IJB063

Part Five 8:10 6# Monopoly of Force Leo talks about the government control who can and can’t be violent. And that libertarian see the use of force as inherently as immoral, and that they’re inherently moralistic. I disagree, use of force/violence is only inherently immoral when it’s not justified, it’s not justified when someone alienable individual human rights are violated. I think Leo in part is conflating anarchist and libertarian with this point, because most libertarian believe that government does have a right to exist. And that it’s purpose is to maintain a military, we too have a collective ability to protect ourselves. Second, to defend people’s inalienable rights and to prevent harm coming to them, though for the most part people, (government are just people, it’s not a magical deity) are so inept that government is so inefficient it tends to do more harm than any gang, cartel or mafia, as Leo mentions by bringing up Brazil, Russia and China etc... The reason I support government being in control of the military, courts and police is because some form of organisation is going to prop up and take these things over regardless of what I say. Might as well skip a step and accept that. If we privatised these three things however ran them would be the functional government, so might as well make them public. So yes there are some goods and services that need to be collectivised for the good of society. Libertarian aren’t anarchists.

Part Four 5# Individualism is good and collectivism is bad The rights of the minority vs the rights of the majority. Leos points are interpretation of the libertarian thought on this is... “I shouldn’t have to give way to the collective, in so far as I have to it’s wrong, an infringement on my freedoms. Whose to tell me that I’m supposed to sacrifice for some collective, we’re all just individuals” - Libertarian The idea is alienable human rights, I know Leo covers this later on and I’ll get to that in a bit. But you don’t have the freedom to oppress, I’ll explain why in a bit, it’s in my notes. You want a society that operates at maximum efficiency we’re you rights as an individual are protected and align as close as possible with the rights of everyone else, if you want to succeed in life you will have to sacrifice for the collective, you don’t have the right to not sacrifice, that’s what a communist would believe. I can sit on my arse and just give me money for existing and contributing anything to the community, in a libertarian society you have to contribute to succeed and in so far as you contribute you rise, is so far as your parasitical or a devil you fall. Leo goes on to talk about the free market, and how libertarian sees this as the solution to all problems. I don’t believe it is, some regulation is required in so far as complete freedom violates rights. You don’t owe this world anything and this world doesn’t owe you anything.

Oh shit, I just realised you meant “on the fly”, I thought you were talking about being a fly on the wall, dunno why, just the way I read it Good, leave me to contemplate peasant

Currently writing this thread, wanted to post this separate so that thread doesn’t get derailed "I have striven not to laugh at human actions, not to weep at them, not to hate them, but to understand them." - Baruch Spinoza You have to have principles that guide your actions, you don't ever fully ignore them and go completely Machiavelli and simply go for the most expedient effective solution . You need to solve the problem first and then apply your principles second. You’re still making a principled decision but your making the lease shitty choice. Often when trying to solve very complicated human problems there are no easy or perfect solutions, as Machiavelli points out that very often the good principled people lose throughout human history to evil people because they put their principles first and the solution second instead of vice versa. Simply because those who aren't decent don't have to compromise principles, they are willing to do what others are not and that's why they rise to positions of power. So to put it simply there are no good solutions for important issues directly effected humanity, there are bad solutions and there are worse solutions. What most people do because of their ideologies and principles (there values like freedom) is they take everything off the table that violates their principles and they are as a result left with no solutions. This is why ideologies fail, this is why Communism can't succeed etc... Because they are only left with half measures and token gestures that waste energy, money and don't solve anything. There's no point in doing anything if you don't solve the problem, solutions come first and they are guided by your principles, you need to be a able to bend and compromise your principles in order to achieve your goals and implement a solution to a problem. Otherwise you lose and others who don't care for your principles and ethics win. If your not willing to solve the problem don't bother. You need to be comfortable and come to terms with the fact that what ever you do, its going to be shitty. Most people use their principles like safety blankets because they're afraid and in cable of doing what is necessary to actually make the world a better place. If the problem was easy to solve it would have been solved a long time ago. The fact that it hasn't been solved is because its going to be difficult, its going to be hard and its going to be shitty, hence the cancer patient analogy, but you have to do what is optimal for a functioning world and for your principle, you have to solve the problem first, there are no perfect answers. So solution first and principles second. Machiavelli’s Advice For Nice Guys Tried reading Machiavelli’s Prince but that shit was boring as fuck, and he kept talking about shit that was happening at that time like, the city state of Florence was raided by Prince fuck face blah blah, if you’re interested in Machiavelli just read what people have said about him unless your masochistic. Anyway my main point was this, do whatever you have to do to get what you want. If you don’t do what you have to do, it’s only because you’re afraid or find the solution distasteful, but that’s no excuse to not do what needs to be done to win, sometimes throats need to be cut, if I’m wrong how?

