Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Who considers themselves as more of a libertarian?

What pros and cons do people see with these political views?

I for the most part like Ron Paul's take on libertarianism

I consider myself as a true center. I should say, the "political spectrum" tests I have taken put me as very close to as center as possible.

With a very slight libertarian lean.

I do not consider myself libertarian, just libertarian leaning on some topics.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I consider myself as a true center. I should say, the "political spectrum" tests I have taken put me as very close to as center as possible.

With a very slight libertarian lean.

I do not consider myself libertarian, just libertarian leaning on some topics.

thanks bro. I just hope libertarian is a viable option in the future

I could call myself libertarian economically, in the way that was popularized by Milton Friedman, among other notable economists. The central idea being that individual economic freedom equates to personal freedom as a whole. This idea then works its way up to ideas about decentralized government (more states rights), small gov't in general (beyond basic infrastructure and protections of civil liberties), while protecting against monopolies and providing enough welfare for the poor that they can afford basic necessities and participate in the free market, but not much beyond that.

So to me it depends on what you mean by the term. I consider the above paragraph to be necessary when I use the term, because it has come to mean very different things to people. The modern libertarian party is ostensibly for what I described, but it occasionally comes packaged with a social agenda that I can't ascribe to.

I'm a "classical liberal"

the slightest bit right and above center.

Ancapistan.jpeg

Privatise the roads!

Used to be, but I'm a little more left-leaning economically these days.

I like some of the ideas that it entails, but from what I've seen a lot of Libertarians are self-centred and selfish psychopaths who hold little to no regard for the people their 'ultimate freedom' ends up hurting. Good in concept, probably not very good in practice, but to be fair, that goes for almost every political ideology.

Originally posted by Scribble
I like some of the ideas that it entails, but from what I've seen a lot of Libertarians are self-centred and selfish psychopaths who hold little to no regard for the people their 'ultimate freedom' ends up hurting. Good in concept, probably not very good in practice, but to be fair, that goes for almost every political ideology.

so the feels

It's not about feelings, although I do consider emotions to be an important aspect of humanity (they're fun, try them some time, you might like it), it's more the idea itself of a form of minimal government being ran by people entirely devoid of emotion that I dislike. I think it should be clear that it's impossible to truly trust someone who doesn't have any empathy or regard for human beings; they'll **** you over in a heartbeat for their own personal gain.


I mean, the idea of mocking someone for having feelings is a surreal and scary enough concept as it is, let alone the kind of people who do that having power over you.


Although it has given me a good idea for a dystopian story. It'll open in a cafe, and there's a man sitting in a booth, drinking a cup of coffee and smiling to himself. Two surly men, who later turn out to be secret police, walk over to him and say, "Well, well, well, what have we got here - a feeler."

https://i.imgur.com/BR2G9Ep.jpg

Originally posted by Scribble
It's not about feelings, although I do consider emotions to be an important aspect of humanity (they're fun, try them some time, you might like it), it's more the idea itself of a form of minimal government being ran by people entirely devoid of emotion that I dislike. I think it should be clear that it's impossible to truly trust someone who doesn't have any empathy or regard for human beings; they'll **** you over in a heartbeat for their own personal gain.


I mean, the idea of mocking someone for having feelings is a surreal and scary enough concept as it is, let alone the kind of people who do that having power over you.


Although it has given me a good idea for a dystopian story. It'll open in a cafe, and there's a man sitting in a booth, drinking a cup of coffee and smiling to himself. Two surly men, who later turn out to be secret police, walk over to him and say, "Well, well, well, what have we got here - a feeler."

women are the ones with emotions dude. as a man, one of our greatest assets is the ability to separate emotions from what needs to be done.

you just wrote a huge paragraph full of feels. it's unnecessary

Originally posted by Raisen
women are the ones with emotions dude. as a man, one of our greatest assets is the ability to separate emotions from what needs to be done.

you just wrote a huge paragraph full of feels. it's unnecessary
Yep.

