Why is the libertarian movement/libertarian websites/liberterians generally so tolerant of conspiracy nuts like the 9/11 Truthers, Birthers, Alex Jones/Prison Planet cranks, Gerald Celente all the way into the weirdoes who think Jewish Reptilians from other dimensions rule our world? Even if you think these people are libertarian their theories are clearly ridiculous; and associating with them makes you look bad. I know libertarians aren’t generally well regarded to begin with, but if you’re associated with these crazies you kind of deserve it.
I ask the very same question myself. It is true, that there are many libertarians (anarchists, whatever), who are conspiracy nuts, just like there are many highly intellectual and skeptical scientists who are hardcore statists, though, most of them I “encountered” (read their writings) have very liberal ideas, indeed, though still believe in the necessity of the State.. Anyway.
My theory is that conspiracy nuts in general tend to be drawn to libertarians just because they think the anti-statists (society usually see anarchists at the same level with conspiracy nuts) will support them more, than ordinary people. Look at all this crap with “alternative medicine” for example. It is not a secret, that many of these guys are against the government control of the mainstream medical support, drugs (if you know what I mean, “big pharma” etc.). But, at the same time I have a strong belief that quite majority of them would support the very same state if it approved their quackery.
I don’t think it is black and white, though. Yes, mainstream media is biased, mainstream medicine make mistakes too, and sometimes huge mistakes. And one of the reasons is that it is monopolized and have a government granted privilege. Here I have a sympathy for “alternative stuff” guys. But not for their quackery or pseudoscience.
Why do you care? Do you actually expect an answer that will convince you?
I don’t to expect to be convinced of the crazy theories, but I would like to know why libertarians give these people such an easy time. Their theories are quite possibly more insane than Progressivism, even if less dangerous. I mean, you just end up looking like you’re insane by association.
A lot of libertarians are borderline conspiracy nuts as it is, believing that politicians are evil sociopaths instead of normal alpha-males adapting to their social situation. But Alex Jones is way beyond eccentric public choice.
Here I have a sympathy for “alternative stuff” guys. But not for their quackery or pseudoscience.
Yeah, the pseudoscience (especially the Creationism) is unbelievable at times; and I’m not talking the depths of Prison Planet’s forums - this stuff is right on LewRockwell.com for anyone to read. I mean, I don’t think government schools should exist but publishing articles defending Creationism as a theory is crazy.
Man, if people think our media is biased, how about Russia Today? Every story they run is pro-Iran, anti-America. Russia has definitive business interests with Iran. While I’m not pro-America in any sense, I’m sure it’s not as simple as that. Ron Paul goes on any show he can to get exposure, but Russia Today is using him like a puppet.
To be fair, I would say I am pretty pro-Iran (and pro-China). They’re not paradisical or anything, but they’re the best large countries that tell America to shove it. Better than Russia. Most of what you hear about them is just political propaganda.
I think it’s pretty naive to make the blanket assumption that NONE of the conspiracy theories are real. The centralization of government power and the secrecy the government and its cohorts enjoy makes it irresistible for certain interests to conceive elaborate plots for enriching themselves at our expense. I used to be more interested in these theories than I am now, because I realized that all these possible conspiracies are dependent on the existence of government, and the only “solution” to them is to eliminate government. So the real problem is not the conspiracies, but people’s slave mentality, dependence on government, and fear of freedom.
I’m not sure how we can agree that government is the greatest evil, but at the same time say there’s no way they could ever be engaged in conspiracies.
Probably because its so easy for libertarians to believe government is lame. Some of my friends even became ancaps because of Alex Jones.
I also think self educated libertarians tend to like reading up on stuff a bit more… some of the conspiracy theories hold water. The official version of 9-11 is a POS. Gulf of Tonkin is proven to be false flag by declassified documents… Jorge Bosh really did steal the election.
I think there is somewhat of a link because sometimes its easier to understand government action from the POV of well they are obviously malicious and just looking for more power to wield over people.
During Bob Murphy’s ABCT course, he recommended reading TCFJI even though he warned us about it containing conspiracy theory elements, but DiLorenzo dismissed the book outright.
Listen to Rothbard’s history lectures on the 19th and early 20th centuries. In some sense he makes everything out to be in the control of the Morgans and the Rockafellers (and maybe it was)
Also, some people refer to public schools as ‘government indoctrination camps’ which I think you could only really say if you bought into some kind of conspiracy. Do we really think that the people behind education in this country are plotting to purposefully put out as pro-state a message as they can?
