Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Libertarianism

Expand Messages
  • jtate
    My goal is the libertarian model. Let me be, as long as I respect your right to be. CSW I m not very good at the entire relationship thing, with family or
    Message 1 of 5 , Jul 31, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      "My goal is the libertarian model. Let me be, as long as I respect your
      right to be." CSW

      "I'm not very good at the entire relationship thing, with family or
      friends. I end up in my own little world, writing and reading. I prefer
      to ponder grand issues about people and human nature, not exactly light
      chat about the weather (except lately -- it's really hot here). In
      other words, I know I am not a good "people person" and sometimes
      imagine everyone would enjoy life more if I were a hermit." CSW


      These two quotes, pulled from two e-mails today are, in my opinion, related.
      Libertarianism is a kind of asocial stance; the stance of those who want the
      world to leave them alone, to deny responsibility beyond avoiding actively
      hurting others. It is an elaboration of the psychological stage most
      teenagers go through when they want siblings and parents to "just leave me
      alone!" and not insist that they have any responsibilities toward the care
      of the family (e.g. taking out the trash, doing the dishes, helping with
      younger siblings, etc.). It stems from a fear of losing autonomy.

      The stance I prefer is that of Generativity: wanting the mutual relationship
      between individual and society to be as rich and encouraging of health (in
      both directions) as possible. This is the stance that makes good marriages
      and friendships possible. It is secure in autonomy, but includes the other
      (spouse, child, society) as a loved object--caring for this loved object
      doesn't threaten autonomy; it is an autonomous choice. This leads me away
      from Libertarianism and toward liberal social democracy.

      CSW: thank you for being so open; I hope you don't feel I've misused your
      candor.

      Jeff
    • trop_de_simones
      ... relationship between individual and society to be as rich and encouraging of health (in both directions) as possible. This is the stance that makes good
      Message 2 of 5 , Aug 1, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "jtate" <jtate@t...> wrote:

        > The stance I prefer is that of Generativity: wanting the mutual
        relationship between individual and society to be as rich and
        encouraging of health (in both directions) as possible. This is the
        stance that makes good marriages and friendships possible. It is
        secure in autonomy, but includes the other (spouse, child, society)
        as a loved object--caring for this loved object doesn't threaten
        autonomy; it is an autonomous choice. This leads me away from
        Libertarianism and toward liberal social democracy.>

        Yes, Jeff. I hope my questions aren't generalizations, like the
        belief that those who are interested in philosophy are lousy in
        personal relationships! One thing is certain, all relationships and
        dynamics change. The only thing that's lousy is the inability to
        adapt, and Existentialism has helped me immensely in this regard.

        Weren't the better cultures those where social institutions
        demonstrated compassion and good works towards the unfortunate? Those
        which encouraged art and science, ensured tolerance, public
        education, adequate employment, material needs for children, and safe
        places for the elderly also became the wealthiest and strongest. Also
        cultures which can't function without a slave class or
        totalitarianism may exist for long periods of time but only through
        brute force.

        Reciprocal altruism is successful in most dynamics. When individuals
        and nations pull back from this attitude because of fear mongering
        and scape-goating, situations deteriorate. Aren't most democratic
        institutions 'socialist' since ideally they focus upon enabling the
        best methods of survival for the most kinds of citizens? Aren't
        families, of any configuration, based upon this principle? Bodies and
        minds must be safe and nourished before they can be free. The only
        concern for socialism* should be fiscal management, not whether it's
        moral. This is true even in smaller social units.

        When Sartre, Beauvoir, Camus and others struggled to formulate a
        philosophical-politique, their concern was not how to minimize
        individual efforts. They wanted governments to be more responsible
        and vigilant, to avoid fascism, communism, extremism, any system that
        took away responsibility from individuals, not to mention their
        lives. Their disagreements were about limits and their concerns were
        legitimate. I now worry, that just as Germany self-destructed in the
        1930's in a fascist backlash against socialism, my country (USA) and
        possibly the world is headed down the same bloody path.