Rationality requires discipline and critical thinking. Emotions are Neanderthalian and shared among many organisms, unlike logicality.

Originally posted by Kurk
Yep.

Rationality requires discipline and critical thinking. Emotions are Neanderthalian and shared among many organisms, unlike logicality.

and it's these feels that lead men to do stupid and irrational things. and women are naturally turned off by emotional men. they are viewed as feminine.

I have a lot of respect for libertarianism, but I consider myself more of a centrist classical liberal, and I will remain a classical liberal even regardless of if I shift left or right in the future, because there are some things in progressivism I can actually respect (such as legalizing gay marriage), aspects of conservatism I find myself agreement such as the significance of certain traditions such as the constitution and marriage and the importance of the social fabric, and certain aspects and practices of libertarianism such as the government not regulating my social life, however regardless of how far left or right I am my perspective will always be informed through the lens of upholding liberal principles and values, rather than through the lens of social equality, traditionalism, or the point of view that the government needs to be as minimized as possible

I'll pass. I'd rather live an emotional and disordered life than a more successful one devoid of emotion. Where's the point succeeding if you won't be happy to enjoy it? Seems pretty shit to me, but you guys do you.


Also, logic is omnipresent in the animal world, and emotions aren't universal, so sorry Kurk, you're dead wrong there. Being logical is easy. Being emotional is easy. Being both and balancing both, now there's a challenge.

happiness comes with not giving way to other emotions broseph. you're complicating things. this is how people get to the point of thinking they are trans-racial homosexual females stuck in a man's body.

I like things complicated. Keeps it interesting. I use my emotions to succeed, through forms of art. Without my emotions, all of them, I wouldn't have made it this far. Not accepting your 'weak' emotions works for you, great. You like to bang vacuous women, great. It's not for me, though. I prefer concentrating on my work to going out and getting laid, so I prefer sex in the context of a stable relationship.


People are different, man. They have different lives and different experiences and like different things. Shock horror.

Depends on what form of libertarianism we're talking about here. Classical liberalism(which is a form of libertarianism) is just fine and dandy. Ancap, on the other hand, is insane.

people are different. you are more effeminate of a man. that's just the way it is. I'm not trying to insult you either

Originally posted by Raisen
women are the ones with emotions dude. as a man, one of our greatest assets is the ability to separate emotions from what needs to be done.

you just wrote a huge paragraph full of feels. it's unnecessary This is one of the most ignorant things I've ever read on KMC, wow. Impressive.

it's ignorant to think we are so different than other mammals. life is simple. and you're only responding this way because you take offense to it. people only take offense to things that hold some truth.

be real

Originally posted by Raisen
people are different. you are more effeminate of a man. that's just the way it is. I'm not trying to insult you either Can't deny that, and it's mostly worked okay for me so far, so I guess that's that

Originally posted by Scribble
Can't deny that, and it's mostly worked okay for me so far, so I guess that's that

yeah. if it's natural then it is what it is. only problem is when people get too emotional and don't want to be honest.
can't make progress if we can't speak honestly

Originally posted by Raisen
it's ignorant to think we are so different than other mammals. life is simple. and you're only responding this way because you take offense to it. people only take offense to things that hold some truth.

be real I think our emotional capacity is what separates us, though. We could be simple animals sure, but we could also be so much more, and that's what fascinates me.

Originally posted by Scribble
I think our emotional capacity is what separates us, though. We could be simple animals sure, but we could also be so much more, and that's what fascinates me.

but we get so far out from the basics we create unnecessary problems with these emotions. we have people thinking and feeling their way to suicide and all sorts of weird sexual disorders etc. what other animal kills itself in anywhere near the numbers we do?

we are a sexually dimorphic mammal. men are generally bigger and stronger for a reason.

marketing and war.

there's always a measured person using male emotion to get wealthy or get people to risk their lives. people need to break free of these mental constraints.

