How To Counteract Foreign Meddling In American Elections
- Thread starter Ponca Dan
- Start date
Magic idealistic libertarianism.
Poof!
Problem solved.
Never any discussion about the process of how we get from here to there.
I think he recognizes that his idea is not possible in today's environment. I think he recognizes that his vision can never occur until minds are changed. His (my) hope is that someone will see that his vision of a free society is possible. One changed mind at a time!
Ok, so we are talking some form of anarchy where people don't have to vote. Isn't that the true shame in the system? That we have to vote in the first place? Voting in and of itself is something no one should really have to do right? In theory I understand it.
Well, let's just cut to the chase. And I'm going to go ahead and ask people on here to vouch on how true blue libertarian I used to be.
What he wants is basically philosophical anarchy which is utopian in nature. Any type of anarchy is just that. Why won't it work? Because any type of philosophical anarchy requires a very high IQ population. For a democracy to function, if I remember correctly, it requires at least a national IQ of 94.
So let's take that IQ of 94 just for a functioning democratic republic, with all its issues, and now apply it to a society that would be required to operate with no government at all to enforce property rights via the threat of force. How does that work? What is the minimum IQ requirement for such a society?
It's an unachievable goal. I'm sorry. It just is. You can try to influence minds until blue in the face. Even if a society tried it the probability of success with average IQ is zero.
Well, let's just cut to the chase. And I'm going to go ahead and ask people on here to vouch on how true blue libertarian I used to be.
What he wants is basically philosophical anarchy which is utopian in nature. Any type of anarchy is just that. Why won't it work? Because any type of philosophical anarchy requires a very high IQ population. For a democracy to function, if I remember correctly, it requires at least a national IQ of 94.
So let's take that IQ of 94 just for a functioning democratic republic, with all its issues, and now apply it to a society that would be required to operate with no government at all to enforce property rights via the threat of force. How does that work? What is the minimum IQ requirement for such a society?
It's an unachievable goal. I'm sorry. It just is. You can try to influence minds until blue in the face. Even if a society tried it the probability of success with average IQ is zero.
I took the piece as a commentary on the current state of our politics and political system. The author wasn't offering a blueprint, just a commentary. It should spawn a discussion of the current state, not whether or not libertarian utopia is possible.
I'm prescribing about eight bottles of mag citrate to you all. It'll be "lifting" to you in the morning. Warning, I'm almost a doctor.
I'm prescribing about eight bottles of mag citrate to you all. It'll be "lifting" to you in the morning. Warning, I'm almost a doctor.
Thanks for your calm, reasoned reply. A couple of thoughts occur to me.
First: the tone of the article is decidedly minarchist, not anarchist. He calls for a reduction of the power of the government, not its elimination. I'll grant you he would like to see a severe reduction! I am the philosophical anarchist, so perhaps that is where you are confused.
Second thought: there seems to be a dueling, schizophrenic attitude buried deep in the human psyche. On the one hand we all desire to be free. While on the other hand we desperately want to have someone else assume responsibility for our well being. It's a huge tug of war within each of us. I fear the desire to be taken care of is stronger than the desire for liberty. But the tug of war persists in each of us. We willingly hand over the reins of our destiny to others, and then chafe when we are forced to act in ways we don't want to act. Since it's part and parcel of our personality there's probably not much we can do about it. We apparently have always lived under a version of government, and probably always will.
That being said, a philosophical anarchist sees a different vision for society. One in which individuals could be free to pursue their own interests sans the directed violence and threat of violence of a state. And, knowing his vision is utopian and will never be accepted by the majority, the philosophical anarchist persists in tilting at windmills, trying at the least to reverse the constant trend toward stronger and more malevolent government. No version of anarchism (or minarchism, for that matter) can exist without the acceptance of the masses. The only recourse available is persuasion. A violent overthrow of an established order by a dedicated minority of anarchists is completely out of the question. What version of a top-down forced anarchism would that be?
Lastly, it would be contradictory for a philosophical anarchist to call for each person to carve out his own path, and then lay out the path to be taken. It is not his duty to "show the way."
Gotta get to work! Thanks, Thor, it's been fun! We should do this again sometime!
