I think bleeding heart excludes charity. I would define it as people who want to do for other people without those people asking for it… and without worrying themselves about how it gets done.
In the case it excludes personal sacrifice, it excludes compassion. It becomes a desire to look compassionate.
False philanthropy is their game.
Holy crap, I though I was alone in thinking Ron Paul is the worst orator ever. Honestly, everything I hear him say is swamped in stuttering and he does sound quite whiney.
I just wish he had harped more on the austrian school during his debates. I heard him talk about it once, which is how I came to know it.
I think it’s more useful to think of potential converts in terms of those who deal in terms of emotions, primarily, and logical thinkers on the other hand. Bleeding heart liberals tend to be the former (as do many neocons, though.) It’s probably more difficult to get the former more emotional type to convert than one who can be convinced by means, primarily, of logical argumentation.
We should no go into the trap of grouping people together and than making statements about a group. That is exactly what we are against, are we?
Whatever category you choose, it is always individuals that act and think. We do not fight groups, as if we did, we would agree that there is something like a group mind independent from the common ideas held by those we put into the group. So it is to no avail to tackle groups. I think it is more appropriate to tackle concepts, as concepts are what really matters. Once you can crush a concept, (usually by ridiculing it, see the neo-con argumentation if you like to understand how to do that) people will start abandoning it. If you fight groups, chances are you get them closer together and even persons that where at the edges of that group start to indentify with it.
I do not want to be right, I want to be free from coercion and I do not mind what others think as long as they do not aggress against me. Classic liberalism is the abolishment of group-think. Group-think is replaced by individual thoughts and evaluation of concepts. There is no right or wrong there is only appropriate means to achieve ones goals.
Great comment [:S]
Instead of being happy about the fact that tons of people started thinking about freedom and the current circumstances, you call them nuts. This is exactly the way to sectarianism, which is not libertarian at all.
Instead of attacking concepts you attack people for their proposed lack of thinking like you do. Why not start a discussion instead with them and try to support any action that targets at keeping that “new” community together.
I’m quite disappointed to find a thread like this here. You are delving into some serious collectivization when you start lumping people into categories that exist more in your imagination than in the real world. If you hold any aspiration for advancing freedom, I would strongly caution against this kind of elitist snobbery.
Sure, some leftists are irrational emotionalists, but so are some rightists and even some libertarians. It is all about how much thought you have put into such a complex issue. So I would argue that herding anyone into these compartments is highly irrational and counterproductive. It is the job of the critical thinker to reveal fallacies, not to seek security in nonsense like this.
And also, I am surprised at the hostility towards RP supporters. While my stakes in the issue are negligible, I did read some of his supporters’ forums and found most of them to be rational thinkers. Certainly leaps and bounds ahead of most political activists I know. I suppose it all goes back to the problem of applying attributes from individuals to imagined collectives.
I actually find it more funny rather than a serious intellectual defecit on the part of the forums here. I find it more of a venting thread for some frustrating experiences that most likley do not represent the entirety of a certain group. Certainly collectivist in some extent, but I think everyone that posts here more or less acknowledges this and realizes the fine line that is being treaded upon.
For the record though, I did have some good conversations that were pretty reasonable with some individuals with the RP movement. My overall experience, looking back, was still negative in that aspect, though.
I think I’ve made it clear throughout all of my posts at this forum that I don’t view libertarians as smarter than any other group; that doesn’t mean that individuals who choose particular ideologies aren’t exercising various degrees of critical thought. To think otherwise is a too politically correct. The wording of the original question is bit iffy, but I doubt he thinks libertarians are actually smarter.
Most of my hostility towards RP supporters comes from their decision to spam-post on every single popular website (especially tech websites) with ads for Ron Paul. When they were banned, they would come back under different names and do the same thing. That’s not all, though! They would put signs on random cars’ windshields, put bumper stickes on the sides of private buildings, and generaly do their best to piss everyone off.
Keep in mind that I’ve defended Ron Paul here several times. I wasn’t a fan of his candidacy, but overall it accomplished more than I ever thought it would.
edit: can’t type
It’s not about critical thinking. It’s about the scope of the critical thinking. I do think libertarians on average have gone through a more elaborate process to arrive at their stance, where as average social democrat or conservative stances can be acquired with relatively little effort. Something like a social democrat thinking: “I want”, to which a libertarian might elaborate: “I want, but can’t have without taking from someone else”. So the issue is over how far down the chain of events one looks, which many people inspect only superficially. It is only when you have people who ignore the chain of events all together to achieve emotionalist ends, that you can rightfully make the assertion of irrationality. Perhaps it is nitpicking, but I think it is an important aspect, especially when it comes to influencing people to a more rational stance.
From what I have seen, Obama supporters spam websites as well. I know that those are not exactly the people you want to be compared with, but I’m merely pointing out that it is standard practice with popular candidates.
As for the other things, like putting stickers on other people’s cars, I don’t know how wide spread it was, but I suspect we are dealing with a fraction of the total.