Originally posted by |King Joker|
This is one of the most ignorant things I've ever read on KMC, wow. Impressive. Despite the black-and-white logic there, it is a fact.

Originally posted by Kurk
Despite the black-and-white logic there, it is a fact.

yep. simple truths dismissed for feelings. this is how masses are controlled and society is screwed up

Originally posted by Kurk
Despite the black-and-white logic there, it is a fact.

look at the guys profile. it explains why he took personal offense.

Originally posted by Scribble
Not if I know my weaknesses. Self-awareness is key. To be overly emotional and unaware of the result of that is a bad sign for personal development, but if you know yourself well enough, you can make yourself more resistant to manipulation or coercion. You build armour. You don't let people see your weaknesses, either. I'm a fairly unstable person emotionally for whatever reason, but nobody knows it - I apply my mask every day and so people think I'm a generally well-rounded person. I take charge with natural ease, and never let people see the pressure getting to me, and I deliver results with expertise, and nobody will ever know that all the time, I was an overflowing mess of emotions, always on the edge of sapping. That's a big part of the balancing act. Self-awareness is far more important than almost anything else in life, imo.

Also, being empathetic can help vastly in the world. So you don't want to be held responsible for hurting someone's feelings? Sure, go ahead and insult them or say whatever you want to say. But there's a lot to gain from mincing one's words. You can gain the support of enemies through empathy, you can make people like you enough to promote you by reading and understanding people. Psychopaths do it whilst faking it. I do the same thing, except I happen to be genuine. The end result is the same.


Critical thinking can be found in many parts of the biological world, in the ways that animals hunt and forage. If a gazelle is running in a semi-circle to shake of its pursuer, the lion takes a straight path instead of keeping on its tail and catches its prey. Apes use tools to open nuts too difficult to smash open with a rock. Etc. It's everywhere.

yeah. critical thinking to ensure they eat or survive dude.

these wild feeling we get from our big beautiful brains leads to a lot of problems. keep it simple.

being in control of your emotions eventually leads to forgoing the unnecessary and imagined problems. it leads to mental freedom and happiness with a lot less petty problems

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
Classical liberalism(which is a form of libertarianism) is just fine and dandy.


Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
Ancap, on the other hand, is insane.

Originally posted by Raisen
yeah. critical thinking to ensure they eat or survive dude.

these wild feeling we get from our big beautiful brains leads to a lot of problems. keep it simple.

being in control of your emotions eventually leads to forgoing the unnecessary and imagined problems. it leads to mental freedom and happiness with a lot less petty problems What else do they have to do but eat and survive (and rut, which they also use critical thinking for)? They're applying critical thinking to their lives. What's the difference?

Originally posted by Scribble
What else do they have to do but eat and survive (and rut, which they also use critical thinking for)? They're applying critical thinking to their lives. What's the difference?

the difference is that we humans have all but mastered any and all threats. our advanced brains now have fiddle time to create self destructive emotions and behaviors that conflict with our basic needs. your emotions that you give sway to are completely unnecessary yet you are smart enough to rationalize yourself into a tiff. it's destructive. 99% percent of the world's bs is privileged people emoting themselves into problems.

Despite my previous post, in reality I would probably class myself as some form of light-minarchist currently. I do think we should have a pretty limited government, though on certain issues and policies I may take a more Conservative or (less often) Liberal approach - depending on said issue.

However, mostly, in my view, the purpose of the state is to protect and ensure the liberties of the individual and their private property. I might be willing to allow some exceptions, but as a general rule I think this is more reasonable.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
Ancap, on the other hand, is insane.

B-b-but what if the child consents?

Originally posted by RHaggis
Despite my previous post, in reality I would probably class myself as some form of light-minarchist currently. I do think we should have a pretty limited government, though on certain issues and policies I may take a more Conservative or (less often) Liberal approach - depending on said issue.

