European theatre")

On the other hand, libertarianism is entirely morally bankrupt. It doesn't even place the will of the individual above the collective, it places 'me' wherever 'I' choose, and 'screw the rest of you'.
So let me get this striaght: Libertarianism is "bankrupt" because it removes external controls from the individual and allows them do operate (more or less) as they please, whereas Nazism (who imprisons or executes dissidents, murders Jews, Gypsies and Homosexuals, etc etc) is better simply because all the good little Nazis want to make the world a better place for all the other good little Nazis and (in your own words) "Screw everyone else?"

Get real. Your position is entirely indefensible, even according to your own morality. It might be a little less embarrsing to drop this silly pretense of trying to argue a point that you obviously made in the excitement of denouncing a stereotype. If you keep digging that hole of yours, and you might just be speaking Chinese next week.

Plus - 6'4" and blonde... Nazism might not be as much of a threat to me as it might to most, but again - not the point.
I pointed that out because your political leanings are far from the Nazi ideal. Nazis would chain your ass up (if they found out) and might even kill you for it. I can't say as I've found anything in Libertarian doctrine that would cause us to behave similarly.

Are you taking 'neurotypical' as some kind of accusatory or insult? The quotation marks seem.... odd.
Hehe... no, sorry, nothing of the sort. I put quotes around it because I think just about everyone is batshit crazy in one way or another, so "neurotypical" is a term I usually apply with tounge firmly in cheek.

I also did a political aboutface, although almost the mirror image of your brother - but my position was deeply reasoned on each occassion. Maybe that's symptomatic of the AS things also... a gradual buildup until there is really no escaping the argument, and then you are forced to change position...?

I'll have to ask him about that; it's a topic we haven't really touched upon. I know he went through his Socialist phase some time before he knew he had AS, but I'm not sure whether or not AS' attributes were applied to his political thought. It seems to me that AS (much like its 'sufferers') is a finnicky disorder that doesn't really apply itself to all corners of thought. There are times when you wouldn't know he has it, and there are other times when his wrath is infectious (often over relatively minor things), spreading throughout the house like some dark plague.

Whoa, never expected to see this thread again. Anyway.

If your 'argument' is that I am 'shockingly' naive, I'd say that's not only flamebait, but also an ad hominem logical fallacy.
Ad hominem, yes, but not necessarily flamebait. The two don't always correlate, y'know. It's not an expression that directly elicits aggressive response, nor one that should be taken as an attempt to offend, although it is an evaluation of your character out of context of the argument.

Well, why wouldn't I? You admit, yourself, that there is at least the pretense of 'the greater good', and that might even be true - provided you are lucky enough to be one of the chosen majority.

On the other hand, libertarianism is entirely morally bankrupt. It doesn't even place the will of the individual above the collective, it places 'me' wherever 'I' choose, and 'screw the rest of you'.
I appreciate what you're saying; that quality of life in the common case is better under National Socialism than it is under Libertarianism. And to an extent, I agree. But I think you're going a bit far to say that thus you'd prefer to live there. Although Libertarianism is probably worse for people, at least it's amenable to change; the Nazis wouldn't give you the ability to change the system to protect their enemies, whereas the Libertarians are ideologically obliged to do so.

I understand. I'm simply suggesting that you are calling it "one of the greatest evils conceivable" more for shock value (to highlight the point that you manifest a striking contradiction to the "AS= Lib" stereotype) than because it's actually true. As much as I think I'd love watching you attempt to defend this viewpoint, I'm pretty sure you'd realize pretty soon how indefensible it is.
GnI has been stating that assertion long before this topic showed up. He goes further than his rhetoric than I would, I grant you, but it reflects a powerful anti-Libertarian opinion rather than just an attempt to be showy.

My argument is that libertarianism can't possibly be "as evil" or "more evil" than Nazism because Libertarians haven't been known to incite racial murder (or violence of any kind, really).
That's at least in part because Libertarians are never collectively identified as such. You know why that is? Because they're Libertarians! They don't believe in collective effort!

So let me get this striaght: Libertarianism is "bankrupt" because it removes external controls from the individual and allows them do operate (more or less) as they please, whereas Nazism (who imprisons or executes dissidents, murders Jews, Gypsies and Homosexuals, etc etc) is better simply because all the good little Nazis want to make the world a better place for all the other good little Nazis and (in your own words) "Screw everyone else?"
Libertarianism is morally bankrupt because it has no institutional morality. It's as simple as that. Nazism was not morally bankrupt because it did, albeit one with a very dubious philosophical grounding.

Anyway, GnI's point isn't so much about the nature of the moral code (as far as I can gather) but rather that institutional safeguards in National Socialism temper the human tendency to exploit for personal gain in favour of the ideology of the State, whereas in Libertarianism no such temperance exists, which is itself a worrying aspect of any system that attempts to implement it. That, too, is a fair point, but it could easily have been made without the Nazi references.

It's up to you to determine for yourself whether or not that makes Libertarianism "worse" than Nazism. I'm inclined to agree that it isn't, but that's rather like agreeing that being stabbed in the chest 40 times isn't worse than being stabbed in the chest 50 times; I don't need to think Libertarianism is a good thing to agree.

Ad hominem, yes, but not necessarily flamebait...
For the record, I'd reexamine this assessment and read up on what the definition (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html) of an ad hominem actually is. Commenting on the characteristics of my opponent is clearly different than basing my arguments on them. It would be an ad hominem if I said "GnI is wrong because he's naive and doesn't know anything." Whether or not that is actually true is entirely immaterial to my case as I've made it.

I appreciate what you're saying; that quality of life in the common case is better under National Socialism than it is under Libertarianism. And to an extent, I agree. But I think you're going a bit far to say that thus you'd prefer to live there. Although Libertarianism is probably worse for people, at least it's amenable to change; the Nazis wouldn't give you the ability to change the system to protect their enemies, whereas the Libertarians are ideologically obliged to do so.
A lot of people on NSG are quick to point to turn of the century America and cite it as evidence that modern libertarianism "fails." Or my favorite is how they will sometimes point out that African nations have small governments and thus that must be the reason for their failure to advance.

It's probably true that very few party platforms have been executed to the letter, but there are few ideologies that have been neglected as a whole as much as modern libertarianism has. Obviously, governing institutions are seldom frienldy to interests that seek to diminish their power (just like pretty much every other institution), so it's no surprise that the idea hasn't gatehered a tremendous amount of steam.

Basically it all boils down to what you think "Freedom" is, since pretty much everyone agrees that a free populus is better than an oppressed one (except, apparently, in this case). The left tends to regard Freedom as power or resources, which is why their programs are almost always geared to distributing power or resources to its citizens. Libertarianism regards "Freedom" as the absence of external controls. I believe the second to be a more complete definition, and I don't think that people are entitled to a certain amount of resources simply because they exist. Nature just doesn't work that way and it never has.

The thing about (and if we're talking about Libertariansim this is basically what we mean) Capitalism is that it's not an ideology that tells us how things should be-- it is not an editorial on reality like every other philosophy I've bumped into to date--Capitalism simply lays it out like it is. The world can be an ugly place, and as long as we're part of nature I doubt very much we'll be able to change it meaningfully. I'll be the first to admit that the Libertarianism pill can be a hard one to swallow, but life can be a bitch like that.

