Libertarians have always claimed to be against government overreach, and the promotion of individual freedom. Yet they just invited a man to speak who is anti-democratic and a likely would-be...
Libertarians have always claimed to be against government overreach, and the promotion of individual freedom.
Yet they just invited a man to speak who is anti-democratic and a likely would-be dictator.
Yep. This pretty much just underscores how most Libertarians are essentially full of shit. Trump represents the exact opposite of everything they claim to value.
Yep. This pretty much just underscores how most Libertarians are essentially full of shit. Trump represents the exact opposite of everything they claim to value.
No disrespect to anyone, but I had that impression since college. Back then there were only 2 types of libertarians: business/rich people who wanted regulations and taxes to go away and cannabis...
This pretty much just underscores how most Libertarians are essentially full of shit.
No disrespect to anyone, but I had that impression since college.
Back then there were only 2 types of libertarians: business/rich people who wanted regulations and taxes to go away and cannabis users who wanted legalization. The latter type I met weren't 100% honest. They pretended there was something more to their libertarian, but they would get really angry when I asked them how basic services and other concerns worked.
Starting with the Paul family a new type of libertarians appeared to me: the "batshit crazy" type we are familiar with today.
I used to call Libertarians "republican lite", but with things like this story that isn't even true anymore.
Yeah, I for a short while fell for the libertarian schtick in college. But pretty quickly realized they are full of shit (I fell for the we don't want regulation unless it affects other people....
Yeah, I for a short while fell for the libertarian schtick in college. But pretty quickly realized they are full of shit (I fell for the we don't want regulation unless it affects other people. Well the environment affects everyone motherfuckers). Honestly my impression of them at the time that made me go away was that they just didn't want any rules on them and fuck everyone else. These days I think that still works for them (long as they don't have to pay taxes is all they really give a shit).
Yeah I am embarrassed to admit that I also was briefly swayed Libertarian in the early 2000s, and my journey was largely the same as yours. Now I look upon them (and more moderate Republicans, to...
Yeah I am embarrassed to admit that I also was briefly swayed Libertarian in the early 2000s, and my journey was largely the same as yours. Now I look upon them (and more moderate Republicans, to an extent) as just extremely naïve about the reality of the world in which we live. I've even met some really smart people that claim to be Libertarian, and I've come to the conclusion that they just haven't yet encountered anything hard in their life that makes them examine the more complex nature of a lot of issues.
If it were intentionally designed to attract them, the small-l libertarian philosophy would do considerably worse at attracting neurodivergent college boys than it currently does. That’s the time...
If it were intentionally designed to attract them, the small-l libertarian philosophy would do considerably worse at attracting neurodivergent college boys than it currently does. That’s the time when they’re both old enough to vote and still in an environment where results at the stated objectives (think following the rubric on your term papers) closely align with success at larger goals (maximizing GPA). Structuring society in a meritocratic manner is the just thing to do.
A lot of them who exit left do so because they’ve been hit with situations where the nominal medium goals don’t make a difference at the larger objectives. Most of those scenarios involve dating or job hunting where the stated requirements are both absurd and ignored—their entire purpose is to pretend to be objective when cutting the applicant pile down to something manageable.
The non-left exits (they’re not necessarily to the right) are by those who found early success (regardless of it was earned, luck, or nepotism). It is no longer in their material interests to foster an environment where someone can beat them by being objectively better. Their exact destination depends on all kinds of factors, personality and industry where they “won” being the top two.
That doesn't align with my experiences at all. Were there any kind of studies on this, or was it just observation? I know plenty of leftists who were quite successful during and immediately after...
That doesn't align with my experiences at all. Were there any kind of studies on this, or was it just observation? I know plenty of leftists who were quite successful during and immediately after college, and quite a few non-leftists who've always struggled.
Also you seem to be implying that not being a leftist means being pro-meritocracy, which is simply silly.