I do think you are nitpicking. I don’t think that your nuance really makes a difference. Anyways, it’s perfectly possible to let leftists know they aren’t exercising critical thinking without insulting them.
Regarding Obama supporters, it would make sense that they use similar tactics as many of the Ron Paul supporters; many of Ron Paul’s supporters inexplicably jumped ship to the most left-wing member of the senate (Obama). That includes some people who managed to squirm their way to influential positions in his organization.
Nonetheless, I think it’s important to try to bring the political left over to libertarianism. So it begs the question: how can the political left be convinced to modify their positions? One need not necessarily appeal to their emotions, but it can be shown how some of their motivations which aren’t necessarily bad ones in and of themselves (I.E. helping the poor and needy, peace, inclusiveness, pluralism, a healthy environment, etc.) are best realized through voluntary means and how the state actually hampers the realization of such goals and often functions directly counter to them.
So here are some things that I think are worth trying to prove to the political left:
-
The state is generally not on the side of the poor and needy.
-
The state’s interventions tend to increase poverty or institutionalize it.
-
The welfare system is little more than bribery of the lower classes and it keeps them in a state of complacency and dependance.
-
The welfare system was largely put in place with the support of particular big buisinesses.
-
Our central banks perpetually destroy the savings of average workers.
-
The state is more often than not an enabler of large corporations and an externalizer of their costs (which allows them to expand beyond the scope that free competition would have otherwise allowed, and at the expense of common people).
-
In a free market, competition could easily limit the scope of buisinesses. I
-
In a free market, there is nothing to stop you from forming charitable social networks, collective bairgaining for workers and mutual aid.
-
Government favoritism to buisiness, protection of buisiness and patronage with buisiness is incompatible with laissez-faire.
-
Modern large-scale warfare relies on massive cost externalization by the state, and hence would be virtually impossible in the absence of the state, as the burden and risk would entirely fall on the shoulders of those trying to engage in such aggressive conflict.
-
States cannot come into existance or maintain their existance without the initiation of force or the threat thereof, therefore states fundamentally contradict the idea of non-violence.
-
The state is fundamentally a gigantic coercive land monopoly.
-
The state is generally harmful to minority groups.
-
The state is often a blockade to pluralism that may have otherwise resulted from free association.
-
The state is a horrible steward of the environment (tragedy of the commons) and has established legal precedents that protect “private” polluters from liability for damages on other people’s “private” property.
Superb list. I think the list itself would be a major shock to most people, and is a great way to get people out of their shells and open to new ideas.
Reading the list was actually a bit of an opener (especially the wording of the state as an enabler for corporations, I think leftists would immedalty be interested in such an argument), as I remembered one of my previous conversations wherein I first let it known I was considering to vote RP, whereas my liberal friends were of course for Obama (although they made it a point that they felt Kucinich got unfarily shafted, and would’ve voted for him otherwise).
The moment I said libertarian, I could tell (in hindsight now), they were equating me with the beltway/vulgar libertarianism. Due to my economical ignorance (of, economics) at the time (roughly a year ago, I think it was), I couldn’t really dive into a serious discussion aside from arguments concerning civil liberties.
I could tell they assumed that for some reason, I was completly against what they thought as good things to do, such as helping out the poor, peace, etc., when in reality I (now) am just completly against their methods of doing so.
Interestingly, a later conversation in the company of other friends (some of who happened to be of anarchist persuassions), proved to be more productive, as one of them pointed out the important aspect of voluntary action; sadly, this hit a wall when one of my leftists friends essentially said not everyone would volunteer as if it were a monkey wrench that would effectivley let the human race rot if the state didn’t “encourage” or “persuade” those who don’t volunteer to act.
At this point though, I think I would be better equip to give a convining argument against their Leftism, but show their intentions are better served with a different philosphy (political libertarianism, as apolitical libertarianism might be a bit of a jump for Leftists).
If nothing else, I would defintley be able to keep an interesting conversation on the table for a good hour or two.
The bleeding heart position is only tenable if one believes that any one individual or collective has infinite power over everyone or everything else. Because the bleeding heart position is one essentially of guilt. How can anyone feel guilty for something for which they’re not responsible? How can anyone feel responsible for something they’re not in control of? One has to feel either an individual of collective has total control over everything before one can make the argument of the complete responsibility of that individual or collective for the failings of pieces of the whole. Without culpability, there can be no feelings of guilt. Without feelings of guilt, there is no bleeding heart.
I wonder what they would say if I posted my thoughts…
I am happy he did not win, I hate to see a good person assassinated…
BP, I do like your list…
I have a but though…
But you do not realize that BHL’s are not about donating all they can to causes, they are about taking all they can from others for causes…
Say something the RPF mods don’t like and you will get banned. Spidey, Conza, and I have experienced doing so.
this post reminds of how socialists act in public. on paper its all historical materialism and equations, but all i ever heard them talk about is GREED, bla bla bla, WHITE MAN, bla bla bla STARVING CHILDREN.