GnI has been stating that assertion long before this topic showed up. He goes further than his rhetoric than I would, I grant you, but it reflects a powerful anti-Libertarian opinion rather than just an attempt to be showy.
That's all well and good, but it doesn't make his statements any less erroneous. I don't care if its a knee jerk reaction to this thread or to the philosophy itself--it's still a knee-jerk.

That's at least in part because Libertarians are never collectively identified as such. You know why that is? Because they're Libertarians! They don't believe in collective effort!
My eyes are rolling heavenward with such vigorous intensity that I fear any moment my optic nerves will sever and send my eyes popping out of their sockets. How I typed this in the process I don't think we'll ever know...

Just because we're not Borg doesn't mean we don't have an ideology that guides us. Philosophy is not some bauble of the intellect--it is a power from which none of us can abstain. Without it, we would be powerless to operate on a level above animals. Compare Libertarian ideology with Nazi ideology for a moment and tell me what you see. Regardless of whether its adherents would rather not be described as such, the philosophy of Libertarianism abhors physical violence and sees its prevention as one of the (few) legitimate functions of government. Nazism, somehow, is allowed to encourage it--to carry it out even, and still wind up rosier than Libertarianism? Say what you will about the bad shit that might go on in a Libertarian state, you won't have uniformed mobs shoving naked mobs into ovens.

The comparison is horrific and erroneous. Anyone seriously considering it should have their god damned head examined. There is absolutely no basis for comparison; it's like saying a 13 year old violent videogame fanatic is a greater danger than a serial killer who's already killed 50 people.

Libertarianism is morally bankrupt because it has no institutional morality. It's as simple as that. Nazism was not morally bankrupt because it did, albeit one with a very dubious philosophical grounding.
Wow. Just... wow.

This one is kind of hard for me to respond to because I've started like fifty replies to this inane talking point and I can't decide just what angle to destroy it from--I've read some incredible shit in my life but I never thought I'd ever see anything as morally ignorant as this. So I'll just keep it short and sweet:

Libertarianism (whether it knows it or not--American Libertarianism doesn't) has an institutionalized morality. That morality is "Stay out of your neighbor's pants, off his back, and out of his house." What you're describing is anarchy.

But for what its worth, the American Libertarian Party has gone on the record as advocating an "amoral" government, but whether they know it or not their platform constitues a morality. So if we accept that both (sicne they are political philosophies) have insitutionalized morality, the question becomes: "Which is worse?" In my book, it's pretty hard to be much worse than carrying out the organized killing of an entire race.

Anyway, GnI's point isn't so much about the nature of the moral code (as far as I can gather) but rather that institutional safeguards in National Socialism temper the human tendency to exploit for personal gain in favour of the ideology of the State, whereas in Libertarianism no such temperance exists, which is itself a worrying aspect of any system that attempts to implement it. That, too, is a fair point, but it could easily have been made without the Nazi references.
Aristotle once said "Men do not become tyrants to keep out the cold." Leaving aside psychopaths (and it's always a sad day when those guys get the keys), people do not generally seek power to marginalze or destroy other people, since doing so doesn't generally benefit them directly unless he's trying to steal from them or whatever else. Armed conflicts, as we all well know, are usually fought over resources of some type, meaning that both groups of people are effectively operating under a prestense of the "greater good" (for their civilizations at least). The Greater Good is reponsible for at least as much damage and suffering throughout history as Religion. Exploiting people for personal gain is something that's generally done on an individual basis. Hitler didn't have the fillings melted out of teeth so he could have a gold toilet. He did it so that there would be more wealth for his bretheren. Personal exploit is the domain of the sadist; collective exploit is the domain of the Socialist--since apparently wealth is a bigger problem than poverty is.

Also, the Left's definition of "exploit" is usually pretty flexible. Up until very recently, wealth had been seen as a prize for very few--and it was nerly always obtained through violence or coercion. History is filled with examples. But Capitalists can;t make any money if people can't buy their crap, so it's hardly a surprise that market wages are almost always higher than what the government tells us they should be (minimum wage). Socialists and their ilk love to latch onto the evil Capitlist Plutocrat myth and assume that these people are out to screw the rest of us out of everything.

If that's the case, why am I being paid twice the national minimum? If businessmen are so overwhelmingly evil as to justify your concerns, then why are there any high paying, non-executive jobs out there? Strong unions may have initiated the transition period (and I believe it's a good thing they did), but they're hardly instrumental in keeping wages in line these days. Even where I work (I'm a Teamster) the Union regularly sides with the company not because either one is trying to screw us, but because they have a job to get done and there are certain things that need to happen to ensure success.

Businessmen may seek wealth, but they do not usually march armies across continents to obtain it. Bill Gates might be a little richer if I buy a computer off of him, but at least I got something for it whereas a few centuries ago it was more likely that I'd have my pocket picked outright by someone seeking wealth, rather than gain anything from him as a result. The process may not be perfect yet, but we've made a lot of progress.

It's up to you to determine for yourself whether or not that makes Libertarianism "worse" than Nazism. I'm inclined to agree that it isn't, but that's rather like agreeing that being stabbed in the chest 40 times isn't worse than being stabbed in the chest 50 times; I don't need to think Libertarianism is a good thing to agree.

For the record (despite how heated this has gotten) it was never my intention to initiate an extensive dialogue about Libertariansim. I just didn't know that there were people out there crazy enough to compare us to Nazis. Like I said before, I'm not going to sit idly by and have someone subtly imply to me that my philosophy is more degrading than one that would likely kill most of the people posting here.

I have to allow for the possibility that I'm affecting Asperger's Syndrome to legitimise my lack of people skills.

I'm mostly inclined to agree with you (your arguments, not your position), but I have a couple disagreements.

Basically it all boils down to what you think "Freedom" is, since pretty much everyone agrees that a free populus is better than an oppressed one (except, apparently, in this case). The left tends to regard Freedom as power or resources, which is why their programs are almost always geared to distributing power or resources to its citizens. Libertarianism regards "Freedom" as the absence of external controls. I believe the second to be a more complete definition, and I don't think that people are entitled to a certain amount of resources simply because they exist. Nature just doesn't work that way and it never has.It might be true that people aren't entitled to resources because they exist, but by extension it would mean they aren't entitled to anything because they exist - in other words, if humans aren't entitled to anything, then humans aren't entitled to human rights.

If that's the case, why am I being paid twice the national minimum? If businessmen are so overwhelmingly evil as to justify your concerns, then why are there any high paying, non-executive jobs out there? Strong unions may have initiated the transition period (and I believe it's a good thing they did), but they're hardly instrumental in keeping wages in line these days. Even where I work (I'm a Teamster) the Union regularly sides with the company not because either one is trying to screw us, but because they have a job to get done and there are certain things that need to happen to ensure success. Wages really aren't being kept in line these days, that's the problem. Real wages (wages adjusted for inflation) are decreasing for the lower classes.

I'm mostly inclined to agree with you (your arguments, not your position), but I have a couple disagreements.

