3 ms·

thiels philosophy is actually deeply technocratic authoritarian. in a lot of ways he is a technocrat and not a true libertarian. hes said on multiple occasions

by neonbat 10y ago

thiels philosophy is actually deeply technocratic authoritarian. in a lot of ways he is a technocrat and not a true libertarian. hes said on multiple occasions that politics has failed libertarians and that they should try 'alternatives.'

empath75 10y ago
Yeah he seems more of a Mencius moldbug dark-enlightenment type.
zappo2938 10y ago
I tried looking up libertarian on Wikipedia and there are so many definitions I'm not sure what people mean when they say the word, libertarian. What I thought the word meant years ago was no government, turns out that is called anarchism. When people tell me that they are libertarian I always wonder what the hell that means or if they even know.
- davemel37 10y ago
  IMO it means you believe in a right freedom so long as you dont infringe on someone elses rights. So, in theory you would be against forcing someone to pay taxes to build roads or provide education, but would arguably be for paying for a police department and justice system to protect people from having others infringe on their rights. It basically means the only function of government should be to protect our freedoms and anything outside that purview should be done by the private sector and let the markets decide what has real value and is worth investing in.
  - wsgeorge 10y ago
    I haven't looked into this myself, but your definition of "libertarian" fits exactly with my concept of an ideal government: one that's sole purpose is to protect the freedoms and dignities of all those within its jurisdiction, and within that framework, allowing everything else to be more or less self-determined, so long as the freedoms and dignity of all those within it are not harmed.
    - coding123 10y ago
      In my simple way of understanding this, then, is that libertarians are un-developed democrats. They think Democrats are "wrong" because of what they are, but when you extend this line of thought for many, many many years, you find yourself a democrat. Democrats can be easily criticized for overthinking bathroom rights, but doesn't that argument boil down to freedoms of the oppressed transgendered person? Freedom for the many oppressing the freedoms of the few. Too many climate laws, too many laws protecting groundwater? How would this Libertarian definition fit those? The freedoms of the individuals in the town that has a giant polluting factory. Now that town needs laws to make the factory safer. How about gun laws? Libertarians might suggest more "freedoms" with respect to gun availability,... many years later, revealing that more guns available actually means more deaths => freedom lost for the dead? Now they're a democrat too... How's this definition different than democrat? I'm just asking, because reading this mini-thread I'm lost here.
      - zo1 10y ago
        All those things you mention violate the Non-Aggression Principle, and are thus incredibly non-libertarian. Libertarianism make few exceptions to that principle in order to allow for such things as limited government policing, courts and defence. Bathroom laws require forcing companies to pay for additional bathrooms, and by extension, pay for the policing required to prevent gender-mixing in the non-approved bathrooms. Environmental regulations force companies to pay for expensive pollution-limiting equipment. Pollution is already handled by libertarianism as pollution means either damage to people's health, or damage to people's property. Both of which are violations of the non-aggression principle. No environmental "regulations" necessary as the repercussions far outweigh the benefits of pollution. Gun-laws means imprisoning people for owning a piece of property. Same thing with drug-prohibition. If you force people to do something with the threat of losing money/property/freedom then your policy is not even remotely libertarian. If you are genuinely curious, I suggest you not rely on this mini-thread to define libertarian-concepts to you. Rather research it.
        Dylan16807 10y ago
- zo1 10y ago
  Libertarianism is actually quite an open definition. E.g. I find it easier to describe myself as one, even though I'm technically an anarcho-capitalist. It's the same if you try look up concepts such as Marxism, Democracy, Mercantilism, Capitalism, Left vs Right, etc. At the end of the day, you need to find someone that can distill the concepts for you to something more easily digestible. Personally for me, there really is only one consideration to clarify the position. Does the person support the Non-Aggression Principle universally? If yes, then they're an anarcho-capitalist, if "almost-completely" or something like that, then they're fence-sitting near the libertarian position. And if they say no, then they're definitely a Statist (Whether that is democracy, marxism, socialism, or monarchy, doesn't matter).
internaut 10y ago
Libertarianism has bifurcated in recent years. Many people including myself have given up on democracy. It just no longer makes sense to be keep playing a game we can never win. For a libertarian in a democracy, the system is perpetually rigged. It is clear that war is coming and it is time to stop playing games. The truth is that democracy has nothing to offer us. It has bought nothing to the table. The new libertarians or ex-libertarians, have decided that a host of values such as human rights, open borders have got to go. It's this or the West starts to look more like France, Germany or Sweden. These invaders are killing, looting and raping in our own countries. This is why the right is rising, it has nothing to do with Trump, it does not matter if he loses, more are coming. Just look at how Reddit has changed in a single year. They will think Trump was Jesus Christ by the time conflict breaks out. Just look with your eyes! https://youtu.be/1Z1oMwS8phI https://youtu.be/1Z1oMwS8phI
- ZoF 10y ago
  Wew lad
- snowwrestler 10y ago
  You worry about which system will permit you to win, when the reality is that concepts like civil rights are the only thing that are keeping minorities like you from losing badly.
- dmode 10y ago
  What utter rubbish. I just spend 5 days in a French village, literally last week. And I didn't see a single invader killing , looting, or raping anyone or anything. All I saw was a lot of good people leading a happy and peaceful life.

