People You Don’t happen To Think Badly Of Who Don’t happen To Be Libertarian

User offline. Last seen 12 years 27 weeks ago.
ziggy_encaoua
Number 531
Conspirator for: 15 years 41 weeks
Posted on: April 17, 2010 - 8:23pm

There’s another discussion going on currently on the forum entitled ‘People I like who aren't necessarily libertarians’ & it somewhat disturbs me.

The reason such a question disturbs me is that its like somebody saying ‘People I like who don’t happen to be British’ because it smacks of negative prejudice. Okay there’s an awful lot of difference between being prejudice against an accident of birth & an opinion which an individual might, hold as an individual can change their opinion but obviously can’t change where they were born or the colour of their skin or their sexual orientation. Thing is just because somebody holds a political opinion which differs from your own doesn’t invalidate their opinion nor does it make them a bad person.

Libertarians talk of individuals having the right to free opinion, but then when an individual freely expresses an opinion that differs from one formed by libertarian dogma they can find themselves on the receiving end of a verbal whipping; you’d hear what I’m talking about if you just listen to an average night of FTL when any caller disagrees with Ian Freeman’s perspective of how things should be. It certainly doesn’t go for every libertarian but with many it feels more then your opinion is invalid if it doesn’t fit exactly with what can often be a narrow minded view of liberty, it feels as if you’re a bad person to think differently.& I believe that is somewhat wrong.

Sure I think is utterly wrong if somebody is intolerant & full of hate towards individuals on the basis of their skin colour, ethnicity, sexual orientation & etc, for which I adopt an attitude of being intolerant towards intolerance. I just thing hatred upon crap people can’t help is beyond the pale, but it’s the only thing I’m utterly intolerant about where as it feels many libertarians are intolerant towards anybody who might happen to disagree with their opinion.

Libertarians might think they win the intellectual battle but they never win the political one. One reason I believe is that libertarians haven’t learnt humility or the art of compromise. I might politically lean towards, smaller government, lower taxes & individual liberty, which I will generally fight hard to obtain; but I’m a realist as realise sometimes there are times when that ain’t going to be possible, because I’m not the type who wants to pull the rug from under the feet of average folk 7 I especially don’t want to hurt the vulnerable in society any further then they already get hurt.

Fine libertarian fundamentalists can call me a statist for the opinion I hold, they can spit on my grave or whatever, but by doing so they’re just proving my point about being intolerant. Often when I hear a libertarian call somebody a statist the way its said iit feels like thry’re calling somebody a shithead.


User offline. Last seen 10 years 35 weeks ago.
LysanderSpooner
Number 234
Conspirator for: 16 years 43 weeks
Posted on: April 17, 2010 - 9:24pm #1

Ziggy,

Your sentiments are the exact point of my post.   Even though I am a zero government libertarian, I am tolerant of small government libertarians.  In fact, I've learned a lot from minarchists and non-libertarians.  I don't have the list in front of me, but I think Joe Sobran is the only anarchist on it.  I even go so far as to listen to people who you or I may view as bigoted (which is pretty much everyone).  Even these people can have something to offer.

Ian Freeman is a good example of an intolerant anarchist.  He may or may not be right on a particular issue.  But as you pointed out, the goal of libertarians should be a free society,not just winning arguments.  If you call people names or challenge everything they believe in all at once, you are most likely going to turn them off.

 

At the same time, don't think that being respectful and polite is the same as compromising my principles. I believe in a certain set of principles and so do you. For me, what counts more that someone's political opinion is whether or not they're honest.  I know your aren't a 100% libertarian.  And I really don't care.  You're an honest guy who has interesting stuff to say.

__________________

Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it

Learned Hand

In the past men created witches: now they create mental patients.
Thomas Szasz

Relinquish liberty for the purposes of defense in an emergency?
Why? It would seem that in an emergency, of all times, one needs
his greatest strength. So if liberty is strength and slavery is weakness,
liberty is a necessity rather than a luxury, and we can ill afford
to be without it—least of all during an emergency.

F.A. Harper


User offline. Last seen 12 years 22 weeks ago.
Copernicus
Number 636
Conspirator for: 15 years 23 hours
Posted on: April 18, 2010 - 12:40pm #2

Yes, Ziggy, I agree with LS: I think you misunderstood the spirit of our disagreement. Neither of us would call Kolko or Sowell libertarians, we're only disagreeing about the relative merits of these non-libertarians.

The nice thing, though, is that you managed to get LS and I to agree on something.

B.C.'ing you.

Copernicus