5 ms·

Ah no. Libertarianism is dominated by men precisely because it primarily attracts those with high incomes, and men have higher incomes in general. It also attr

Ah no. Libertarianism is dominated by men precisely because it primarily attracts those with high incomes, and men have higher incomes in general. It also attracts people with an egotistical streak and those with low empathy, plus those with a high confidence in their own rationality. They did not become all of those things by being libertarian, they became libertarians because that ideology attracts people who are comfortable in life and focus more on individual personal gain than on an empathetic society that benefits everyone more equally.

CryptoPunk 6y ago
I know it's entirely anecdotal, but I was a hardcore libertarian long before I had any income. There are literally Youtube videos of me from way back in a run down apartment, espousing libertarianism. >>It also attracts people with an egotistical streak and those with low empathy High ego and low empathy is also correlated with testosterone. The silver lining is the sense of fair play mentioned by the parent comment, as well as imperviousness to superficial peripheral traits that appeal to emotion. I remember reading that libertarianism appeals to the stereotypically male mind, but I don't know if the studies that conclusion was based on controlled for income.
- KozmoNau7 6y ago
  That "sense of fair play" only applies when "fair" is defined as something that adheres to the libertarian's personal definition of what is rational. Die hard libertarians in my circle of acquaintances have argued against stores hiding away tobacco products to discourage smoking as irrational, because they see making as much profit as possible as the only rational objective. When you can define anything you personally believe in to be rational, all your opponents automatically become irrational because they disagree with your enlightened position. Since they are irrational, their arguments can be dismissed out of hand. It is an extremely arrogant worldview. Believing that it makes you impervious to emotional arguments just makes it even more arrogant.
  - CryptoPunk 6y ago
    The commitment to fair play was found to be correlated with testosterone. It's only my speculation that this is what draws men to libertarianism. >"fair" is defined as something that adheres to the libertarian's personal definition of what is rational. Do you have any kind of scientific evidence supporting this hypothesis, or is it just speculation based on intuition and observations of personal acquaintances? >>When you can define anything you personally believe in to be rational, all your opponents automatically become irrational because they disagree with your enlightened position. It's tautological that a person will view beliefs that they personally view as rational/right, as rational/right. This is irrespective of their political ideology. As for arrogance, I think "live and let live" is the least arrogant political philosophy one can hold, and that's the defining ethos of libertarianism. I think that lack of pretence/arrogance in this ethos is what draws people to libertarianism. Any non-libertarian political persuasion will advocate for all manner of government measures that use force against peaceful people to force compliance with a larger social plan. I personally don't see how the person opposing this sort of mandate is arrogant, while the person advocating for it is not. But I guess these issues are subjective. >>Believing that it makes you impervious to emotional arguments just makes it even more arrogant. From what I recall, the study found that libertarians are less likely to pay attention and give weight to peripheral cues that appeal to emotion, and be more focused on substance.
    - KozmoNau7 6y ago
      > "As for arrogance, I think "live and let live" is the least arrogant political philosophy one can hold, and that's the defining ethos of libertarianism. I think that lack of pretence/arrogance in this ethos is what draws people to libertarianism. Any non-libertarian political persuasion will advocate for all manner of government measures that use force against peaceful people to force compliance with a larger social plan." If you were talking about the original socialist libertarianism, then you would have had a point. Unfortunately libertarianism today is more of a "live and let die"-type ideology, where those who cannot support themselves must fail, as they provide "no value". It is social darwinism writ large. Regulations exist for a reason and the effects of gutting for instance the EPA has massive consequences, irreparable damage to the environment and to people's health. Or do you think the people in Flint, Michigan should just move somewhere else? We absolutely cannot trust powerful people and corporations to do the right thing, since they do not feel the consequences themselves and thus actively do not care, because that would eat into their profits. Voluntarism doesn't work, for that exact reason. Hence why regulations and laws are needed.
zo1 6y ago
That's such a huge dismissal of a very rationally and logically justifiable moral position.
- oblio 6y ago
  That "moral position" never explains what happens to those that don't congregate well, are not high performers, etc.
  - jahaja 6y ago
    Well, it's Neo-feudalism, so those are the serfs.
  - CryptoPunk 6y ago
    It does explain it. It just argues, correctly in my opinion, that it would be unfair to force an unrelated person to help that person in need. Libertarianism posits that all interactions between people should be voluntary, and that the misfortune of one does not justify coercive measures against another.
    - KozmoNau7 6y ago
      Thus it is only an attractive ideology for those without a conscience or empathy.

