6 ms·
I doubt that they believe it, as much as they see it as a convenient philosophy to propagate. It really is the philosophy of the exceedingly short-sighted, arro
by M_Grey 10y ago
I doubt that they believe it, as much as they see it as a convenient philosophy to propagate. It really is the philosophy of the exceedingly short-sighted, arrogant, or just plain uneducated. You can't have even a passing knowledge of history and think that philosophy has merit. You could very easily think it has merit as a cultural sword and shield though.
It's ironic that the people with the resources and power to rapidly alter the self-destructive course humanity is on, are the most invested in maintaining that course.
- Banthum 10y agoYou think the idea that people are generally responsible for their own outcomes is "exceedingly short-sighted, arrogant, or just plain uneducated"?
- ceejayoz 10y agoYes. If you ignored that many external variables in a scientific study you'd quickly wind up not getting to do research anymore.
- kevingadd 10y agoWho do you mean by "people" in this context? Because if you're generalizing across the whole population of the earth, a significant portion of those people are doomed to suboptimal outcomes due to factors outside of their control. Future generations will be worse off because prior generations destroyed the environment and the economy for their own benefit.
- maxxxxx 10y agoYou misunderstand his comment. He is saying that "wealthy libertarians with vast amounts of political power" are exceedingly short-sighted, arrogant, or just plain uneducated
- bigdubs 10y agoMuch of what determines outcomes is socioeconomic or race based, much less is determined by hard work or agency. This honestly is the fundamental difference between conservative and liberal political ideologies; conservatives feel that they earned their place in society based on hard work, liberals understand more often than not, that place was the result of something akin to a lottery, and many people are less fortunate by no fault of their own.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- macintux 10y agoI have a young friend who made poor decisions when she was younger. She has virtually zero family support, almost a net negative. Her father died two years ago from a lifetime of substance abuse, her mother suffered a stroke and has been in rehab for months, her step-father is an alcoholic who has problems keeping a job. Yes, she's responsible for her outcome to the extent that she made some poor decisions as a teenager growing up with a dramatic absence of good role models, and she'll be paying the price for those decisions for the rest of her life. But the fact that her family is of little help and the government really, really doesn't want her to succeed (I could describe the challenges she's had getting a suboxone prescription but I'd be here all day) is very much not her fault.
- artimaeis 10y agoContext is king... gp comment: > "According to adherents of this belief system, poverty is a symptom of laziness, full stop, and government can do nothing, and more importantly must not." So I think what M_Grey was probably getting at when they said, "It really is the philosophy of the exceedingly short-sighted, arrogant, or just plain uneducated" we can believe it to be in the context of a libertarian who believes, "[...] poverty is a symptom of laziness [...]". So to just fully concatenate that: Libertarians who believe that poverty is a symptom of laziness and government can and should do nothing must be exceedingly short-sighted, arrogant, or plain uneducated. Or maybe I'm contextualizing too much? Either way, it hardly seems the comment thread worthy of trying to turn people's words back on them.
- revscat 10y agoYes, absolutely. And not just that, but flatly contradicted by science, history, and even a cursory understanding of current events.
- antisthenes 10y agoI'm not the OP, but I'll reply: absolutely. It's also downright cruel. If one is willing to look at the data, past their own delusion of the 'just world' fallacy, they'll see that one's birth location and parents determine an overwhelming majority of one's outcomes.
- didgeoridoo 10y agoYour and GP's inability to articulate libertarian philosophy does not constitute a reasoned critique of said philosophy. If you want people to be convinced, learn the actual arguments of the other side, and explain why you disagree.
- M_Grey 10y agoI don't believe it's a philosophy, it's just a convenient collection of delusions held by people convinced that if the law of the jungle were the rule, they'd somehow not be a greasy smear on the pavement. If you feel there's a subtler philosophy to articulate, by all means, articulate.
- opo 10y agoThat is quite the combination of ignorance and arrogance. Before attacking others beliefs as delusional (and then creating a ridiculous straw man argument) you might want to spend a little time trying to understand how their beliefs differ from anarchism, fascism, communism, etc.
- M_Grey 10y agoI never said anything about anarchism, fascism, communism, etc. The fact that in the real world, "Libertarianism" inevitably covers for, or becomes of them is more to the point than the notion that it is one of them. If you feel differently, feel free to do more than be angry and insulting.
- opo 10y ago>I never said anything about anarchism, fascism, communism, etc. I never said you did. What I said was "...Before attacking others beliefs as delusional (and then creating a ridiculous straw man argument) you might want to spend a little time trying to understand how their beliefs differ from anarchism, fascism, communism, etc." >...The fact that in the real world, "Libertarianism" inevitably covers for, or becomes of them is more ... So, besides attacking others beliefs as delusional, now it appears you are saying they are disingenuous. If you are simply going to use straw man arguments and ad hominem attacks don't be surprised if people don't take you seriously.