5 ms·

South Park is a weekly morality play espousing the virtues of a nihilistic "libertarianism"* that appeals to the kind of person who wants to be reassured that n

South Park is a weekly morality play espousing the virtues of a nihilistic "libertarianism"* that appeals to the kind of person who wants to be reassured that not caring about other human beings is laudable behavior. * I don't like libertarianism and have been known to vigorously dissent with its principles, but even I wouldn't stoop so low as to consider South Park a reflection of the views of a sincere and thoughtful libertarian.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
_0--__ 11y ago
I agree with you 100%, concerning this comment and others you've made in this thread. For a long time South Park has pushed the message that apathy is cool, and while protest, pacifism, and consideration for social issues is, as the creators would probably put it, "gay". People can claim that it's entertainment all they want, but it's undeniably influential. And people like this season because of its especially strong resonance with other brain-dead ideas they have about "SJWs", "MGTOW", "Dindu Nothings", "Tumblrinas", etc.
cpursley 11y ago
I'm truly sorry that you think libertarian philosophy means not caring for your fellow human. The very reason I reject the "we'll stomp you in the throat until you comply" authoritarian approaches of the left/right is precisely because I care about others.
- vacri 11y ago
  Libertarianism has a lot of 'freedom!' rhetoric, but absolutely nothing in it is community-building. Any care for fellow humans in libertarianism (though I have yet to see a libertarian argue for community over individuality in anything) comes a distant second to "my stuff is MY stuff". Libertarianism is a philosophy that rewards the wealthy and those with in-demand skills. It very much isn't a philosophy about caring for fellow humans in any way but lip service.
  - derefr 11y ago
    A libertarian must necessarily believe, I think, that markets work to enable technological progress, and that technological progress "lifts all boats" (with a much stronger effect-size than that of direct economic stimulus.) Being a libertarian and not believing these things sounds like a very sociopathic mindset, I agree. If you think "turning the economic crank as fast as possible" won't eventually invent us all flying cars and diseaseless super-bodies and free food-dispensers (and a pony!), then it's pretty obvious that redistributing wealth is the "right thing to do." But if you do believe that, then you have to measure the ROI of each dollar spent investing in the economy (and thus in turning the technological crank) vs. direct redistributive charity, as a means of helping the people on the bottom. Personally, I don't think it's clear which direction has higher ROI.
    - MCRed 11y ago
      Part of the philosophy of libertarianism is the idea that if you allow people to cooperate (eg: build a community) they will advance faster... and looking at what happened in China and India when those countries legalized capitalism, the libertarians have a good point. This is, of course, an economic perspective, but the history of economics generally agrees with them.
      - vacri 11y ago
        Capitalism is not a binary state. Chinese capitalism is not American capitalism is not Western European capitalism. Herein is one of the huge problems of libertarianism - there's no space for shades of gray. Everything is an absolute, a binary; either something is or something isn't, but the real world doesn't work that way. Some capitalism is good. Unfettered capitalism is not - the libertarian cry of "well if someone wrongs you, then sue them for damages in court" is all but useless. You may not even know which chemical company was poisoning the air you have been breathing for 10 years that caused your illness, but libertarians wouldn't restrict the company's actions ahead of time; apparently a monetary settlement (that of course an individual will be able to force a large company into settling in courts...) is always an appropriate solution. Hell, one libertarian I was talking to was suggesting privatising courts, and saying that the courts would be paid on performance. Somehow he thought that would mean the courts would be fair, rather than heavily biased to the private entity providing the paycheck. So, we'd end up with a system where the only restriction on capitalism would be actions performed well after the fact. We've seen what happens when profit motives are unfettered, and it's not pretty.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

_0--__ 11y ago

I agree with you 100%, concerning this comment and others you've made in this thread. For a long time South Park has pushed the message that apathy is cool, and while protest, pacifism, and consideration for social issues is, as the creators would probably put it, "gay". People can claim that it's entertainment all they want, but it's undeniably influential. And people like this season because of its especially strong resonance with other brain-dead ideas they have about "SJWs", "MGTOW", "Dindu Nothings", "Tumblrinas", etc.

cpursley 11y ago

I'm truly sorry that you think libertarian philosophy means not caring for your fellow human. The very reason I reject the "we'll stomp you in the throat until you comply" authoritarian approaches of the left/right is precisely because I care about others.

vacri 11y ago
Libertarianism has a lot of 'freedom!' rhetoric, but absolutely nothing in it is community-building. Any care for fellow humans in libertarianism (though I have yet to see a libertarian argue for community over individuality in anything) comes a distant second to "my stuff is MY stuff". Libertarianism is a philosophy that rewards the wealthy and those with in-demand skills. It very much isn't a philosophy about caring for fellow humans in any way but lip service.
- derefr 11y ago
  A libertarian must necessarily believe, I think, that markets work to enable technological progress, and that technological progress "lifts all boats" (with a much stronger effect-size than that of direct economic stimulus.) Being a libertarian and not believing these things sounds like a very sociopathic mindset, I agree. If you think "turning the economic crank as fast as possible" won't eventually invent us all flying cars and diseaseless super-bodies and free food-dispensers (and a pony!), then it's pretty obvious that redistributing wealth is the "right thing to do." But if you do believe that, then you have to measure the ROI of each dollar spent investing in the economy (and thus in turning the technological crank) vs. direct redistributive charity, as a means of helping the people on the bottom. Personally, I don't think it's clear which direction has higher ROI.
  - MCRed 11y ago
    Part of the philosophy of libertarianism is the idea that if you allow people to cooperate (eg: build a community) they will advance faster... and looking at what happened in China and India when those countries legalized capitalism, the libertarians have a good point. This is, of course, an economic perspective, but the history of economics generally agrees with them.
    - vacri 11y ago
      Capitalism is not a binary state. Chinese capitalism is not American capitalism is not Western European capitalism. Herein is one of the huge problems of libertarianism - there's no space for shades of gray. Everything is an absolute, a binary; either something is or something isn't, but the real world doesn't work that way. Some capitalism is good. Unfettered capitalism is not - the libertarian cry of "well if someone wrongs you, then sue them for damages in court" is all but useless. You may not even know which chemical company was poisoning the air you have been breathing for 10 years that caused your illness, but libertarians wouldn't restrict the company's actions ahead of time; apparently a monetary settlement (that of course an individual will be able to force a large company into settling in courts...) is always an appropriate solution. Hell, one libertarian I was talking to was suggesting privatising courts, and saying that the courts would be paid on performance. Somehow he thought that would mean the courts would be fair, rather than heavily biased to the private entity providing the paycheck. So, we'd end up with a system where the only restriction on capitalism would be actions performed well after the fact. We've seen what happens when profit motives are unfettered, and it's not pretty.