However, mostly, in my view, the purpose of the state is to protect and ensure the liberties of the individual and their private property. I might be willing to allow some exceptions, but as a general rule I think this is more reasonable.

yeah. pretty much

Originally posted by Raisen
the difference is that we humans have all but mastered any and all threats. our advanced brains now have fiddle time to create self destructive emotions and behaviors that conflict with our basic needs. your emotions that you give sway to are completely unnecessary yet you are smart enough to rationalize yourself into a tiff. it's destructive. 99% percent of the world's bs is privileged people emoting themselves into problems. I'd say there's far more poverty, death and illness (real, serious threats) caused by selfish rich people than overly emotional people, though.

Originally posted by RHaggis
B-b-but what if the child consents?
Well, then you just get him/her to sign a contract and you're good to go.

Originally posted by Scribble
I'd say there's far more poverty, death and illness (real, serious threats) caused by selfish rich people than overly emotional people, though.

it's the selfish rich people manipulating the emotional people...through their emotions lol.
we voted for our problems man. why do we have so many homeless people yet send billions in aid to other countries?

you watch these sad feed the children commercials and send money overseas when there's a homeless child two blocks over. that's emotional manipulation.

we keep voting for the same people who do the same things over and over and over. and it's all for the feels.

Originally posted by Kurk
Despite the black-and-white logic there, it is a fact. Link me to the study that says that women are incapable of removing emotions in decision making.

Originally posted by Raisen
look at the guys profile. it explains why he took personal offense. What?

Originally posted by Raisen
it's the selfish rich people manipulating the emotional people...through their emotions lol.
we voted for our problems man. why do we have so many homeless people yet send billions in aid to other countries?

you watch these sad feed the children commercials and send money overseas when there's a homeless child two blocks over. that's emotional manipulation.

we keep voting for the same people who do the same things over and over and over. and it's all for the feels. Whilst there is a bit of that, it seems short-sighted to say that's all it is. I'd say wealth inheritance and archaic economic structures of days past are more responsible than social manipulation. Most of what the rich do is behind closed doors. Of course they manipulate people, but that's because those people are stupid, not just emotional. You can be resistant to manipulation whilst being emotional, as I said before.

Originally posted by Scribble
Whilst there is a bit of that, it seems short-sighted to say that's all it is. I'd say wealth inheritance and archaic economic structures of days past are more responsible than social manipulation. Most of what the rich do is behind closed doors. Of course they manipulate people, but that's because those people are stupid, not just emotional. You can be resistant to manipulation whilst being emotional, as I said before.

sure. stupidity and emotions. but the stupid are reached through their emotions dude. they are stupid...they don't do logic bro lol. so ruffle their feathers. create an enemy. create some intangible emotional bs story and get them to spend their money on stupid things.

Originally posted by |King Joker|
Link me to the study that says that women are incapable of removing emotions in decision making.

What?

I never said women were incapable of removing emotionsincapable

That was definitely the implication you seemed to be making.

Originally posted by |King Joker|
That was definitely the implication you seemed to be making.

nope. just your emotional response based on your preconceived notions

Or maybe your terrible articulation.

Originally posted by |King Joker|
Or maybe your terrible articulation.

ok bro

I do sense that that response is sarcastic, though. Perhaps brought on by some irritation that's manifesting itself into some passive aggressiveness? Maybe you need to do a deep breathing exercise?

Originally posted by Scribble
Not if I know my weaknesses. Self-awareness is key. To be overly emotional and unaware of the result of that is a bad sign for personal development, but if you know yourself well enough, you can make yourself more resistant to manipulation or coercion. You build armour. You don't let people see your weaknesses, either. I'm a fairly unstable person emotionally for whatever reason, but nobody knows it - I apply my mask every day and so people think I'm a generally well-rounded person. I take charge with natural ease, and never let people see the pressure getting to me, and I deliver results with expertise, and nobody will ever know that all the time, I was an overflowing mess of emotions, always on the edge of snapping. That's a big part of the balancing act. Self-awareness is far more important than almost anything else in life, imo.