It might be true that people aren't entitled to resources because they exist, but by extension it would mean they aren't entitled to anything because they exist - in other words, if humans aren't entitled to anything, then humans aren't entitled to human rights.
Eh? Just because you don't get free money or food or bikini wax for being born doesn't mean other people can't treat you civilly. I fail to see the connection between rights and resources.

Wages really aren't being kept in line these days, that's the problem. Real wages (wages adjusted for inflation) are decreasing for the lower classes.
Believe me, I know. I mean, I'm only 23 but I've lived on my own for a bit without making very much and I can tell you from firsthand experience that I can literally feel my purchasing power slipping through my fingers. Although I'm sure we'd disagree vehemently about the casue for this, the situation is still salvageable (and no, the answer isn't "have the government spend more money"). We're circling the drain, but we're not quite as low yet as many seem to think.

Basically it all boils down to what you think "Freedom" is, since pretty much everyone agrees that a free populus is better than an oppressed one (except, apparently, in this case). The left tends to regard Freedom as power or resources, which is why their programs are almost always geared to distributing power or resources to its citizens. Libertarianism regards "Freedom" as the absence of external controls. I believe the second to be a more complete definition, and I don't think that people are entitled to a certain amount of resources simply because they exist. Nature just doesn't work that way and it never has.


There is no meaningful distinction between the two "definitions" of freedom. After all, in seeking to eliminate external controls, Libertarianism itself seeks a redistribution of political power and resources. To whatever extent that "privatization" constitutes redistribution anyway (note that I'm not opposed to removing power from the state, I'm simply not impressed by what appears to be the extent of the Libertarian definition of "privatization;" transfering control from the oligarchy of the state to the oligarchy of a privileged class doesn't constitute much of a transfer.) Ah, but of course one will claim that Libertarianism doesn't seek a redistribution so much as it seeks to restore the "original" or "Natural" order. But...

Who cares how "Nature" works? This is something else I've failed to understand about Libertarianism. On the one hand, this appears to be an ideology that extols the virtues of free will and choice, but then its members are constantly falling back of the "Nature made me do it" sort of deterministic garbage in order to justify their position. At any rate, I would have to wonder about the rationality and humanity of any ideology that references an amoral state of affairs where the only rule is the bigger eating the smaller. My rights are supposed to end where your nose begins, yes?

But "Nature" cares not for either noses or rights.

And yes, I will reject arguments that human beings are "naturally" altruistic just as quickly as I will reject arguments that altruism is "unnatural" or whatever else. Deterministic dreck, the whole lot of it.

I think I may very well be developing an ulcer, thanks to reading GnI's posts.

Fuck.

Eh? Just because you don't get free money or food or bikini wax for being born doesn't mean other people can't treat you civilly. I fail to see the connection between rights and resources.


The protection of basic human liberties requires collective action of some sort ("public," "private," or "whatever"). This collective action requires spending resources.

If, then, my mere existence is insufficient to warrant a share of resources, assumed is the similar conclusion that my mere existence is insufficient to warrant spending a share of resources toward a particular end. Including those ends that assist in securing my basic human rights. If I cannot have a guaranteed share of resources spent toward the purpose of securing my basic rights, I have no security or guarantee of those rights. I have no rights of any kind in any meaningful or useful sense.

In any case, whether characteristic of Libertarianism, or Libertarian Socialism, or Authoritarian Socialism, or Crony/Authoritarian Capitalism, nothing changes about the basic relationship between rights and resources. In Libertarian-Land, where the whole of human relationships are reduced to economic trade, I cannot secure what I need, including security in my rights, if I cannot command a sufficient share of the particular economic resource traded. Likewise in Government-Gone-Amok-Land, where the whole of human relationships are reduced to the balancing of personal political influence/power, I cannot secure what I need, including security in my rights, if I cannot command a sufficient share of political influence/power.

In both cases, there will be people with insufficient access to the valued resource and thus people without rights. Trying to pretend that rights will exist, in either case, independent of the distribution of the valued resource is to live in a fantasy. This is why I've arrived at my own conclusion, that one cannot reject "big government" without rejecting the Libertarian alternative; digging down a little, it becomes obvious that both constitute manifestations of essentially the exact same phenomenon. Where political power or economic resources can be held privately and exclusively, some can be deprived of rights by others. This is unacceptable.

I was diagnosed with it in 2001.

AS varies quite a bit. It's a neurobiological disorder and has many definitive characteristics. AS is very often seen as an Autism spectrum disorder. There is a great deal of debate on whether AS is a higher functioning form of autism. There still needs to be a great deal more research as this has only come into the forefront in the past 10-15 years. People with AS often have difficulties in social situations. Most AS children are of normal intelligence, but lack of spacial and emotional intelligence. Some even show great gifts in a number of different areas. I believe it was HBO who did a special called "Idiot Savants." I thought the name was incredibly cruel at the time I saw it. The actual show was a good look into the world of AS kids with tremendous talents. AS kids can have extrasensory abilities and may hear things others might not. It's a very serious, but very interesting (form a psychological perspective) disorder.

Believe me, I know. I mean, I'm only 23 but I've lived on my own for a bit without making very much and I can tell you from firsthand experience that I can literally feel my purchasing power slipping through my fingers. Although I'm sure we'd disagree vehemently about the casue for this, the situation is still salvageable (and no, the answer isn't "have the government spend more money"). We're circling the drain, but we're not quite as low yet as many seem to think.Government spending might not be the answer, but there is a strong correlation between collective bargaining and higher wages and benefits, and if this correlation is accurate, increased collective bargaining is the answer.

(I'm not ignoring the other thing you said, but TLO answered it quite well.)

There is no meaningful distinction between the two "definitions" of freedom. After all, in seeking to eliminate external controls, Libertarianism itself seeks a redistribution of political power and resources. To whatever extent that "privatization" constitutes redistribution anyway (note that I'm not opposed to removing power from the state, I'm simply not impressed by what appears to be the extent of the Libertarian definition of "privatization;" transfering control from the oligarchy of the state to the oligarchy of a privileged class doesn't constitute much of a transfer.) Ah, but of course one will claim that Libertarianism doesn't seek a redistribution so much as it seeks to restore the "original" or "Natural" order.
Imagine my surprise when i load up this thread and read something that's actually intellectually stimulating for a change. I don't think I've encountered anything quite like this.

You have an excellent point, but I still disagree. To a Libertarian, freedom is attained when external controls are eliminated. The redistribution of political and economic power that might arise as a result of the loss of said controls would merely be a byproduct of our actions. You're right, in a way, but the Left (obviously) believes that external controls and freedom are not mutually exclusive.

You talk about not having a problem with removing power from the state, but go on to say that giving it to the people isn't good enough (since we all know people aren't actually created equal and some will rise above others in a merit-based society) which is kind of puzzling to me. Your complaint seems to boil down to "arg, under Libertarianism we'd have a different group of assholes in charge," but I got news for ya: that'll happen anyway.


But...

Who cares how "Nature" works?
Well as long as we're living in it I'd hope someone does. In order to live in harmony with reality, we must be aware of its characteristics. It is baffling to me why you would ask (in essence) "Who cares how reality works?" You kind of stole your own thunder by posting something really insightful and then turning around and suggesting (subtly, I'll grant) that political ideologies and reality need have no relationship at all.

