things you're secretly kinda libertariany about

Smoking bans
Mandatory seat-belt laws

getting flashed is super hilarious though

You are speaking purely about yourself on that, I presume.

if flashing were legal it would prob lose its appeal to a lot of people fast

yes and no. people wouldn't be as able to get away with "shocking" nudity, but yr tossers and bone flashers would probably still get a sick thrill. not on board w everybody gets to be naked all the time everywhere as social policy, at least not in the here and now. but i definitely think we would all benefit by substantially lowering the american prudishness threshhold.

American prudishness is evergreen.

lol a guy once masturbated at me on a beach and i kept laughing and he kept getting more into it and the more he got into it the funnier i thought it was. it is a shame this has only happened once, laughter is an excellent stress reliever and works the abs

u should try masturbation

thats more of a tricep exercise

if you do it the boring way, ya sure

i thought i was a 'free speech absolutist' until citizens united happened and suddenly every libertarian i was friends with was crowing on their FB or twitter about what a great victory it was for the 1st amendment.

not really 'libertariany' about drugs either; i don't think the country would be better off if you could buy crack cocaine and heroin at wal-mart.

i. gov't should not subsidize disaster insurance

This shit: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/john-ibbitson/tories-on-e-snooping-stand-with-us-or-with-the-child-pornographers/article2336889/

May be an easy one though.

Maybe, like, farm subsidies? For the most part, though, libertarians seem emotionally immature and willfully ignorant of history. Libertarianism would probably be really great in a perfect world with an enlightened populace, but I mean...

I don't know that they're willfully "ignorant of history" so much as that they're deliberately ahistorical, which is even more problematic imo. Get into a debate with one of these doctrinaire Von Mises/Hayek types and watch how quickly they try to move the terms of discussion from actually existing social relations to abstractions like "liberty" and "coercion." Watch a Rothbard as he runs as fast as he can from the world into the comforting arms of metaphysics, because he and his ilk know that if you get into the nitty gritty of history their principles are easily contradicted by reality.

So these kinda ~intellectual pillars~ are deliberately ahistorical as a rhetorical tactic--it's the only ground on which they can get close to winning arguments--and their followers take this historical shallowness and treat it as the height of reason. If you're not arguing principle--that is, if you're talking about history and the real world--then they don't think your argument is sufficiently high-minded. "What about principle," they'll press you. When you tell them that 50 years of horrific American child labor are a pretty good argument against letting "the free market" sort out child labor issues, they'll accuse you of selling out the principle of voluntary labor.

It's all very backing-into-a-corner-firing-a-machine-gun in rhetorical style, which I suppose is fitting given that so many of them end up that way in reality too.

hoos OTM, all kinds of M

hoos i wonder if you've seen those arguments in the past year between mises-affiliated folks and graeber himself? p revealing stuff.

what's most amazing about that kind libertarian is not only that it's deliberately ahistorical, but that it has a such a strongly implied historical pattern at work behind everything. (i'm thinking of some crazy shit i read by hoppe). ie there was a time when men were free, but then somebody invented coercion and it all went to shit. but i never hear who that is! FDR? louis xiv? st paul? gilgamesh? colonial america seems to be the eden of this mindset but the details are left very muddy.

whenever i see these guys talk about 'the economically placid 19th century' i'm just like, ok this is a cult. (mad inflation during shakespeare's day, for ex.)

Citizens United is a dumb decision; spending isn't speech and the entire line of cases leading up to that decision was wrong-headed.

you guys this is the thread 2b secret libertarians, every other thread on ilx is for hating libertarians

this is a safe zone where we will trade w/ each other and make contracts and shoot guns, so many guns

citizens united is a crime against man and god (belongs in fascisty tho)

[oop, iatee on point]

OK, fair enough, I just want to be more libertarian than thou when it comes to my free speech absolutism -- which is based on the idea that speech is speech and not something else. Citizens United is only loved by dumb libertarians (yes, yes Department of Redundancy Department time).

individuals should be free to break contracts without consequence

(shoots you)

hoos i wonder if you've seen those arguments in the past year between mises-affiliated folks and graeber himself? p revealing stuff.

yes i have! yes it is!

colonial america seems to be the eden of this mindset but the details are left very muddy.

― Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Tuesday, February 14, 2012 6:39 AM (41 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

for reaaaalz

(shoots at iatee)

(shoots contracts out of a contract gun)

(shoots pens that sign the contracts in midair)

my god

HOOsteen, there was a pretty big discussion above that was partly inspired by your

that said i'm p 'libertarian party' when it comes to guns

― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Sunday, February 12, 2012 9:36 PM (2 days ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I got a response from milo. How bout you? Note that I'm not trying to be provocative or anything. Just curious.