Also, being empathetic can help vastly in the world. So you don't want to be held responsible for hurting someone's feelings? Sure, go ahead and insult them or say whatever you want to say. But there's a lot to gain from mincing one's words. You can gain the support of enemies through empathy, you can make people like you enough to promote you by reading and understanding people. Psychopaths do it whilst faking it. I do the same thing, except I happen to be genuine. The end result is the same.


Critical thinking can be found in many parts of the biological world, in the ways that animals hunt and forage. If a gazelle is running in a semi-circle to shake of its pursuer, the lion takes a straight path instead of keeping on its tail and catches its prey. Apes use tools to open nuts too difficult to smash open with a rock. Etc. It's everywhere. So you're using rationality and self-discipline to control your emotions? I can respect that.

Thinking about how what you say to people affects them, either in your favor or against, is also an example of rationality.

A lion changing its course of direction to chase prey is the equivalent of an irrational/emotional human doing the same to their pet dog. It's a basic function.

Originally posted by |King Joker|


I do sense that that response is sarcastic, though. Perhaps brought on by some irritation that's manifesting itself into some passive aggressiveness? Maybe you need to do a deep breathing exercise?

no. I'm cool. just no point in going back and forth. the answers are pretty obvious and I know there's a lot of people that just want to live a lie. i'll live my happy life with the truth

Originally posted by Raisen
women are the ones with emotions dude. as a man, one of our greatest assets is the ability to separate emotions from what needs to be done.

you just wrote a huge paragraph full of feels. it's unnecessary I'm no neuroscientist... but based on the words of people who are, I don't think what you're describing is actually possible.

Your emotions are just another part of your decision-making process. You can't just extract what "needs to be done" using pure Vulcan logic. You can only deceive yourself that this is what you are doing.

Originally posted by Afro Cheese
I'm no neuroscientist... but based on the words of people who are, I don't think what you're describing is actually possible.

Your emotions are just another part of your decision-making process. You can't just extract what "needs to be done" using pure Vulcan logic. You can only deceive yourself that this is what you are doing.

there's ways to subdue them. enough practice will result in little to nothing being able to affect you negatively. you just have to have a certain viewpoint on things

I dunno about that. That just sounds like having a strong resolve, which is not at all absent of its own emotional context. You have to have something to inspire you to be resilient in achieving a goal in the first place before you will find the will to do so.

So, your post was in response to this:

Originally posted by Scribble
I like some of the ideas that it entails, but from what I've seen a lot of Libertarians are self-centred and selfish psychopaths who hold little to no regard for the people their 'ultimate freedom' ends up hurting. Good in concept, probably not very good in practice, but to be fair, that goes for almost every political ideology.

And you responded with "the feels" as if this is an irrelevant point because it has even the slightest touch of humanity in it. This seems like a cop-out to me. Or, if not a cop out, then you just haven't thought through the implications of a society run by selfish psychopaths. Because whenever you are proposing a system that is supposed to structure society, you need to take into account everyone it will effect. If your response is I don't care about the people for whom it wouldn't work well, then you're no longer pitching a utopian society but a sort of ponzi scheme that you feel you will benefit from.

Note: It's not my claim that Libertarianism is necessarily a society ran by selfish psychopaths. But that was essentially what was said in the post you quoted and as far as I could tell you saw nothing wrong with that.

Originally posted by Scribble
I'd say there's far more poverty, death and illness (real, serious threats) caused by selfish rich people than overly emotional people, though.

Man. You must have majored in Ultra Leftist Progressive Brainwashing while in College.

Probably went for all the extra time in the spin cycle just for fun.

I'd say I used to be libertarian but now I find myself leaning further to the right and sympathetic to corporations more and more.

Poor people suck. I like kellogs and the gap. **** poor people.

I used to be. Then I grew up and realised it was utopian

Originally posted by godemperortrump
I used to be. Then I grew up and realised it was utopian

how did you grow up? what did you accomplish?