But to answer your question, anyone with the slightest interest in philosophy should care how nature works, because, frankly, you can't really live anywhere else. In order to create a basis for living within nature, one must first understand how it works and what our place in it really is.

This is something else I've failed to understand about Libertarianism. On the one hand, this appears to be an ideology that extols the virtues of free will and choice, but then its members are constantly falling back of the "Nature made me do it" sort of deterministic garbage in order to justify their position. At any rate, I would have to wonder about the rationality and humanity of any ideology that references an amoral state of affairs where the only rule is the bigger eating the smaller. My rights are supposed to end where your nose begins, yes?

But "Nature" cares not for either noses or rights.

And yes, I will reject arguments that human beings are "naturally" altruistic just as quickly as I will reject arguments that altruism is "unnatural" or whatever else. Deterministic dreck, the whole lot of it.
I've never heard a Libertarian "justify his position" by saying "nature made me do it." Most of the libertarians I've met are more inclined to say "I made me do it." I don't know who you've been talking to, but they're not Libertarians. I've never met a Determinist Libertarian in my entire life (and I've met some crazy-ass people) and I'm curious about where you're getting that wildly erroneous stereotype. It's one thing to acknowledge that humans have certain preferences and attributes; recognizing this fact does not make one a determinist. I'm sure there are some out there who are happily ignoring Libertarian's broader message about individualism and free will (both of which are quite at odds with Determinism).

But your point about nature and noses is another good one (wow! 2 good points in one post! If only myopponents had the courtesy to point those out! :p); even though I never meant to suggest that "Living within nature" should mean we should go back to flinging poo at each other and embrace violence.

(If Free Soviets had entrance music, this would be where we cue it if he's still aprpoving of animal rights terrorism) The ability to reason on an abstract level and identify moral concerns is what gives us our rights--the ability to reason. A squirrel can not moralize any more than can a rock or a tree or an airplane tire. That is why these objects (or organisms) do not have rights in the strictest sense of the term. In a weird sort of way, nature grants us our rights.

The protection of basic human liberties requires collective action of some sort ("public," "private," or "whatever"). This collective action requires spending resources.
Correct.

If, then, my mere existence is insufficient to warrant a share of resources, assumed is the similar conclusion that my mere existence is insufficient to warrant spending a share of resources toward a particular end.
ncluding those ends that assist in securing my basic human rights. If I cannot have a guaranteed share of resources spent toward the purpose of securing my basic rights, I have no security or guarantee of those rights. I have no rights of any kind in any meaningful or useful sense.
You're basically saying that "If I don't get guaranteed resources, I have no rights," which is eye rollingly exasperating bullshit. It's true that the enforcement of a moral code (in this case, protecting our rights) requires the expenditure of resources, but it's not like a cop is going to hand you a bill for arresting the asshole who just tried to rob you. The maintenance of a police force may (since I'm unfamiliar with the overall expense and am willing to pay for such a valuable service) be one of the few things I'd pay taxes for.

A Libertarian government would exist to protect private citizens from others and enforce contracts. It's not going to ignore you (contrary to apparently popular belief) if you don't have resources. I mean, shit. I make less than 10k a year and I'm pretty sure if someone burglarized me and got cuahgt, he'd wind up in the same jail as someone who burglarized a multimillionaire. Yes, rights require resources to defend, but that doesn't mean it follows that people who have no resources have no rights. They might have no power, but power and rights are not synonymous in most cases.

In any case, whether characteristic of Libertarianism, or Libertarian Socialism, or Authoritarian Socialism, or Crony/Authoritarian Capitalism, nothing changes about the basic relationship between rights and resources. In Libertarian-Land, where the whole of human relationships are reduced to economic trade, I cannot secure what I need, including security in my rights, if I cannot command a sufficient share of the particular economic resource traded. Likewise in Government-Gone-Amok-Land, where the whole of human relationships are reduced to the balancing of personal political influence/power, I cannot secure what I need, including security in my rights, if I cannot command a sufficient share of political influence/power.
This is effectively a rehash of your first paragraph. I'm quoting it to let you know I read and paid attention to it, but I didn't find anything in here that was too terribly different than what you already said. If I missed something feel free to let me know, but it sounds like you're just expanding on the points you made earlier.

In both cases, there will be people with insufficient access to the valued resource and thus people without rights. Trying to pretend that rights will exist, in either case, independent of the distribution of the valued resource is to live in a fantasy. This is why I've arrived at my own conclusion, that one cannot reject "big government" without rejecting the Libertarian alternative; digging down a little, it becomes obvious that both constitute manifestations of essentially the exact same phenomenon. Where political power or economic resources can be held privately and exclusively, some can be deprived of rights by others. This is unacceptable.
Let me hit you with a cold, hard fact of life (and this isn't to say I agree with your viewpoints re: power and resources): people get screwed. People get screwed under Communism, and people get screwed by the Welfare state. People get screwed by Socialism, and yes, people get screwed under Capitalism too.

I touched upon this earlier. Life can be ugly, but it sure as shit beats the alternative. I'm not advocating a philosophy because I think it's an excellent editorial on reality; I advocate it because it's an excellent description of reality. While most people do tend to oversimplify or exaggerate the "dog eat dog" mentality behind Capitalism/Libertarianism, it is there because it's a simple fact. But hey, at least you're not actually being eaten.

I'm a Libertarian because I want to live and be content while I can. I don't care that some groups will (and they will) have a greater share of economic/political power, but as long as we have the same rights as individuals, I could care less.

Government spending might not be the answer, but there is a strong correlation between collective bargaining and higher wages and benefits, and if this correlation is accurate, increased collective bargaining is the answer
True, but collective bargaining tends to lose steam and the organizations have a hard time keeping themselves together once their preliminary goals are attained. Compare the influence and presence of Unions in the 1950s to their power now. They didn't diminish because of sleazy, union-busting Capitalists (some might have) but by and large they faded away because the did what they set out to do--which is good, but they seem to want to stick around-- god only knows what they're trying to do these days. I don't mind collective bargaining agreements, but they should have specific goals and clear-cut parameters for what happens after those goals are acheived.

You're right, in a way, but the Left (obviously) believes that external controls and freedom are not mutually exclusive.

No, more or less everyone believes that (unless they are absolutist pacifists or don't believe in freedom.)

"Libertarians" just pretend they don't because they assume as a default the system of property rights they advocate external controls to protect. It's true that they don't advocate external controls beyond those. But then, the Left doesn't advocate external controls beyond those necessary to maintain its ends, either. ;)

True, but collective bargaining tends to lose steam and the organizations have a hard time keeping themselves together once their preliminary goals are attained. Compare the influence and presence of Unions in the 1950s to their power now. They didn't diminish because of sleazy, union-busting Capitalists (some might have) but by and large they faded away because the did what they set out to do--which is good, but they seem to want to stick around-- god only knows what they're trying to do these days.A lot of what was done back then is being undone, either by legal change or lack of legal enforcement, so presumably they're trying to maintain what was done before.