by neonbat 10y ago

empath75 10y ago

Yeah he seems more of a Mencius moldbug dark-enlightenment type.

zappo2938 10y ago

I tried looking up libertarian on Wikipedia and there are so many definitions I'm not sure what people mean when they say the word, libertarian. What I thought the word meant years ago was no government, turns out that is called anarchism. When people tell me that they are libertarian I always wonder what the hell that means or if they even know.

davemel37 10y ago
IMO it means you believe in a right freedom so long as you dont infringe on someone elses rights. So, in theory you would be against forcing someone to pay taxes to build roads or provide education, but would arguably be for paying for a police department and justice system to protect people from having others infringe on their rights. It basically means the only function of government should be to protect our freedoms and anything outside that purview should be done by the private sector and let the markets decide what has real value and is worth investing in.
- wsgeorge 10y ago
  I haven't looked into this myself, but your definition of "libertarian" fits exactly with my concept of an ideal government: one that's sole purpose is to protect the freedoms and dignities of all those within its jurisdiction, and within that framework, allowing everything else to be more or less self-determined, so long as the freedoms and dignity of all those within it are not harmed.
  - coding123 10y ago
    In my simple way of understanding this, then, is that libertarians are un-developed democrats. They think Democrats are "wrong" because of what they are, but when you extend this line of thought for many, many many years, you find yourself a democrat. Democrats can be easily criticized for overthinking bathroom rights, but doesn't that argument boil down to freedoms of the oppressed transgendered person? Freedom for the many oppressing the freedoms of the few. Too many climate laws, too many laws protecting groundwater? How would this Libertarian definition fit those? The freedoms of the individuals in the town that has a giant polluting factory. Now that town needs laws to make the factory safer. How about gun laws? Libertarians might suggest more "freedoms" with respect to gun availability,... many years later, revealing that more guns available actually means more deaths => freedom lost for the dead? Now they're a democrat too... How's this definition different than democrat? I'm just asking, because reading this mini-thread I'm lost here.
    - zo1 10y ago
      All those things you mention violate the Non-Aggression Principle, and are thus incredibly non-libertarian. Libertarianism make few exceptions to that principle in order to allow for such things as limited government policing, courts and defence. Bathroom laws require forcing companies to pay for additional bathrooms, and by extension, pay for the policing required to prevent gender-mixing in the non-approved bathrooms. Environmental regulations force companies to pay for expensive pollution-limiting equipment. Pollution is already handled by libertarianism as pollution means either damage to people's health, or damage to people's property. Both of which are violations of the non-aggression principle. No environmental "regulations" necessary as the repercussions far outweigh the benefits of pollution. Gun-laws means imprisoning people for owning a piece of property. Same thing with drug-prohibition. If you force people to do something with the threat of losing money/property/freedom then your policy is not even remotely libertarian. If you are genuinely curious, I suggest you not rely on this mini-thread to define libertarian-concepts to you. Rather research it.
      - Dylan16807 10y ago
zo1 10y ago
Libertarianism is actually quite an open definition. E.g. I find it easier to describe myself as one, even though I'm technically an anarcho-capitalist. It's the same if you try look up concepts such as Marxism, Democracy, Mercantilism, Capitalism, Left vs Right, etc. At the end of the day, you need to find someone that can distill the concepts for you to something more easily digestible. Personally for me, there really is only one consideration to clarify the position. Does the person support the Non-Aggression Principle universally? If yes, then they're an anarcho-capitalist, if "almost-completely" or something like that, then they're fence-sitting near the libertarian position. And if they say no, then they're definitely a Statist (Whether that is democracy, marxism, socialism, or monarchy, doesn't matter).

internaut 10y ago

Libertarianism has bifurcated in recent years. Many people including myself have given up on democracy. It just no longer makes sense to be keep playing a game we can never win. For a libertarian in a democracy, the system is perpetually rigged. It is clear that war is coming and it is time to stop playing games. The truth is that democracy has nothing to offer us. It has bought nothing to the table. The new libertarians or ex-libertarians, have decided that a host of values such as human rights, open borders have got to go. It's this or the West starts to look more like France, Germany or Sweden. These invaders are killing, looting and raping in our own countries. This is why the right is rising, it has nothing to do with Trump, it does not matter if he loses, more are coming. Just look at how Reddit has changed in a single year. They will think Trump was Jesus Christ by the time conflict breaks out. Just look with your eyes! https://youtu.be/1Z1oMwS8phI https://youtu.be/1Z1oMwS8phI

ZoF 10y ago
Wew lad
snowwrestler 10y ago
You worry about which system will permit you to win, when the reality is that concepts like civil rights are the only thing that are keeping minorities like you from losing badly.
dmode 10y ago
What utter rubbish. I just spend 5 days in a French village, literally last week. And I didn't see a single invader killing , looting, or raping anyone or anything. All I saw was a lot of good people leading a happy and peaceful life.