Is libertarianism a genetic mutation?

Ruble Noon · 12-07-2012, 16:11

Quote:

Maybe this is more evidence in favor of a premise I've long suspected is true: libertarianism is actually a genetic mutation.

L: It certainly feels that way. Frequently.

Doug: It does, doesn't it? Even when people recognize and intellectually understand the philosophy of personal freedom and responsibility, most just can't integrate it into themselves emotionally. And others simply refuse to grasp it intellectually. I'm afraid libertarianism is fated to appeal to only a small minority.

http://lewrockwell.com/casey/casey142.html

token5gtd · 12-07-2012, 16:39

Who doesn't want to be free?

Genetic mutation is very laughable though.

Ruble Noon · 12-07-2012, 17:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by token5gtd

Who doesn't want to be free?

Have you spent much time perusing GTPI?

hogfish · 12-07-2012, 17:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by token5gtd

Who doesn't want to be free?

Genetic mutation is very laughable though.

Submissiveness is very common.

**kirgi08** · 12-07-2012, 17:57

There is a difference between a liberal and a libertarian.'08.

Chronos · 12-07-2012, 18:06

I doubt it's genetic, but I suspect that it (or rather the lack of it) does have some very real roots in brain function and formation that are established at a young age. There was almost certainly a similar phenomenon back when slavery was taken for granted as a "righteous institution." You just need to expose a child to violence early and often, and get them to identify with the attacker rather than the victim, and boom -- you've made a little authoritarian who has a custom-built sociopathy towards whatever class of innocent people he saw abused. Today, this is what the state does in 12 years of "public education" -- extol violent state intervention in nearly all circumstances, and denigrate innocent people who don't want to be a part of it.

It may be that only a tiny fraction of people have what it takes to break out of that kind of conditioning, though.

**Cavalry Doc** · 12-07-2012, 18:13

Y linked dominant, or recessive?

The way the country is going, I'm thinking recessive makes more sense.

barbedwiresmile · 12-07-2012, 18:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chronos

... this is what the state does in 12 years of "public education" -- extol violent state intervention in nearly all circumstances, and denigrate innocent people who don't want to be a part of it.

As usual, Chronos nails it.

countrygun · 12-07-2012, 19:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chronos

I doubt it's genetic, but I suspect that it (or rather the lack of it) does have some very real roots in brain function and formation that are established at a young age. There was almost certainly a similar phenomenon back when slavery was taken for granted as a "righteous institution." You just need to expose a child to violence early and often, and get them to identify with the attacker rather than the victim, and boom -- you've made a little authoritarian who has a custom-built sociopathy towards whatever class of innocent people he saw abused. Today, this is what the state does in 12 years of "public education" -- extol violent state intervention in nearly all circumstances, and denigrate innocent people who don't want to be a part of it.

It may be that only a tiny fraction of people have what it takes to break out of that kind of conditioning, though.

I think there is a further step that you stopped short of.

It even seems horrifying to some "libertarians" but, at one time, in this Country a male child was taught to stand up for himself if he was picked on. He didn't "run and tell the teacher" he generally got in a fight. (oh the horror). Once you teach a child to be dependent on authority figures...well you see where it goes. They no longer make their own decisions, they become used to abiding by what the authority figure says and they are more willing to follow orders "handed down".

**kirgi08** · 12-07-2012, 19:14

We home school ta avoid the mandated indoctrination.'08.

barbedwiresmile · 12-08-2012, 06:58

Bravo K'08!

JBnTX · 12-08-2012, 07:52

In theory libertarianism sounds great, but in reality it's impossible to practice simply because we must have laws if we are to remain a civilized society.

Libertarianism has been hijacked by two different groups that have their own selfish motives.

One is the anarchist who feels he should be allowed to live his life as he sees fit. It's his life and what he does with it is nobody's business.

The other is the pothead whose only motivation in life is legal pot. He'll support any politician who promises to legalize marijuana.

Without the support of these two groups, libertarians would have become extinct long ago.

**Cavalry Doc** · 12-08-2012, 08:00

There are a lot of good ideas in libertarianism. Most of them in fact. The problem is that absolute liberty is anarchy, and a system of might is right.

I'm no where near an anarchist, but we could definitely take many large leaps toward libertarianism and things would be better.

It requires a balance.

Syclone538 · 12-08-2012, 09:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by token5gtd

Who doesn't want to be free?

Genetic mutation is very laughable though.

Most people don't want other people to be free.

Syclone538 · 12-08-2012, 10:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by JBnTX

...
One is the anarchist who feels he should be allowed to live his life as he sees fit. It's his life and what he does with it is nobody's business.
...

What's the problem with that? The initiation of for is wrong. You should be allowed to live your life as you want as long as you don't harm someone else.