I don't mind collective bargaining agreements, but they should have specific goals and clear-cut parameters for what happens after those goals are acheived.Certainly - in most cases this should be improving upon the original agreements.

No, more or less everyone believes that (unless they are absolutist pacifists or don't believe in freedom.)

"Libertarians" just pretend they don't because they assume as a default the system of property rights they advocate external controls to protect. It's true that they don't advocate external controls beyond those. But then, the Left doesn't advocate external controls beyond those necessary to maintain its ends, either. ;)

Okay, youre right, that does deserve a clarification. Enforcement of any type does require some external control. The difference is that the Left will control non-criminal activity like working at a job or transferring retirement funds form one account to another. You're right that both ideologies do what they do to maintain their ends (after all, I would expect no less of any other ethos as well) but when I talk about "external controls," I'm referring to the control of actions that don't damage other people.

Under Libertarianism, all such controls are reactive, whereas in the Left they are preventative. I've heard people tell me before that the very act of putting money in a savings account is tantamount to direct physical harm to the poor (nevermind that I'm poor too goddammit), and it's this skewed mentality that makes them prone to enact pre-emptive controls like we see in many Left states.

Unfortunately, preventing immorality is often a fruitless endeavor. You can't really cover all your bases with every citizen until they all have cameras in their rooms, and then all of a sudden we're in Orwell country, and no one likes that. I prefer to let people live and make them pay the consequences for their actions, than to assume everyone will murder his neighbor and steal all his stuff if given the chance. Left ideology strikes me as a very distrustful philosophy; and it's been implied to me many times that society would become an orgy of theft and destruction and suffering almost overnight if we removed the government controls I'd like us to remove. While I don't have a tremendous amount of faith in large groups of people (*cough*elections*cough*), I do believe they should be given the benefit of the doubt.

EDIT: TLO's quote in your sig is exactly what I'm talking about. Starvation is not "produced" by economic systems, it is produced by living on a planet that doesn't have infinite resources. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure we don't have enough arable land on this planet to feed 6 billion people, which is part of the reason why starvation is so rampant in Africa (who must all be hardcore capitalists because they're starving, right?). The idea that Capitalism (or for that matter, any ideology) creates poverty or hunger is, to be blunt, fucking retarded. Poverty and hunger existed for thousands of years before Capitalism did. And for all the horror stories you hear about it, Far, far more people die of overeating in America than die of starvation. Resources are obscenely abundant here, and I cant understand why anyone would freak out about hunger when just about the only people who starve in this country are anorexics.

The idea that these systems "create" poverty or suffering where it "wouldn't otherwise exist" (even though it would) is missing the forest for the trees. We will never elminate human suffering, so our goal should be to minimalize it. I know you're smart enough to know this and I know you're not saying that any one "magic bullet" can solve all of our problems, but the Left as a whole doesn't really take this fact very seriously. They will grudgingly accept this reality when I point it out to them, yet will turn around and demand policies that seem to be built around "eliminating hunger," which, for the record, Capitalism is currently working on at a much faster pace than any government. The people trying to bioengineer crops to feed starving Africans aren't government officials, they're ADM employees. Same thing with alternate energy: Barack "Throw more money at it and hope the problem goes away" Obama is talking big and tough now about subsidizing alternate energy sources when the private sector has already been fucking working on it.

Assuming the proper external controls are in place (:p ), Capitlalists have plenty of motivation so solve a wide variety of problems. Whoever figures out our energy crisis will become the richest man in the world. Whoever figures out how to get an acre of crops to produce twice what it normally does will probably be the second richest man. Financial motivation, believe it or not, can have profound benefits for the rest of us. It's like I said earlier: 200 years ago if someone wanted money from me, he'd probably just beat me up and take it. Now he goes out and starts a business to distribute products or services for profit. I call that progress!

Under Libertarianism, all such controls are reactive, whereas in the Left they are preventative.

This distinction is artificial.

For instance, in a socialist society it is perfectly possible that income would not be taxed: society's share would come directly from its ownership of the means of production. In such a system, all "external controls" would be reactive: no one can steal from what belongs to the public, but no one is obligated beyond that.

Similarly, it is misleading to speak of anything but the actual process of tax payment (as opposed to the monetary transfer itself) as a matter of positive obligation: rather, it is a matter of society claiming its share, and the "external controls" react to your "theft" from society. If that counts as a "preventative" external control, so do legal penalties for the refusal to honor a contract.

The real question is not "preventative" v. "reactive", which presupposes a just system of distribution: it is whether the economic distribution of free-market capitalism can in fact be defended on grounds of freedom. All economic distributions are defended by external controls that protect ownership rights: the only difference in this respect between libertarian free-market capitalism and the alternatives is the nature of the distribution itself, that is, who actually owns what.

Left ideology strikes me as a very distrustful philosophy; and it's been implied to me many times that society would become an orgy of theft and destruction and suffering almost overnight if we removed the government controls I'd like us to remove.

This sounds a lot more like right-wing "law and order" ranting than anything coming from the Left.

EDIT: TLO's quote in your sig is exactly what I'm talking about. Starvation is not "produced" by economic systems, it is produced by living on a planet that doesn't have infinite resources. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure we don't have enough arable land on this planet to feed 6 billion people,

Actually we do. In fact, we have a lot more than enough. Famine is virtually always a problem of distribution nowadays. (Also, a vast quantity of food is wasted on feeding farm animals.)

Poverty and hunger existed for thousands of years before Capitalism did.

Right. The problem with capitalism is that poverty and hunger continue to exist when they don't have to--or at the very least to a much greater extent than they have to.

And for all the horror stories you hear about it, Far, far more people die of overeating in America than die of starvation.

The world isn't the United States. And your concept of food abundance is too one-dimensional. Just because almost everyone has access to cheap food doesn't mean almost everyone has access to cheap healthy food... especially considering the time constraints often faced by the poor.

Resources are obscenely abundant here, and I cant understand why anyone would freak out about hunger when just about the only people who starve in this country are anorexics.

That's simply not true, and in any case we do not currently live in a strictly "laissez-faire" economy: we do in fact have a welfare state.

which, for the record, Capitalism is currently working on at a much faster pace than any government.

Actually, that's not true. Free-market policies just aren't very good at feeding the poor, because hunger is itself a serious cause of inequality of opportunity.

The people trying to bioengineer crops to feed starving Africans aren't government officials, they're ADM employees.

Most bioengineering has next to no effect on feeding starving anyones. There's no incentive.

Same thing with alternate energy: Barack "Throw more money at it and hope the problem goes away" Obama is talking big and tough now about subsidizing alternate energy sources when the private sector has already been fucking working on it.

The question is not, "Will the private sector supply it?" In all probability it will, even if there's no monetary incentive at all--much as apologists for capitalism like to ignore the fact, human motivation is a complex thing. The question is whether the private sector will supply it sufficiently.

In the case of alternative energy, due to the high costs and risk of scientific research and technological development and the public goods status of a lot of science and technology (unless we want to get really broad with intellectual property rights, a move with its own set of problems), it's quite likely that leaving the matter to the private sector will produce an undersupply. That sort of stuff has always tended to have a lot of public involvement and funding. Take the case of both computers and the Internet.