@CosmicVisualiser Amen Nothing wrong with practicing the time honoured tradition of botany

A thought on the fly lol

@Preety_India I’m joking I wasn’t implying anything, I wasn’t getting at anything specific when I made this post

@Leo Gura Nah, they wanted that big alt right dollar Because we all know there’s a lot of money in being banned and demonised by wider society

No, the solution make the actions ethical Thats the concept behind consequentialism, consequentialism holds that the consequences of one's conduct are the ultimate basis for any judgment about the rightness or wrongness of that conduct. You’re right, what I’m saying is we need to round up all these unruly minority, ship em on trains to rural camps and at these camps we’ll all have a fun time and hold hands round a campfire and sing kumbay and John Lennons imagine, and then the sun will part from the clouds, birds will chirp, kids will go outside unveil their kites and play and the world will find peace No in seriousness I’m not implying anything, I just posted this because of Leo’s video on libertarianism, and the point he was making about absolute goods, this is more just about what should govern any of your actions, you should never be handicapped by principles Yeah, I’m not talking about politics, but it relates to politics Girl, I’m always ready to get down and dirty lol All of this is words on a screen

Thank you for your service lol Like this guys come back from war if you stop using a forum guess what @jimwell no one cares Anyway Godspeed soldier

No

Part Three I covered core pillar two in the last post, fuck it I’m skipping point 3# (taxation is theft) for now, I might come back to it later, it’s a boring topic and I agree with the sentiment, I don’t like that taxpayer money goes to line politicians pockets and turn third world children in shithole Middle Eastern countries into hamburger meat. But that’s just me, because I’m one of those juvenile libertarians who want to eliminate that kind of bureaucracy. Anyways 4# Hold personal responsibility highly. Most people when they’re told to be responsible for themselves. Grow a pair of balls people. You’re adults, you don’t need daddy government to save you from yourselves and to give your welfare gimme thats. Make your own money and look after yourselves. In my opinion there are two solutions to people acting poorly and being incapable of looking after themselves. 1# Stop them from acting poorly This is the authoritarian approach 2# Let them suffer the natural consequences of acting poorly This is the Libertarian approach Which one do you thinks better, and has a history of results? I’ll hive an example, let’s say you know someone who’s addicted to heroin. You can’t help them, they’ve utterly fucked themselves. All you can do is hope they hit there rock bottom and come clean. What is addiction, it wanting to do something more than you like your health and living. How do you change that? By making them want their health and their life more than the smack. A lot of heroin addicts rock bottom is death, that’s the tragedy of the addict. Now what’s a better solution?,when someone is addicted to their poor choices. Well it’s not black and white but I believe, by stopping them from acting poorly you cut their growth and don’t let them realise things for themselves. Life is darwinist, there are winners and losers. And the only way you become a winner is when the pain of being a loser supersedes the pain it takes to win. Then you will win. You don’t stop people making mistakes in life, you just to limit the negative effects of their own personal failings on the rest of society. We shouldn’t all be dragged down to the lowest common dominator because of a handful of losers.

@louhad nah, if Leo makes a point that is counter to what I believe, I want to see how it fits with what I’ve said up to that point. Also it shows my thought process, I’m now 35 mins through the video, in the week when I’m playing videogames I think I’m gonna listening to this in the background and write notes