        It isn't that socialism has failed but that we have so many diverse
        sensibilities and immaturities which can't comprehend the complex
        entanglement of our lives on this planet. As eduard pointed out,
        everything impacts everything else so immediately. Deciding
        responsibly creates more anxiety now. But the more responsible
        individuals become, the less need for socialism. If one could prove
        that socialism costs too much AND impedes personal responsibility and
        maturity, then I might be persuaded that it's a bad philosophy. Even
        then we'd probably get bogged down in relativism, definitions, and
        statistical quagmire.

        Simone

        *liberal social democracy

        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "jtate" <jtate@t...> wrote:
        > "My goal is the libertarian model. Let me be, as long as I respect
        your
        > right to be." CSW
        >
        > "I'm not very good at the entire relationship thing, with family or
        > friends. I end up in my own little world, writing and reading. I
        prefer
        > to ponder grand issues about people and human nature, not exactly
        light
        > chat about the weather (except lately -- it's really hot here). In
        > other words, I know I am not a good "people person" and sometimes
        > imagine everyone would enjoy life more if I were a hermit." CSW
        >
        >
        > These two quotes, pulled from two e-mails today are, in my opinion,
        related.
        > Libertarianism is a kind of asocial stance; the stance of those who
        want the
        > world to leave them alone, to deny responsibility beyond avoiding
        actively
        > hurting others. It is an elaboration of the psychological stage
        most
        > teenagers go through when they want siblings and parents to "just
        leave me
        > alone!" and not insist that they have any responsibilities toward
        the care
        > of the family (e.g. taking out the trash, doing the dishes, helping
        with
        > younger siblings, etc.). It stems from a fear of losing autonomy.
        >
        > The stance I prefer is that of Generativity: wanting the mutual
        relationship
        > between individual and society to be as rich and encouraging of
        health (in
        > both directions) as possible. This is the stance that makes good
        marriages
        > and friendships possible. It is secure in autonomy, but includes
        the other
        > (spouse, child, society) as a loved object--caring for this loved
        object
        > doesn't threaten autonomy; it is an autonomous choice. This leads
        me away
        > from Libertarianism and toward liberal social democracy.
        >
        > CSW: thank you for being so open; I hope you don't feel I've
        misused your
        > candor.
        >
        > Jeff
      • Aija Veldre Beldavs
        ... yes! Ayn Randians, libertarians, social Darwinists, and the open free market (which it can be argued in fact is slanted, rather than genuinely
        Message 3 of 5 , Aug 1, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          > The stance I prefer is that of Generativity: wanting the mutual relationship
          > between individual and society to be as rich and encouraging of health (in
          > both directions) as possible. This is the stance that makes good marriages
          > and friendships possible. It is secure in autonomy, but includes the other
          > (spouse, child, society) as a loved object--caring for this loved object
          > doesn't threaten autonomy; it is an autonomous choice. This leads me away
          > from Libertarianism and toward liberal social democracy.
          > Jeff

          yes! Ayn Randians, libertarians, social Darwinists, and the open free
          market (which it can be argued in fact is slanted, rather than genuinely
          competitive), and free-for-allers do not yet have a patent on
          individualism or independent original thought or original hybrids.:)

          aija
          ps so many others to add to the humorist list throughout the world, like
          Jara Cimrman
          <http://www.radio.cz/en/article/63467>
          <http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-greatczech1aug01,0,
          6272273.story?coll=la-home-headlines>
        • Exist List Moderator
          ... Actually, I developed away from a socialist/Marxism idealism in college to a more libertarian mode of thinking. The longer I pursued my own businesses,
          Message 4 of 5 , Aug 1, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            On Jul 31, 2005, at 5:56, jtate wrote:

            > These two quotes, pulled from two e-mails today are, in my opinion,
            > related.
            > Libertarianism is a kind of asocial stance; the stance of those who
            > want the
            > world to leave them alone, to deny responsibility beyond avoiding
            > actively
            > hurting others. It is an elaboration of the psychological stage most
            > teenagers go through when they want siblings and parents to "just
            > leave me
            > alone!" and not insist that they have any responsibilities toward the
            > care
            > of the family (e.g. taking out the trash, doing the dishes, helping
            > with
            > younger siblings, etc.). It stems from a fear of losing autonomy.