Whoever figures out our energy crisis will become the richest man in the world. Whoever figures out how to get an acre of crops to produce twice what it normally does will probably be the second richest man.

No one will do either. A whole bunch of people working in different places will contribute to it, and their incentives, absent government intervention, are likely to be disproportionately low.

This distinction is artificial.
The hell it is!

For instance, in a socialist society it is perfectly possible that income would not be taxed: society's share would come directly from its ownership of the means of production. In such a system, all "external controls" would be reactive: no one can steal from what belongs to the public, but no one is obligated beyond that.
Ownership as a concept is difficult to distribute among a large group of individuals. The fewer people are involved, the better it works. If two people own a house or a lot or a factory it's genrally no big deal--they can still do what they please with it for the most part and it's easy to confer with one's partner if one owner or the other has different plans or ideas for their shared capital.

I get confused a lot when the left talks about society owning the means of production, mainly because in publicly traded companies, it already does. Such a policy would still require an individual or a body of individuals to regulate the incoming resources from $MEANS_OF_PRODUCTION (whatever it ends up being) to make sure that everyone gets an "equal" share. Communism failed in part because it's doctrine didn't realize that administrative actions cannot be carried out by millions of citizens simulatenously. Someone has to funnel all those resources to society, and that person will be economically empowered over his neighbors simply by the nature of his task.

But I digress. Just because there's a lot that can go wrong under Socialism doesn't mean there isn't also a lot of shit that can go wrong under Libertarianism. It's just that I've always admired humanity's "it's not enough" instinct that drives us towards our goals and (sometimes) improves our living conditions drastically. Looking over the course of modern history, it strikes me that we've made the changes we've made because we moved away from the "God owns you" mentality of the Dark Ages and progressed into the "I own me" philosophy that is the underpinning of all modern liberalism. I feel that Libertarianism is the best fit for this mentality; Socialism strikes me as Feudalism but with 800,000 Lords instead of one. Better the asshole you know than the 799,999 you don't, right?

Similarly, it is misleading to speak of anything but the actual process of tax payment (as opposed to the monetary transfer itself) as a matter of positive obligation: rather, it is a matter of society claiming its share, and the "external controls" react to your "theft" from society. If that counts as a "preventative" external control, so do legal penalties for the refusal to honor a contract.

The real question is not "preventative" v. "reactive", which presupposes a just system of distribution: it is whether the economic distribution of free-market capitalism can in fact be defended on grounds of freedom. All economic distributions are defended by external controls that protect ownership rights: the only difference in this respect between libertarian free-market capitalism and the alternatives is the nature of the distribution itself, that is, who actually owns what.

But you're assuming that society (for some reason) deserves a share. Why should it? If I'm the one busting my ass to move your goddamn JCPenny furniture and your Discount Tires (I would put money on one of you driving on tires that I shipped), I'm the one who should get paid for it. Demanding a share of the national pot, so to speak, is nothing more than wanting one's cake and eating it too.

I know what you're going to say. You're going to say that the fact that I have a job, the fact that society allows me to operate is something for which I "owe" them, and that the policies perpetuated by this society deserve to be repaid.

Fuck that. The fact that society might happen to recognize my rights is not something for which they deserve to be rewarded. Leaving aside the "Tax=theft" argument for the moment (that's not what the following allegory is meant to describe), think about this: If someone pulls a gun on you and demands your wallet, does he earn any moral brownie points for not shooting you? No. The reason is because a zero-value (in this case, coercion) cannot hold a "moral mortage" on an actual value (in this case, personal well being or money).

Even though the above is something of an exaggerated example, the same notion lies behind the idea that society deserves to be repaid for allowing me to exist in a livable environment. Basically, you're asking that I reward my neighbors for something they should be doing anyway.


This sounds a lot more like right-wing "law and order" ranting than anything coming from the Left.
Funny, isn't it? Yet I've heard it on this very forum. Usually implicitly, but it's there. There seems to be this notion that society will collapse without things like labor legislation and price controls on commodities; that wages will drop like a stone and prices will skyrocket because the forces that govern economics are thought to lie within the realm of government (even though various economies around the world and at many places in history have proved that it doesn't). It does sound like right wing law and order ranting; that's exactly what it is just on an entirely different (economic vs criminal) level.

Actually we do. In fact, we have a lot more than enough. Famine is virtually always a problem of distribution nowadays. (Also, a vast quantity of food is wasted on feeding farm animals.)
Tell that to this guy. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug) Give it a read, it's good stuff.

Right. The problem with capitalism is that poverty and hunger continue to exist when they don't have to--or at the very least to a much greater extent than they have to.
Are you serious? Compared to what? Poor people in this country are a lot better off than almost any other nation's poor. They're more likely to have adequate clothing, housing, and a ready food supply than, say, a starving African or a marginalized Asiatic. I mean yeah, I've seen bums here, but have you ever seen their 3rd world equivalents? This is exactly why Socialism is such Ivory Tower bullshit. A crap ton of resources with "unfair" distribution is preferable to no resources with amazing distribution ("Hey Blake Avenue, come quick! I found a donut!").

The world isn't the United States. And your concept of food abundance is too one-dimensional. Just because almost everyone has access to cheap food doesn't mean almost everyone has access to cheap healthy food... especially considering the time constraints often faced by the poor.
Please. The lifespan of someone who ate too much shitty food is going to be a lot longer and possibly more valuable than someone who died in 5 weeks because they couldn't find anything to eat. I'm not saying there isn't room for improvement; but you and I could probably both find things to bitch about (from entirely different angles) in nearly any political circumstance. The reason for this is our desire to better our circumstances, to attain goals as I mentioned earlier.

That's simply not true, and in any case we do not currently live in a strictly "laissez-faire" economy: we do in fact have a welfare state....Actually, that's not true. Free-market policies just aren't very good at feeding the poor, because hunger is itself a serious cause of inequality of opportunity...Most bioengineering has next to no effect on feeding starving anyones. There's no incentive.

I didn't say anywhere in any of my posts (here or otherwise) that America had a purely Capitalist economy. It has Capitalistic interests existing within it. But for a nation our size, we're the closest thing there is.
If free market policies don't feed the poor, then why are America's poor so well-fed (by comparison)? By world standards, America has a pretty free economy. Wouldn't it follow, then, that our roads should be clogged with our starving masses?
For someone so interested in making sure everyone has adequate resources, you're shockingly ignorant of global agriculture. If our population continues to grow at this rate, we will need to double our worldwide food output by 2050, and it's taxed enough as it is. The two solutions are (and guess which one is more feasible): relocate all cities on arable land to new locations, or figure out a way to make crops that have more veggies on them than the ones we have now. Fixing our distribution may help feed the people we have now, but it won't solve the problem in the long term.

The question is not, "Will the private sector supply it?" In all probability it will, even if there's no monetary incentive at all--much as apologists for capitalism like to ignore the fact, human motivation is a complex thing. The question is whether the private sector will supply it sufficiently.
News flash: if a business perceives a massive demand for a product or resource there isn't nearly enough of, you can bet your ass they'll work morning noon and night to figure out how to fulfill that demand. That's pretty rudimentary economics.