**kirgi08** · 12-09-2012, 07:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by barbedwiresmile

Bravo K'08!

Wanna see something funny,my kid competes against public school kids.Their parents walk away quite angry.'08.

NMG26 · 12-09-2012, 08:11

I'm in.

JBnTX · 12-09-2012, 10:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Syclone538

What's the problem with that? The initiation of for is wrong. You should be allowed to live your life as you want as long as you don't harm someone else.

That concept is a social myth, spread by people who think only of themselves.

The problem is that no one lives their life in a vacuum, and many times what you do does harm someone else.

Even if you only harm yourself, it affects others indirectly.
Whatever harmed you also has the potential to harm others, who may not wish to be harmed in that manner.

That behavior needs to be regulated to protect others.

Governments and laws are necessary if we want to live in a safe, secure and civilized society.

Ruble Noon · 12-09-2012, 10:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by JBnTX

That concept is a social myth, spread by people who think only of themselves.

The problem is that no one lives their life in a vacuum, and many times what you do does harm someone else.

Even if you only harm yourself, it affects others indirectly.
Whatever harmed you also has the potential to harm others, who may not wish to be harmed in that manner.

That behavior needs to be regulated to protect others.

Governments and laws are necessary if we want to live in a safe, secure and civilized society.

Always the consummate statist.

steveksux · 12-09-2012, 11:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ruble Noon

Always the consummate statist.

Only so long as its other people's choices being restricted. It's all good until you start talking about something he wants to do.

Randy

JBnTX · 12-09-2012, 13:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by steveksux

Only so long as its other people's choices being restricted. It's all good until you start talking about something he wants to do.

Randy

There's plenty of things I'd like to do that are illegal or restricted. I understand the reasoning behind it, I don't like it, but I understand it.

If people were allowed to live their lives as they see fit, just as long as they didn't harm anyone else, it wouldn't be one day until that rule was broken in mass quantities.

The problem is that the majority of people can't, or won't, stay within those boundaries. If they could, we wouldn't have half the laws we have now.

The more aggressive would prey on the weak and we'd end up in a savage "me first and to hell with you" society.

The "I can do what I want and you can't stop me" attitude would be the cause of many conflicts, resulting in a complete break down of law and order.

I can't believe I'm explaining this to adults? Or am I?

..

randrew379 · 12-09-2012, 15:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by JBnTX

There's plenty of things I'd like to do that are illegal or restricted. I understand the reasoning behind it, I don't like it, but I understand it.

If people were allowed to live their lives as they see fit, just as long as they didn't harm anyone else, it wouldn't be one day until that rule was broken in mass quantities.

The problem is that the majority of people can't, or won't, stay within those boundaries. If they could, we wouldn't have half the laws we have now.

The more aggressive would prey on the weak and we'd end up in a savage "me first and to hell with you" society.

The "I can do what I want and you can't stop me" attitude would be the cause of many conflicts, resulting in a complete break down of law and order.

I can't believe I'm explaining this to adults? Or am I?

..

Exactly what illegal activity are you wanting to engage in; and if it harms no one, why should it be illegal?

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire

countrygun · 12-09-2012, 15:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by randrew379

Exactly what illegal activity are you wanting to engage in; and if it harms no one, why should it be illegal?

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire

And how is it decided whether it harms another? Do you wait until it HAS?

For instance,

when I lived in the city they had some rules and laws that prevented me from checking the zero on my 30-06 in my backyard, no matter how well I built a backstop. It seems that they were worried that some folks might get a little careless about it and someone might get killed at worst, or others property might be damaged. I know that sounds silly to some but they had this notion that it would be better to keep someone from getting killed, than to let anybody that wanted to fire a gun in the city. Can you imagine the nerve of those "Statists" putting the life of a child in a playground above the right to discharge a firearm?

I tell you it is a sign of the fascist, statist mindset, how they get away with trampling on people's rights like that I don't know, after all we live in a FREE Country.

JBnTX · 12-09-2012, 15:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by randrew379

Exactly what illegal activity are you wanting to engage in; and if it harms no one, why should it be illegal?

That's ALL you got from my post?
That's sad.

People with that (your) attitude are the exact reason we have to have all the laws we have today.

The laws that you detest so much are designed to prevent people like you from becoming a menace and a danger to society.

..

hogfish · 12-09-2012, 16:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by JBnTX

That's ALL you got from my post?
That's sad.

People with that (your) attitude are the exact reason we have to have all the laws we have today.

The laws that you detest so much are designed to prevent people like you from becoming a menace and a danger to society.

..

I like the way you think. Can you imagine how much safer it would be for us all if we outlawed POVs? Public transportation would save more lives than anything I can think of. People driving their own vehicles are a menace and a danger to us all. Actually, I think it's a Clear and Present Danger.