I mean, I don’t think government schools should exist but publishing articles defending Creationism as a theory is crazy.
I have to disagree with you there. If you have ever studied the science behind the creation of our universe you would find that there are many facts that can’t be explained by the theory of evolution. Such as,
“It turns out that the universe could not have been much smaller than it is in order for nuclear fusion to have occurred during the first 3 minutes after the Big Bang. Without this brief period of nucleosynthesis, the early universe would have consisted entirely of hydrogen. Likewise, the universe could not have been much larger than it is, or life would not have been possible. If the universe were just one part in 1059 larger, the universe would have collapsed before life was possible. Since there are only 1080 baryons in the universe, this means that an addition of just 1021 baryons (about the mass of a grain of sand) would have made life impossible. The universe is exactly the size it must be for life to exist at all.”
Most of that is taken from wikipedia. So essentially if the mass of the universe was larger by a mass equal to a grain of sand…life would not exist. If the universe was smaller by a mass equal to a grain of sand …life would not exist. You basically have a greater probability that a tornado would rip through a junk yard and build a fully functioning 747, then for life to exist given these probabilities.
Creationism is a theory which seeks to explain the gaps in the theory of evolution such as this one and many others.
It don’t see why it is crazy to theorize about things that science can’t explain.
My problem with conspiracy theories is that they don’t convince people of the fundamental problems with statism. If 9-11 was an inside job, every American would despise the Bush presidency, but would American’s still support Obama’s socialist policies? I would say yes.
I don’t think people mean conspiracy when they refer to public schools as ‘government indoctrination camps’. It is just a useful coined word, like “statist”, “monopoly on violence” etc.
The influence of a god can explain everything, and therefore explains nothing.
A reasonable claim about science would be “AFAIK, this is the best explanation we have right now”. Would you have dismissed science in the 1800’s because newtonian physics was lacking?
>Would you have dismissed science in the 1800’s because newtonian physics was lacking?
I don’t dismiss anything science has done thus far. But like you just said, it is lacking. Creationism builds on top of today science and fills in the gaps where it is lacking.
You can say its my faith that leads me to fill in the gaps with God, and you would be correct to do so. But what is it that leads you fill in the gaps with no god? Your faith that God does not exist.
If you take the big bang for example. It either just blasted out of nowhere, or God created it. By taking a position that there is no God, you are necessarily injecting your own personal belief set into the gaps. If you were truly objective, then you would say, “maybe God created it, maybe there is no God”. But by stating flat out that there is no God you are not following any science and are injecting your own beliefs.
The only difference between you and me is that I admit that I inject my own personal beliefs into the gaps. Atheists in general inject their own personal belief that there is no God into gaps and try to pass it off as science. A truly objective person couldn’t be anything but an agnostic.
I can’t prove that it will ever be complete. But the burden of proof is on you to show we should make up stuff when we don’t have scientific answers.
Theists believe that god exists and can be shown to. Atheists believe that god could exist but can be shown not to. Agnosts believe it is possible for god to exist but don’t know. Ignosts believe the proposition “god exists” is seriously torturing language and ontology… its nonsensical.
I don’t believe this. You’re basically saying the universe was either “created” by god or “created” out of nothing. I take issue with the word “created”. Creation is about causality. Before and After. But by premise both of those scenarios have no Before, so either the premise is wrong or the Creation Explanation is wrong.
See above. Please don’t assume anything more about my beliefs. I’m not a 13 year old atheist who listens to marilyn manson.
[edit] CHRIS! This is turning into a threadjack. I’m making a new thread.
I don’t subscribe to Alex Jones, David Icke, or Gerald Celente. On the other hand, if you don’t think there is a very small group of people conspriring to take over the world for global enslavement, I think you sohuld open your eyes.
Maybe because it is many times blatently anti-government (or the government is against them, such as creationism), not blatently anti-capitalist (not 100% loopy leftist), and almost inherently in favor of some form of decentralization (anti gov schools, NWO, etc). Being that that combo is hard to come by, I guess these things can set up narratives for the less inquisitive.
Then of course there is that od cosmopolitan/ populist divide that seems to seperate libertarians. Unfortunatly the “cosmopolitans” (think Reason) aren’t that great of an alternative.