            Actually, I developed away from a socialist/Marxism idealism in college
            to a more libertarian mode of thinking. The longer I pursued my own
            businesses, writing, and teaching, the more I wished to be allowed
            greater freedom to fail. The greater risk we allow individuals, the
            greater the potential rewards.

            Certainly, I am asocial or anti-social. I think most of society is
            cruel, self-centered, and rather ill-informed. They choose to be so.
            You can find anything you want to read on the Internet or at a
            bookstore, but most people do not want to think -- and I do not wish to
            chat about silly things. There is a conflict, resulting in an increased
            sense of elitism or meritocracy.

            When I hear people talking about issues, and realize how wedded they
            are to notions I find laughable, the less I want to be around the
            masses. I reject the New Age mysticism common in my department, the
            radical Marxism, and the narcissism that allows people to imagine we
            are the center of all creation. Mankind is a blip. The best we can do
            it attempt to make this little blip in time bearable.

            Unfortunately, a great many people are unbearable, no matter what
            allowances I might make for them. Maybe that is the result of working
            in retail, tech support, and teaching. You encounter a lot of mean
            individuals. And that isn't cynicism. Reality is, there are more
            apathetic and mean people than kind and generous souls.

            Apathy is especially easy. That's how you can have someone attacked in
            New York and no one calls the police or tries to interfere. That's
            humanity. I tend to get involved and then get slammed for it.

            - C. S. Wyatt
            I am what I am at this moment, not what I was and certainly not all
            that I shall be.
            http://www.tameri.com - Tameri Guide for Writers
            http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist - The Existential Primer
          • louise
            [Simone, responding to Jeff] Aren t most democratic institutions socialist since ideally they focus upon enabling the best methods of survival for the most
            Message 5 of 5 , Aug 5, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              [Simone, responding to Jeff]
              Aren't most democratic institutions 'socialist' since ideally they
              focus upon enabling the best methods of survival for the most kinds
              of citizens? Aren't families, of any configuration, based upon this
              principle? Bodies and minds must be safe and nourished before they
              can be free. The only concern for socialism* should be fiscal
              management, not whether it's moral. This is true even in smaller
              social units.

              When Sartre, Beauvoir, Camus and others struggled to formulate a
              philosophical-politique, their concern was not how to minimize
              individual efforts. They wanted governments to be more responsible
              and vigilant, to avoid fascism, communism, extremism, any system
              that took away responsibility from individuals, not to mention their
              lives. Their disagreements were about limits and their concerns were
              legitimate. I now worry, that just as Germany self-destructed in the
              1930's in a fascist backlash against socialism, my country (USA) and
              possibly the world is headed down the same bloody path.

              It isn't that socialism has failed but that we have so many diverse
              sensibilities and immaturities which can't comprehend the complex
              entanglement of our lives on this planet.

              Louise
              The categories employed in the above paragraphs all lie in the
              ontical domain (for rough definition, see e35702). We in the West
              can easily make the same mistakes now as did Sartre in the 1950s,
              indeed I would opine that large numbers of people are indeed making
              those mistakes, and that this generates a form of populist extremism
              which lightly dismisses such a charge on account of the security of
              numbers and wealth. 'It isn't that socialism has failed ...'!!!
              Why not substitute 'fascism' or 'communism' for 'socialism' in that
              sentence, any ideologue can claim that for his chosen set of
              theories. We need philosophical arguments, to make the case,
              otherwise, what's the point of saying these things at existlist, you
              might as well write a letter to the newspaper or to your democratic
              representative.
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.