Personal observation. Not sure how you found that implication when I gave one of the examples of a non-leftist exit from the LP being by people who made it and wish to sandbag competition.
Personal observation.
Not sure how you found that implication when I gave one of the examples of a non-leftist exit from the LP being by people who made it and wish to sandbag competition.
I always recommend people to read the Wikipedia page on the libertarian party’s 2020 presidential primary: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Libertarian_Party_presidential_primaries Highlights:...
He is certainly an authoritarian piece of shit, but he does also advocate for a smaller bureaucracy, if not a smaller government in the traditional sense. But that's just because it helps him too...
He is certainly an authoritarian piece of shit, but he does also advocate for a smaller bureaucracy, if not a smaller government in the traditional sense. But that's just because it helps him too concentrate power in his own hands.
I didn't think he's really arguing for smaller bureaucracy, but for replacing the bureaucrats with people loyal to him, because he thinks the best way to run a federal government is like a mob family.
I didn't think he's really arguing for smaller bureaucracy, but for replacing the bureaucrats with people loyal to him, because he thinks the best way to run a federal government is like a mob family.
I became blackpilled on the LP sometime between 2017 & 2020. As you said, a bunch of their base were happy to ride the Trump train. Unprincipled losers who have a compulsive desire to be part of...
I became blackpilled on the LP sometime between 2017 & 2020. As you said, a bunch of their base were happy to ride the Trump train. Unprincipled losers who have a compulsive desire to be part of the winning team once it’s clear the perpetual underdog stays marginalized for a reason. It’s clear many of them want small government so they can by tyrants of their petty kingdoms, be the family or SMBs. Absolutely not lovers of liberty.
The true believers are deeply unserious about realpolitik and electoral strategy. I have mixed feelings about them, depending on which area of government overreach has a been in their bonnets. Some days, it’s clear they’re insane. Others (more by outside events than any action of the LP core), you can’t help but agree that drivers licenses are fascism (or perhaps a Soviet database, depending on who has the microphone).
From the article: So it seems that they (I think naively, but naive is the whole libertarian platform IMO) believe that they'll get Trump to address issues that they believe are important to them....
From the article:
The Libertarian Party said in a release announcing the speech that they will share a list of their top ten issues with Trump ahead of the convention, “hoping to make an impact on the policy positions of a past, and possibly future, President.”
So it seems that they (I think naively, but naive is the whole libertarian platform IMO) believe that they'll get Trump to address issues that they believe are important to them. I suspect that they will find themselves wanting in so much as they are unable to convince him that destroying this, that, or the other piece of government is a good idea, which... Who knows, maybe he'll think all of their shit is a great idea and will make an effective tool for their agenda?
I won't fault a group for wanting to have honest engagement of ideas with a political candidate and inviting them to a forum to address the ideals of the group (and where libertarians generally seem to think that everyone is a rational actor who would "do the right thing" absent oversight, I suspect that they think Trump is going to do that) but I mean, come on, you have had so long to see how this guy operates. It's some next level situational blindness to not see that Trump is going to do the same stumping he does everywhere and it'll mostly be incoherent blather with a side of racism and boorish attempts at snark. They could just not pay whatever his speaking fee is, wheel a TV up on the stage to run Fox News for the timeslot, and get the same effect.
I think it's a bad faith engagement either way. They aren't "engaging" with Trump, he's engaging with them. He's the one speaking, regardless of their little "ten theses." Even if libertarians are...
I think it's a bad faith engagement either way. They aren't "engaging" with Trump, he's engaging with them. He's the one speaking, regardless of their little "ten theses." Even if libertarians are as naive as you (or I) perceive them to be, I can't imagine their whole party leadership/community choosing this for anything other than the publicity "Trump is talking to us so we are a valid party." Or perhaps, more cynically, they are hoping to announce Trumps speech, then release their top ten list causing Trump to cancel. Then they can say "Look how legit we are, we stuck to our high horses and the establishment couldn't handle it.