And I do not ignore the fact that human motivation is a complex thing*--and if anything, the fact that it is proves my goddamn point that we should all be treated as individuals both socially and economically because we have different needs and desires that can't possibly be met by any mass program. I'm not a Socialist because you can't guarantee people happiness or prosperity. If I have a lonely old lady for a neighbor I can go cut her grass and carry her groceries, and spend time with her or whatever else, but there is simply no guarantee that it will actually enrich that person's living experience. You cannnot promise happiness or prosperity to people: on a moral level, all you can really promise is freedom.

In the case of alternative energy, due to the high costs and risk of scientific research and technological development and the public goods status of a lot of science and technology (unless we want to get really broad with intellectual property rights, a move with its own set of problems), it's quite likely that leaving the matter to the private sector will produce an undersupply. That sort of stuff has always tended to have a lot of public involvement and funding. Take the case of both computers and the Internet.
No one will do either. A whole bunch of people working in different places will contribute to it, and their incentives, absent government intervention, are likely to be disproportionately low.
Unfortunately for this argument, the Industrialized world has already changed energy sources once (we went from Horse to Oil a little while back, remember?) and the evidence seems to indicate that Capitalism was a major impetus behind the change. Remind me to laugh if you ever complain about the cost of oil; because its absurd to assume when looking at Oil companies' record profits that people can't be arsed to solve transportation problems. There's plenty of money in it and if the problem does get solved, it will almost certainly go to the organization responsible and everybody knows it. The startup process may be long and costly, but believe it or not people have endured worse for less.

Don't be absurd. Capitalism can and has solved these problems in the past. Believe it or not, there are actually rich people out there who like to do things with their money. That's why the eccentrics are always so fun! :D Like: "Hey i'm gonna fly a fuckin' KITE in a STORM and see what happens!"


*Don't get carried away with it though. Motivation can be complex sometimes and simple other times; it varies from individual to individual and case by case. Sometimes I might have like 20 million factors coming into a decision I make, other decisions I may make simply because I want to get laid or I'm hungry. What I'm talking about here is motivation in context with long-range life goals and desires.

Ownership as a concept is difficult to distribute among a large group of individuals.

I get confused a lot when the left talks about society owning the means of production, mainly because in publicly traded companies, it already does.

I'm sorry; this confuses me.

First, you say that "ownership as a concept is difficult to distribute among a large group of individuals"... and then you give an example of exactly that that's routine within modern capitalist economies.

Surely the presence of publicly-traded corporations proves that widely distributed ownership can and does work? You find socialists saying exactly that if you go back to their writings in the late nineteenth century.

As for "society owning the means of production", don't be disingenuous. To be meaningful, social ownership necessarily entails equal ownership. For most socialists, that means economic institutions are brought within the realm of political equality: democratic governance. (Though, of course, we split when it comes to exactly what sort of "democratic governance" we want.)

Such a policy would still require an individual or a body of individuals to regulate the incoming resources from $MEANS_OF_PRODUCTION (whatever it ends up being) to make sure that everyone gets an "equal" share.

Well, if you mean that ownership entails management, yes, of course--but we routinely delegate management in modern capitalism (in that case of widely-distributed ownership you already cited), so I fail to see why you think it's impossible in other economies.

There's actually a real problem here--what's called the principal-agent problem--but I doubt that socialism would do much worse than corporate capitalism does in that regard.

Someone has to funnel all those resources to society, and that person will be economically empowered over his neighbors simply by the nature of his task.

Actually, you're right. This is an important anarchist criticism of certain kinds of economic structures, and one to which I'm actually quite sympathetic. But solutions probably require adjustments to our social and economic system that are even more radical than public ownership, and to go into them would be a digression.

More to the point, socialists can, with much justification, distinguish coherently between "ownership" and "management", just as modern corporate capitalism does. We may object to the undue power of management under both socialism and capitalism, but at least in socialism it is society that ultimately reaps the profits, and the manager is held accountable according to its standard--not that of profit-maximizing private owners.

But you're assuming that society (for some reason) deserves a share. Why should it? If I'm the one busting my ass to move your goddamn JCPenny furniture and your Discount Tires (I would put money on one of you driving on tires that I shipped), I'm the one who should get paid for it. Demanding a share of the national pot, so to speak, is nothing more than wanting one's cake and eating it too.

And now we get to the real issue, the one that your artificial distinction between "reactive" and "preventative" dodged... and you'll note that it's one about distribution, not about freedom.

The problem with your argument here is that you presuppose the justice of free-market earnings. On the free market, your labor has a certain price, and you assume that you should get it. But why? Yes, you did the work... but so what? Labor alone doesn't entitle you to anything. If I perform a task, even a difficult task, and no one gives me a cent for it, I still have no claim of right.

Is it because you were promised it? But you weren't, really... you knew you were going to be taxed, and you agreed to the exchange anyway. Society did not suddenly enter in at the last minute and demand a share.

Can you make a case from "desert"? But then you must consider the endless factors that enter into free-market capitalist distribution that have nothing to do with desert... differences in natural talent, in opportunities to develop that natural talent, and so forth. If we wanted to construct a society where distribution is based on desert, it would probably be far more egalitarian than the present one, and certainly the distribution would be radically different (and the consequences for efficiency would probably be quite disastrous.)

I know what you're going to say. You're going to say that the fact that I have a job, the fact that society allows me to operate is something for which I "owe" them, and that the policies perpetuated by this society deserve to be repaid.

No, I'm not. ;)

There seems to be this notion that society will collapse without things like labor legislation and price controls on commodities; that wages will drop like a stone and prices will skyrocket because the forces that govern economics are thought to lie within the realm of government (even though various economies around the world and at many places in history have proved that it doesn't).

But this has nothing whatsoever to do with "trust."

What we trust businesses to do, in general--and this tends to hold true for both opponents and supporters of capitalism--is to maximize profits. The difference is not in our expectations of their behavior, but in our expectations of its consequences: advocates of free-market capitalism tend to argue that the result will be socially beneficial, and opponents tend to argue the opposite.

Now, just as with crime, unlike the "law and order" advocates I tend to be pretty optimistic about the potential for "trusting" citizens to not be wantonly cruel to one another. But I don't make the same assumption when it comes to institutional behavior... because capitalist economic institutions depersonalize human interaction and elevate (sometimes with the force of law) the profit motive over the multitude of concerns most human beings actually have. That's what they do--that's the role they play within the economy.

Tell that to this guy. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug) Give it a read, it's good stuff.

Yes, right, increase the supply of anything and you make things better for people who need it. So?

That has no bearing on the question of whether we have enough food to feed everyone.

Are you serious? Compared to what? Poor people in this country are a lot better off than almost any other nation's poor.

First, no, they aren't better off than poor people in other industrialized nations--quite the contrary.

Second, I don't know where you get the idea that capitalism is a phenomenon confined to the United States, such that every success of the US is a success of capitalism, and every failure elsewhere can't possibly have anything to do with capitalism.

Please. The lifespan of someone who ate too much shitty food is going to be a lot longer and possibly more valuable than someone who died in 5 weeks because they couldn't find anything to eat.