Part Two So point number 1# 5:14 1# Most Libertarians believe freedom is an absolute good. So I agree with this, most libertarian, but not all. Now this goes straight into the realm of philosophy and human nature and is no longer just about politics. Now I’m not sure about absolute morality, if there is a true good or bad. But most people act as though there is and if they didn’t we’d all functionally be sociopathic to act completely morally relativistic. Though I expect Leo will go into greater detail here. Here’s my idea on principles You have to have principles that guide your actions, you don't ever fully ignore them and go completely Machiavelli and simply go for the most expedient effective solution . You need to solve the problem first and then apply your principles second. You’re still making a principled decision but your making the lease shitty choice. Often when trying to solve very complicated human problems there are no easy or perfect solutions, as Machiavelli points out that very often the good principled people lose throughout human history to evil people because they put their principles first and the solution second instead of vice versa. Simply because those who aren't decent don't have to compromise principles, they are willing to do what others are not and that's why they rise to positions of power. So to put it simply there are no good solutions for important issues directly effected humanity, there are bad solutions and there are worse solutions. What most people do because of their ideologies and principles (there values like freedom) is they take everything off the table that violates their principles and they are as a result left with no solutions. This is why ideologies fail, this is why Communism can't succeed etc... Because they are only left with half measures and token gestures that waste energy, money and don't solve anything. There's no point in doing anything if you don't solve the problem, (this is why I completely disagree with Leo’s 11# core pillar, yes I agree that most libertarians do that but most people do that, any people really who believe in objective truth or have an ideology) solutions comes first and they are guided by your principles, you need to be a able to bend and compromise your principles in order to achieve your goals and implement a solution to a problem. Otherwise you lose and others who don't care for your principles and ethics win. If your not willing to solve the problem don't bother. You need to be comfortable and come to terms with the fact that what ever you do, its going to be shitty. Most people use their principles like safety blankets because they're afraid and in cable of doing what is necessary to actually make the world a better place. If the problem was easy to solve it would have been solved a long time ago. The fact that it hasn't been solved is because its going to be difficult, its going to be hard and its going to be shitty, hence the cancer patient analogy, but you have to do what is optimal for a functioning world and for your principle, you have to solve the problem first, there are no perfect answers. So solution first and principles second. Machiavelli’s Advice For Nice Guys I might make this a separate post on this and ask some separate questions because I don’t want this post to get derailed with argument about absolute good vs bad, I want the focus to be on libertarianism. Here it is Also second point on Leo’s core pillar number 1# of most Libertarians believe freedom is an absolute good. Most people operate on there values that they hold to be absolute goods. A communist would hold equality, equity to be their absolute goods. A fascist would hold stability, conformity, security to be there absolute goods. That’s the story that fuel ideology, are the value that underpin the belief system, and why do we have those values, because serve a base biological survival interest. For example, take a right wing paleo conservative pro choice Christian, you could hypothetically get them to concede individually several points on the benefits of abortion, e.g. economic benefits, less crime etc… though despite that, as a matter of principle none of that matters to the Christian because no matter what, abortion is wrong. And why do they cling to those absolutes, because it’s a survival mechanism inherent to the average persons psyche. Now this is why I think point 1# is dumb, because this applies to all people, this is not some special blight against libertarianism. *Note - there’s an interesting lecture I watched on the psychology of belief that if I find I’ll link here, it’s in my OneNote somewhere, note I’m also writing this in OneNote and I’ll post this piece by piece Also side note - this is gonna be a tangent but it does somewhat relate to core pillar 1# Libertarianism is a winners ideology This is why earlier you described it as a masculine ideology. Because it’s the ideology of leave me the fuck alone and I’m gonna win. Losers don’t like it because if you don’t hold over people back and let them be free they’ll run circles around you, they’ll make more money than you. They’ll dominate you. That’s why loser are communist and value equality because if you left them on there own they’d fail, if you left libertarians on there own they’d win. 2 kinds of people People who want to be left alone and people who won’t leave them the fuck alone If you disagree, and think that libertarianism is some how an exception to the rule of absolutes and objective morals. How so? Original American flag Muh don’t tread on me

I know, I’m awesome

@Leo Gura Hey Leo Just started listening to your “Why libertarianism is nonsense” video, so I’ve got my self a pen and a notebook and I’m gonna listen to this entire video, make a bunch of notes on it and then probably if I have time tomorrow, I’ll write a long post on my notes and thoughts on it, you’ve said right from the outset of the vid 0:38-4:02, about dropping ideologies, the problems that come with ideologies, thinking through your worldview, how ideologies hold back your advancement and you’ve promised to deconstruct the libertarian worldview, so my asshole is now puckered and I’m looking forward to listening to it.

