@naruciakk They really just want the feds to stop fucking with their defence of the border.
Yes and no. If culturally mixed means some people eat sushi and take their shoes off in the house, and other people celebrate passover and don't eat bacon, libertarianism is in fact an excellent way for them to both coexist.
However, if culturally mixed means one culture likes to throw trash everywhere and snatch anything of value that is left unattended, then no, because that culture is in fact low-trust.
However, if culturally mixed means one culture likes to throw trash everywhere and snatch anything of value that is left unattended, then no, because that culture is in fact low-trust.
@cjd @naruciakk @dcc One of these will always look like the other to some.
What if this line does not exist at all?
A culture means also that people have a shared understanding of what an ideal society looks like, and their ability to strive towards it will probably be thwarted if there is another group with another idea of what it looks like. So, at some point you never get closer towards your specific ideal and slip into handing over more and more power to your leaders - only to then realize that that will not help at all either.
What do you think we've been living through these past decades?
What if this line does not exist at all?
A culture means also that people have a shared understanding of what an ideal society looks like, and their ability to strive towards it will probably be thwarted if there is another group with another idea of what it looks like. So, at some point you never get closer towards your specific ideal and slip into handing over more and more power to your leaders - only to then realize that that will not help at all either.
What do you think we've been living through these past decades?
Definitely something that makes libertarianism a thing which can only be used in certain societies: only a society which is just enough not to be governed strictly can live with a few restrictions. If the society without constant watch from the government would annihilate itself, then of course government is going to be required.
But there is a particularly ironic thing that I found out recently: one of the benefits of liberal democratic governance is that a democratic government can take much more from the populace before people start to get upset, but the only sort of society that can really make use of a democratic government is one that is relatively high trust and has social cohesion, the same sort of society that can succeed under libertarianism. A low trust society will quickly devolve into oligarchy or devolve into tyranny which will allow much less of the society being dedicated to the state.
So in this way, paradoxically, the same population that could thrive with the smallest government will also tolerate the largest government, and as conditions that allow a populace to be governed with a small government erode, the maximum size of government that can be imposed on those people also declines.
But there is a particularly ironic thing that I found out recently: one of the benefits of liberal democratic governance is that a democratic government can take much more from the populace before people start to get upset, but the only sort of society that can really make use of a democratic government is one that is relatively high trust and has social cohesion, the same sort of society that can succeed under libertarianism. A low trust society will quickly devolve into oligarchy or devolve into tyranny which will allow much less of the society being dedicated to the state.
So in this way, paradoxically, the same population that could thrive with the smallest government will also tolerate the largest government, and as conditions that allow a populace to be governed with a small government erode, the maximum size of government that can be imposed on those people also declines.
- replies
- 0
- announces
- 0
- likes
- 1
Well technically it doesn't exist. There's no fundamental difference between believing in individual liberty / property rights, and believing that eating pork will make you go to hell.
However it is perfectly reasonable for people who do and do not believe in hell, or pork, to coexist in the same society as long as they agree to accept each others' individual liberty and property rights.
The entire premise of libertarianism is that we establish a few baseline cultural requirements and then leave everything else up to the individual, that way we don't end up in a bloody fight to the death over whether to butter our toast on the top side or the bottom.
But we need to remain cognizant of those minimal rules which are necessary for the thing to work. You can't create a libertarian society inside a prison, and the people saying that libertarianism means letting everyone in are poisoning the well.
Again, as long as they keep their well-poisoning to bad takes, they DO fit the baseline cultural requirements. It's not illegal to be wrong, but they SHOULD be ridiculed and should never be placed in positions of power.
However it is perfectly reasonable for people who do and do not believe in hell, or pork, to coexist in the same society as long as they agree to accept each others' individual liberty and property rights.
The entire premise of libertarianism is that we establish a few baseline cultural requirements and then leave everything else up to the individual, that way we don't end up in a bloody fight to the death over whether to butter our toast on the top side or the bottom.
But we need to remain cognizant of those minimal rules which are necessary for the thing to work. You can't create a libertarian society inside a prison, and the people saying that libertarianism means letting everyone in are poisoning the well.
Again, as long as they keep their well-poisoning to bad takes, they DO fit the baseline cultural requirements. It's not illegal to be wrong, but they SHOULD be ridiculed and should never be placed in positions of power.