In Finland there's a huge system where the state subsidizes various art institutions... While I think the idea is good in theory, in practice a disproportionate amount of the money goes to "high art" institutions, like opera and classical music orchestras, while various forms of "low art" (i.e. stuff that working class and lower middle class people enjoy) get much less. The justification for this is that without the state support many of the high art institutions would face an economical crisis and possibly go bankrupt. The most obvious example of this is the National Opera, which gets more than half of its budget from the subsidies, and much less from the actual ticket sales. While I've nothing against opera and enjoy some of that stuff myself, basically I think that if people don't want to listen to opera enough to support it, just let it die! Various art forms have born and died throughout history (sometimes to be resurrected again decades or centuries later), there's no need for them to be kept artificially alive just because the higher-class people who decide on the subsidies think some art form is more valuable than another one.

there should be no traffic laws

this is something im libertarian about

no traffic laws, no sidewalks, no parking on roads

that sounds like a traffic law son

its a parking law

I'm libertarian about politics and religion, which to me means I like diversity, I don't want to turn on the television and see only people who think like me, I like to see conservative viewpoints or learn about people's religious beliefs. Some people think "libertarian" means "I hate God" or something.

I didn't know that people thought that!

While I've nothing against opera and enjoy some of that stuff myself, basically I think that if people don't want to listen to opera enough to support it, just let it die! Various art forms have born and died throughout history (sometimes to be resurrected again decades or centuries later), there's no need for them to be kept artificially alive just because the higher-class people who decide on the subsidies think some art form is more valuable than another one.

it's not that simple. there may be Higher Class people acting as cultural gatekeepers of art funding and there may not, but if the state subsidises culture that otherwise wdn't happen or wd be severely curtailed then it does so for the benefit of all its members. it's like saying there shd be no publically subsidised art galleries because if people care enough, they'll shell out the odd million pounds to have their own art collection.

i'd agree there are issues around the way arts are funded but state-subsidised opera exists to allow all sorts of people to enjoy it, not just dudes in top hats and monocles.

if all that many wanted it it'd be sustainable without subvention is the argument.

I dunno where i stand on that tbh, i'd always kneejerk towards public money having better things to be doing than supporting sports/arts/whatever but meh gotta do something with all that phat cash i guess

abstract industrial steel sculptures in the middle of roundabouts ca do one, tho

like i say i recognise that arts grants is fraught with contestible issues. but tbh all governments jizz away enough money on stuff that's actively evil that it seems curmudgeonly to moan about stuff that actually brings people pleasure

arts funding is not just for the sake of promulgating culture or whatever high purposes it espouses, but also as a kind of soft (and effective) job creation scheme for a population w/o a lot of koosh

There are also state prestige/display things bound up with top-end opera & ballet so they might get disproportionate money, but yeah, subsidies in uk at least for that stuff are usually tied up with affordable seats, community programmes afaict.

I'm pro-arts but in the U.S. the pro-arts position isn't articulated well. It's a fair question to ask how the U.S. in general benefits from, say, the funding of European classical programs. I think our country surely benefits from support for American cultural endeavors like jazz or folk music programs. I don't think our democracy has any substance, however, without educational programming.

It's a fair question to ask how the U.S. in general benefits from, say, the funding of European classical programs. I think our country surely benefits from support for American cultural endeavors like jazz or folk music programs.

this strikes me as a very strange and sort of jingoistic thing to say. people and cultures can benefit from art/the arts whether or not the work in question is entirely "homegrown".

Smoking in pubs should be allowed. FFS!

it's interesting how many smokers seem to think that

Also at this stage aren't they (classical / jazz / folk) mostly "things you only do if someone's paying you to"?

yeah, living in a non-smoking country is a joy, tbph

NV- i was kind of agreeing with you on 'gotta spend it somehow, opera won't kill anyone'

you can replace 'opera' w/ any other form of music there tho

I'm against funding for classical music because I hate old people

I don't see how my statement is either strange or jingoistic when the same "argument" can be found in the mission statements of many American cultural organizations. Public interest is what justifies arts funding whether it is public or private. For example, PBS support for Ken Burns. Is Ken Burns stuff jingoistic or are documentaries about jazz, Frank Lloyd Wright and Prohibition globally as well as domestically relevant?

being 'libertariany' about zoning should really go in the fascisty thread -- basically you want to remove all local power over land use in favor of a larger body or plan.

it's less land-use restrictive but very politically restrictive, if that makes sense. nimby politics are like the most ancient kind of politics.

― Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Monday, February 13, 2012 2:46 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

naw being able to do what u want on YOUR LAND w/o yr neighbors saying shit is the heart of libertarianism, of course thats not really why i want zoning relaxed, but then im not libertarian