So? It still isn't as if our food problems are caused by economic overabundance. For the most part, we don't "eat too much." We eat too much of the wrong things and live unhealthy lifestyles... both of which, if anything, are exacerbated by capitalism.

I didn't say anywhere in any of my posts (here or otherwise) that America had a purely Capitalist economy. It has Capitalistic interests existing within it. But for a nation our size, we're the closest thing there is.

You'll note that the quotation in my signature explicitly references the welfare state as a (though not the best) solution to the hunger capitalism causes. Defending it doesn't require stating in any way that in current capitalist societies (with welfare states), hunger is actually a major problem.

TLO, for what it's worth, would be the first to suggest that free markets absolutely can solve that problem... he has repeatedly extolled the virtues of private mutual-aid organizations.

If free market policies don't feed the poor, then why are America's poor so well-fed (by comparison)? By world standards, America has a pretty free economy. Wouldn't it follow, then, that our roads should be clogged with our starving masses?

No. Not unless there's only one variable that's different. Which is obviously false.

Fixing our distribution may help feed the people we have now, but it won't solve the problem in the long term.

If food is as scarce as you say, that only magnifies the urgency of altering distribution: if we barely have enough to go around, certainly some people shouldn't be hoarding.

News flash: if a business perceives a massive demand for a product or resource there isn't nearly enough of, you can bet your ass they'll work morning noon and night to figure out how to fulfill that demand. That's pretty rudimentary economics.

That's exactly right. It's "rudimentary economics." When you move beyond rudimentary economics, you learn about the market failures that make things a whole lot less neat.

Surely you've heard of public goods? A business will only fulfill the demand if it will be paid for it, but a lot of goods are non-excludable: they can't be restricted to those who pay. (Music is turning into one of these.) What about asymmetric information? Sometimes a business won't fulfill a demand because it has no way of signifying reliably to a consumer that their product actually does so. And so forth. It would be wonderful if we had perfect, competitive markets that just on their own achieved efficient equilibriums every time... but the real world doesn't work that way.

I'm not a Socialist because you can't guarantee people happiness or prosperity.

Nobody says you can. But certainly you can make things easier.

Unfortunately for this argument, the Industrialized world has already changed energy sources once (we went from Horse to Oil a little while back, remember?) and the evidence seems to indicate that Capitalism was a major impetus behind the change.

Well, industrialization was. In any case, you haven't met the requirement. Even taking your assertion that the private sector managed it on its own to be true--though actually government intervention during the period wasn't as uncommon as it's sometimes made out to be--you haven't shown that it was done in the best or most efficient manner. Furthermore, empirically speaking the government has had a hell of a lot of involvement in recent technological development, with a great deal of success.

Don't be absurd. Capitalism can and has solved these problems in the past. Believe it or not, there are actually rich people out there who like to do things with their money.

I don't doubt that capitalism can solve these problems. I just doubt that "pure" capitalism can solve these problems as efficiently as it would with government subsidies.

You're right, in a way, but the Left (obviously) believes that external controls and freedom are not mutually exclusive.


Assuming that a Libertarian means "state/government" when he says "external control" (an accurate description of Libertarian thought, I think, even if the equation is excessively narrow), there are plenty of leftists who believe that "external control" and freedom are mutually exclusive.


You talk about not having a problem with removing power from the state, but go on to say that giving it to the people isn't good enough (since we all know people aren't actually created equal and some will rise above others in a merit-based society) which is kind of puzzling to me.


You're puzzled because I wasn't clear enough in explaining my belief that Libertarianism does not aim to give the power to the people. At most, it aims to redistribute the power to specific economic interests ("privitization") which are still a good deal many levels removed from "the people" in general.

And I don't buy the appeal to "merit." Whether intentionally or not, the situation essentially amounts to one where politically entrenched economic interests built massive wealth through government intervention, and then turning around to bring the people freedom by "eliminating" government intervention and keeping the loot.


Your complaint seems to boil down to "arg, under Libertarianism we'd have a different group of assholes in charge," but I got news for ya: that'll happen anyway.


So at least Libertarianism isn't worse than the other available options. But it's not really any better either. Why, then, should I pursue it?


Well as long as we're living in it I'd hope someone does. In order to live in harmony with reality, we must be aware of its characteristics. It is baffling to me why you would ask (in essence) "Who cares how reality works?" You kind of stole your own thunder by posting something really insightful and then turning around and suggesting (subtly, I'll grant) that political ideologies and reality need have no relationship at all.


You've have unconsciously (I'll assume) switched from invoking "Nature" to invoking "reality." Your subtle change in argument then makes my own seem strange.

Arguments from nature suggest that human behavior is merely the result of biological processes over which we have little or no control. I rejected this apparent argument because, obviously, reality shows us that human beings prefer free will and choice. As such...


...one must first understand how it works and what our place in it really is.


...my place is whatever I say it is. Simple as that.


I don't know who you've been talking to, but they're not Libertarians.


Well, I've personally observed an apparent increase in concentration of conservative, religious, and war-hawk types among supposedly "Libertarian" ranks, especially since 9/11. This forum is itself home to at least a few "Libertarians" or "anarcho-capitalists" who extol the virtues of aristocracy and so-called "benevolent" absolutist rule. Taking "privatization" to its ultimate extreme, I suppose.

In fairness, I don't really consider these people "Libertarian" myself, but they do seem to want to claim the label.


I never meant to suggest that "Living within nature" should mean we should go back to flinging poo at each other and embrace violence.


Of course.


The maintenance of a police force may (since I'm unfamiliar with the overall expense and am willing to pay for such a valuable service) be one of the few things I'd pay taxes for.


We are conceding a need to force people to spend as least some resources on others ("slavery" I believed is what such was labeled) then?


A Libertarian government would exist to protect private citizens from others and enforce contracts.


I understand the concept of "minarchism" and such, but considering the frequent thickness of their rhetoric, I can't help but giggle at little bit at the phrase "Libertarian government." To hear some speak, "government" is the beginning and end of all evil.

But not when it's printing money and protecting property, I suppose. Well, protecting property anyway.


Yes, rights require resources to defend, but that doesn't mean it follows that people who have no resources have no rights.


It doesn't necessarily follow so long as the society in question is willing to institute the sort of governance that requires the equal protection of rights regardless of ability to pay. But has it not already been argued that Libertarianism rejects the sort of "slavery" where some are forced to contribute for the good of others?


Let me hit you with a cold, hard fact of life (and this isn't to say I agree with your viewpoints re: power and resources): people get screwed. People get screwed under Communism, and people get screwed by the Welfare state. People get screwed by Socialism, and yes, people get screwed under Capitalism too.


So we just give up? Again, appeal to "nature" or the "facts of life" seems like more of a cop out than an ideological or philosophical position.

lol, hugbox

TLO, for what it's worth, would be the first to suggest that free markets absolutely can solve that problem... he has repeatedly extolled the virtues of private mutual-aid organizations.


Markets are awesome once they are allowed to operate based on voluntary association and exchange. Like they're supposed to.

The problem is that voluntary association, exchange, and competition serve to drive prices and profits down, while maximizing political autonomy. Those with the greatest shares of economic and political resources, therefore, have a vested interest in destroying genuine markets where ever human liberty happens to occasionally break through.