I don't think it is that naive at all, I think Trump is really easy to manipulate, and he'll say anything to get crowds to cheer for him. The problem is he won't stick to any ideas that aren't...
I don't think it is that naive at all, I think Trump is really easy to manipulate, and he'll say anything to get crowds to cheer for him.
The problem is he won't stick to any ideas that aren't about himself and 10 is a lot of things for him to remember.
This is key. For things Trump cares about, which is always some selfish thing, he cannot be swayed. For everything else, he'll just parrot the last idea that someone said on Fox News or wherever....
This is key.
For things Trump cares about, which is always some selfish thing, he cannot be swayed.
For everything else, he'll just parrot the last idea that someone said on Fox News or wherever. He really has no morality or compass or interest in governing or talking about things that his little bird brain can't understand. That's why he'll be in a meeting about geopolitics and start talking about Rosie O'Donnel or windmills.
Libertarians have always claimed to be against government overreach, and the promotion of individual freedom.
Yet they just invited a man to speak who is anti-democratic and a likely would-be dictator.
Yep. This pretty much just underscores how most Libertarians are essentially full of shit. Trump represents the exact opposite of everything they claim to value.
No disrespect to anyone, but I had that impression since college.
Back then there were only 2 types of libertarians: business/rich people who wanted regulations and taxes to go away and cannabis users who wanted legalization. The latter type I met weren't 100% honest. They pretended there was something more to their libertarian, but they would get really angry when I asked them how basic services and other concerns worked.
Starting with the Paul family a new type of libertarians appeared to me: the "batshit crazy" type we are familiar with today.
I used to call Libertarians "republican lite", but with things like this story that isn't even true anymore.
Yeah, I for a short while fell for the libertarian schtick in college. But pretty quickly realized they are full of shit (I fell for the we don't want regulation unless it affects other people. Well the environment affects everyone motherfuckers). Honestly my impression of them at the time that made me go away was that they just didn't want any rules on them and fuck everyone else. These days I think that still works for them (long as they don't have to pay taxes is all they really give a shit).
Yeah I am embarrassed to admit that I also was briefly swayed Libertarian in the early 2000s, and my journey was largely the same as yours. Now I look upon them (and more moderate Republicans, to an extent) as just extremely naïve about the reality of the world in which we live. I've even met some really smart people that claim to be Libertarian, and I've come to the conclusion that they just haven't yet encountered anything hard in their life that makes them examine the more complex nature of a lot of issues.
If it were intentionally designed to attract them, the small-l libertarian philosophy would do considerably worse at attracting neurodivergent college boys than it currently does. That’s the time when they’re both old enough to vote and still in an environment where results at the stated objectives (think following the rubric on your term papers) closely align with success at larger goals (maximizing GPA). Structuring society in a meritocratic manner is the just thing to do.
A lot of them who exit left do so because they’ve been hit with situations where the nominal medium goals don’t make a difference at the larger objectives. Most of those scenarios involve dating or job hunting where the stated requirements are both absurd and ignored—their entire purpose is to pretend to be objective when cutting the applicant pile down to something manageable.
The non-left exits (they’re not necessarily to the right) are by those who found early success (regardless of it was earned, luck, or nepotism). It is no longer in their material interests to foster an environment where someone can beat them by being objectively better. Their exact destination depends on all kinds of factors, personality and industry where they “won” being the top two.
That doesn't align with my experiences at all. Were there any kind of studies on this, or was it just observation? I know plenty of leftists who were quite successful during and immediately after college, and quite a few non-leftists who've always struggled.
Also you seem to be implying that not being a leftist means being pro-meritocracy, which is simply silly.
Personal observation.
Not sure how you found that implication when I gave one of the examples of a non-leftist exit from the LP being by people who made it and wish to sandbag competition.
You're right. I suppose I don't understand at all what you were saying about meritocracy, then.