@tesla Nah you don’t need friends, just go marry a pigeon, that’s all the companionship you need

@Danioover9000 The cool kind ?

@Leo Gura I disagree I don’t doubt that, but if this or any forum became the new square / youtube and platform by which most people came to spread their ideas I think that you’d lose some of your powers to censor Okay Ive has it on my watch later for a while Its a long one, but I definitely give it a listen

@Etherial Cat Of course that’s the case, otherwise what would be the purpose of free speech. Hence my question before, what’s good is the right to speak if no one listens? There was a case in America by the Supreme Court where Jehovah witnesses went into a Disney land private area, where many of the people who worked at dis WU land lived and started handing out leaflets, the Jehovah witnesses were thrown out of Disney land for being on provate property, they took this to court, to the point it went all the way up to the Supreme Court and you know what the Supreme Court ruled, that the Jehovah witnesses have a right to go into Disney land, you know why, because what good does freedom of speech matter if they can’t What you people are advocating, this was my analogy, is that it’s okay for Disney to completely take everything over and to throw you out He has a right to speak and be heard, everyone does, if anyone loses that right it’s outrageous Fuck the TOS, fuck google And TOS are the most retarted shit, ever tried to read your phones TOS, lot if it’s gibberish, they can span for 100s if pages of literal nonsensical bullshit which amount to basically we do whatever we want and if you don’t like it go and fuck yourself, if you support that you’re an idiot and a boot licker That can all be true still has the right to speak

@louhad What can and can’t be said shouldn’t be dictated by the intelligence of 14 year olds It’s better to air on less restrictions than more restrictions, that the point I was making in the previous comment. Again you didn’t answer my question. The YouTube TOS is dog shit, and doesn’t matter because it can change at a dime and be enforced at there discretion, you can be banned for not even breaking the ToS

@louhad They shouldn’t have the right to do so I don’t care about the legality the law should change You haven’t said anything new neither did you answer my question The point is people shouldn’t be stuck in their echo chambers, if they are than there ceases to be a point to free speech Whats the use of speech if there’s no one there to hear you?

@Etherial Cat Yes I’m also for breaking up amazon, twitter etc... for similar reasons Then we agree, and regulation should kick in to protect people right to freedom of speech, which means that these platforms shouldn’t have the right to censor, do they currently have the right to censor of course, I never said they didn’t, it looks like you’ve changed you argument because before you were saying that they should have the right to censor and that you’re glad that they do, that why I said that’s called boot licking @Forestluv Reading back over I don’t think my last comment made much sense Freedom of speech does have downsides, yes, but it’s positives out way it’s negatives, censorship to has its positives, but it’s negatives out way its positives Both free speech and censorship have strict definitions, a society exists on a spectrum between the two Depending on your values either free speech can further you’re values or not, and vice versa According to my values, living in a free society, it’s objectively right to support free speech, if you to want to live in a free society you to have to agree that free speech / side a is objectively good, and side b is objectively bad to that goal / value I believe that it is pretty cut and dry to support free speech, although there are nuances

@Forestluv Yes there is a spectrum and since theres a spectrum there are degrees, free speech has a definition, a society either has freedom of speech or it doesn’t, the pros of free speech massively out weigh the cons, free speech is not this amorphous concept, and it’s in my eyes proven by history that one should side with free speech over censorship

If a private monopoly owned all the land. And to buy any land was extortionately high to the point it’s impossible to afford any land. And this monopoly can kick you of this land despite you having no where to go. Is this right? Does this monopoly not have to much power? Now that you’re a practically serf Also the entire point of social media is to have as many eye balls as possible, that’s why it’s so useful if you start splitting it up it loses its purpose and use and all people fall into their echo chamber and the purpose of free speech dies Platforms like youtube are the land, and the amount of eyeballs are the size of the land The new town square is youtube, and the sentiment behind free speech is to allow people to speak in the town square and express there ideas and have people listen If they don’t have that right because now there is no town square free speech is dead The legal 1st amendment concept of free speech is now antiquated now that we have social media platforms, the first amendment was to protect freedom of speech, and in 1787 the greatest threat to free speech was the government, in 2020 the greatest threat is still government, but followed closely behind is corporate technocratic power