CryptoPunk 6y ago

I know it's entirely anecdotal, but I was a hardcore libertarian long before I had any income. There are literally Youtube videos of me from way back in a run down apartment, espousing libertarianism. >>It also attracts people with an egotistical streak and those with low empathy High ego and low empathy is also correlated with testosterone. The silver lining is the sense of fair play mentioned by the parent comment, as well as imperviousness to superficial peripheral traits that appeal to emotion. I remember reading that libertarianism appeals to the stereotypically male mind, but I don't know if the studies that conclusion was based on controlled for income.

KozmoNau7 6y ago
That "sense of fair play" only applies when "fair" is defined as something that adheres to the libertarian's personal definition of what is rational. Die hard libertarians in my circle of acquaintances have argued against stores hiding away tobacco products to discourage smoking as irrational, because they see making as much profit as possible as the only rational objective. When you can define anything you personally believe in to be rational, all your opponents automatically become irrational because they disagree with your enlightened position. Since they are irrational, their arguments can be dismissed out of hand. It is an extremely arrogant worldview. Believing that it makes you impervious to emotional arguments just makes it even more arrogant.
- CryptoPunk 6y ago
  The commitment to fair play was found to be correlated with testosterone. It's only my speculation that this is what draws men to libertarianism. >"fair" is defined as something that adheres to the libertarian's personal definition of what is rational. Do you have any kind of scientific evidence supporting this hypothesis, or is it just speculation based on intuition and observations of personal acquaintances? >>When you can define anything you personally believe in to be rational, all your opponents automatically become irrational because they disagree with your enlightened position. It's tautological that a person will view beliefs that they personally view as rational/right, as rational/right. This is irrespective of their political ideology. As for arrogance, I think "live and let live" is the least arrogant political philosophy one can hold, and that's the defining ethos of libertarianism. I think that lack of pretence/arrogance in this ethos is what draws people to libertarianism. Any non-libertarian political persuasion will advocate for all manner of government measures that use force against peaceful people to force compliance with a larger social plan. I personally don't see how the person opposing this sort of mandate is arrogant, while the person advocating for it is not. But I guess these issues are subjective. >>Believing that it makes you impervious to emotional arguments just makes it even more arrogant. From what I recall, the study found that libertarians are less likely to pay attention and give weight to peripheral cues that appeal to emotion, and be more focused on substance.
  - KozmoNau7 6y ago
    > "As for arrogance, I think "live and let live" is the least arrogant political philosophy one can hold, and that's the defining ethos of libertarianism. I think that lack of pretence/arrogance in this ethos is what draws people to libertarianism. Any non-libertarian political persuasion will advocate for all manner of government measures that use force against peaceful people to force compliance with a larger social plan." If you were talking about the original socialist libertarianism, then you would have had a point. Unfortunately libertarianism today is more of a "live and let die"-type ideology, where those who cannot support themselves must fail, as they provide "no value". It is social darwinism writ large. Regulations exist for a reason and the effects of gutting for instance the EPA has massive consequences, irreparable damage to the environment and to people's health. Or do you think the people in Flint, Michigan should just move somewhere else? We absolutely cannot trust powerful people and corporations to do the right thing, since they do not feel the consequences themselves and thus actively do not care, because that would eat into their profits. Voluntarism doesn't work, for that exact reason. Hence why regulations and laws are needed.

zo1 6y ago

That's such a huge dismissal of a very rationally and logically justifiable moral position.

oblio 6y ago
That "moral position" never explains what happens to those that don't congregate well, are not high performers, etc.
- jahaja 6y ago
  Well, it's Neo-feudalism, so those are the serfs.
- CryptoPunk 6y ago
  It does explain it. It just argues, correctly in my opinion, that it would be unfair to force an unrelated person to help that person in need. Libertarianism posits that all interactions between people should be voluntary, and that the misfortune of one does not justify coercive measures against another.
  - KozmoNau7 6y ago
    Thus it is only an attractive ideology for those without a conscience or empathy.