I always recommend people to read the Wikipedia page on the libertarian party’s 2020 presidential primary: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Libertarian_Party_presidential_primaries
Highlights:
Jacob Hornberger win the most votes and 7/12 contests, but was not the nominee.
Vermin Supreme won Massachusetts
The eventual nominee, Jo Jorgensen, won two contests, so I guess she did better than him.
None of the above also won two contests
I think some libertarians do have thoughtful and interesting contributions to political discourse, but the party itself seems like a grift.
He is certainly an authoritarian piece of shit, but he does also advocate for a smaller bureaucracy, if not a smaller government in the traditional sense. But that's just because it helps him too concentrate power in his own hands.
I didn't think he's really arguing for smaller bureaucracy, but for replacing the bureaucrats with people loyal to him, because he thinks the best way to run a federal government is like a mob family.
It's both. He also wants to get rid of some agencies.
I became blackpilled on the LP sometime between 2017 & 2020. As you said, a bunch of their base were happy to ride the Trump train. Unprincipled losers who have a compulsive desire to be part of the winning team once it’s clear the perpetual underdog stays marginalized for a reason. It’s clear many of them want small government so they can by tyrants of their petty kingdoms, be the family or SMBs. Absolutely not lovers of liberty.
The true believers are deeply unserious about realpolitik and electoral strategy. I have mixed feelings about them, depending on which area of government overreach has a been in their bonnets. Some days, it’s clear they’re insane. Others (more by outside events than any action of the LP core), you can’t help but agree that drivers licenses are fascism (or perhaps a Soviet database, depending on who has the microphone).
From the article:
So it seems that they (I think naively, but naive is the whole libertarian platform IMO) believe that they'll get Trump to address issues that they believe are important to them. I suspect that they will find themselves wanting in so much as they are unable to convince him that destroying this, that, or the other piece of government is a good idea, which... Who knows, maybe he'll think all of their shit is a great idea and will make an effective tool for their agenda?
I won't fault a group for wanting to have honest engagement of ideas with a political candidate and inviting them to a forum to address the ideals of the group (and where libertarians generally seem to think that everyone is a rational actor who would "do the right thing" absent oversight, I suspect that they think Trump is going to do that) but I mean, come on, you have had so long to see how this guy operates. It's some next level situational blindness to not see that Trump is going to do the same stumping he does everywhere and it'll mostly be incoherent blather with a side of racism and boorish attempts at snark. They could just not pay whatever his speaking fee is, wheel a TV up on the stage to run Fox News for the timeslot, and get the same effect.
I think it's a bad faith engagement either way. They aren't "engaging" with Trump, he's engaging with them. He's the one speaking, regardless of their little "ten theses." Even if libertarians are as naive as you (or I) perceive them to be, I can't imagine their whole party leadership/community choosing this for anything other than the publicity "Trump is talking to us so we are a valid party." Or perhaps, more cynically, they are hoping to announce Trumps speech, then release their top ten list causing Trump to cancel. Then they can say "Look how legit we are, we stuck to our high horses and the establishment couldn't handle it.
The headline did say it was a Trump speaking engagement. Saying it again is just redundant. 🤣
I don't think it is that naive at all, I think Trump is really easy to manipulate, and he'll say anything to get crowds to cheer for him.
The problem is he won't stick to any ideas that aren't about himself and 10 is a lot of things for him to remember.
This is key.
For things Trump cares about, which is always some selfish thing, he cannot be swayed.
For everything else, he'll just parrot the last idea that someone said on Fox News or wherever. He really has no morality or compass or interest in governing or talking about things that his little bird brain can't understand. That's why he'll be in a meeting about geopolitics and start talking about Rosie O'Donnel or windmills.
No disrespect meant, but they hope to change Trump's mind? Really?
You do it by offering louder cheers when he says what you want than what he consistently said before.
It has to be constantly reapplied. His stances change with who is doing quid pro quoa with him at the moment or who is flattering him in the moment.