That’s if you’re coming from the place that loving people in general expends any emotional energy. I don’t think it does at all. It can just be an ever present part of you.
The place I’m coming from says that any kind of emotional commitment involves energy, and the idea that you even could love everyone is psychologically absurd. Moreover, I have no desire to. Anyone who doesn’t know how to hate doesn’t know how to love, at least not effectively. I hate the military and don’t care a whit when they are blown up; not doing so would be involve some kind of cognitive dissonance with my other values.
You can dislike violence and yet remain detached from hating the people behind it. I’m personally finding it pointless to waste any energy hating anyone- even the worst of the worst- which doesn’t mean I agree with anything they do, nor does it mean that I cry when I hear that a member of an invading army died. Simply that hating someone as a person brings no value to me anymore. I think actual love is unconditional and isn’t transient. Or else its more than likely coming from a selfish place.(which I guess is still love, love for yourself).
You can dislike violence and yet remain detached from hating the people behind it.
That’s like saying you can dislike the taste of chocolate ice cream without disliking chocolate ice cream. The things are identical, or at least one is an emergent property of the other. I don’t even dislike violence in general, I dislike violence outside of the framework of propertarian liberal order. The military, more specifically, the people in the military, are the cause of the sort of violence I dislike. It’s their fault, whether it is through simple ignorance or some sort of barbarous bloodlust is beside the point, I hate them and I wish they suffered a lot more than they actually do.
Or else its more than likely coming from a selfish place.
I don’t know what sort of fantasy you live in, but in the real world everything is selfish. I do things because I want to, I care about things because I care about them. Furthermore, unlike the majority of the brainwashed crypto-Christian masses, I have absolutely no objection personally or practically to people acting selfish in both the tautological and more specific Scroogean sense. I like selfish people, they are much easier to deal with and not inclined to do crazy things on the pretext of my own good.
Well, hating chocolate ice cream is very different from disliking the taste. The former involves heavy emotional energy. I agree with you completely that the type of violence that goes on because of military are terrible for this world and its the type of violence that is completely unnecessary unlike self-defense- but my sitting around and hating them isn’t going to do a thing for me except maybe give me some added stress. Even if it gave you pleasure to imagine them suffering more- that’s still imagination and an expenditure of emotional energy on nothing real.
People inclined to do crazy things on the pretext of your own good are who I’d define as selfish. Thats fine that you do things because you want to, or care about things because you want to- that doesn’t take away from love.
The reader can also reasonably infer that I think the libertarian “movement” is in a sad state. But then again, by the dominant norms, I probably don’t qualify as one anymore - but I’m not too attached to the label anyways.
The reader can also reasonably infer that I think the libertarian “movement” is in a sad state. But then again, by the dominant norms, I probably don’t qualify as one anymore - but I’m not too attached to the label anyways.
I’m not exactly sure about that on a mainstream or practical level, but this isn’t my concern. Intellectually there is much cognitive dissonance, I think much of this comes from using words that ought not be used. Ex: I do not think anarchy is a very good word for anyone to use in a positive light (it undermines the word), using the word “elite” is poor sociology in most situations, and on and on.
About the only word I feel comfortable using anymore is liberal, which is probably the most widely misunderstood words. But utilitarian liberalism is a lot closer to what I mean than libertarianism or anarchism mean. Anti-state is semi-accurate, but rather vague.
“Liberal” would be an awesome word to have, unfortunatly I don’t think it is feasible to claim in America(maybe Europe though?) and “radically apolitical” simply doesn’t work.. The best I have are “anti-leftist” or “Burkean Whig” and even then, those are confusing terms. Oh, and “reactionary” as a mindset or position is simply retarded.
The trouble I have with ‘Burkean Whig’ is that it tends to imply conservatism or evolutionary views of society; which as a social rationalist I just don’t accept, despite my like for Eddie.
Anti-leftist is problematic because most people don’t realize that NeoCons are practically Communists.
The false choice seems to be between sanctioning the arbitrary whims of the majority and buying into a romantic picture of a special class of aristocrats. What’s offensive about “elitism” is that it’s often just a shody effort to portray certain people in positions of power as inherently superior, and it’s inherently self-destructive with respect to any notion of bringing about meaningful political change at a societal level. But “populism” is often just a misguided effort to form a big tent without most of everyone in that tent understanding much about the political philosophy involved, basically leading to the dissolution or takeover of one’s own “movement”. In a nutshell, libertarian elitism is unwarranted narcissism and libertarian populism is precisely the reason why it is functionally a hodge-podge of incompatible ideological factions.
I think this is a pretty spot on generality if one is referring to how libertarians tend to think and use the terms, and if the reader notices you put the words in question in quotations
Likewise, I think this post is dead on, albeit as more of a description of problems within the libertarian movement than anything else.
¨Hear that, folks? Questioning the character of sacred cows is against the rules.
I hear you have sex with underage children Brainpolice. It’s not proven, I don’t have a source. But I´ve heard people say it, and those people are believable. Unfortunately I can’t cite them because I didn’t record it.
BTW, I’m not defending Hoppe. I go by a man’s ideas and not his personality. The whole ¨he’s a meanie poo poo head¨ argument that people put forward about some folks is tiresome. And if you’re going to attack somebody be specific, and if your attack is ¨He didn’t smile at me¨ or ¨He’s not a nice person¨ then go back to chatting at the hair salon.
Ideas ought not be upheld or denigrated because of majority support. One should differentiate between not believing that majority opinion gives something moral or logical weight and immediately thinking that something must be wrong because a majority of people believe it to be so.
Here’s my take on that. Elitism holds that some people are inherently superior to the rest, to the point where they deserve power over them. Populism does not.
Anyway, I asked you to provide your definitions for “populism” and “elitism” because I couldn’t quite understand the intended meaning of your earlier post, which I repeat below:
Now that you’ve provided your definitions for “populism” and “elitism”, I’d like to challenge your claim that it’s a fallacy (populist or not) “that people can be persuaded to a doctrine that fundamentally contradicts many inborn and learned norms [etc.]”. First off, I’d like to know which norms you believe are inborn and which you believe are learned. Furthermore, I’d like to know whether you think learned norms can be unlearned.
Secondly, ignorance (i.e. lack of knowledge) is not the same thing as stupidity (i.e. inability to learn/understand). A person can be smart but ignorant. He can also be knowledgeable but stupid (though this is less likely IMO). To say that the vast majority of people are ignorant about certain things should not be seen as an insult to them. Whether they are unwilling or whether they are incapable of distinguishing reality from fantasy is a qualitative distinction. Populists, strictly speaking, do not see most people as inherently lacking in ability; rather, at worst, they see them as having been hobbled by those who presume to be their “betters”.
With that said, it seems as though your attempt to prove that populism is self-contradictory invokes circular reasoning: you assume the very thing (elitism is based on truth) that you set out to prove (populism is self-contradictory; therefore elitism is based on truth). If I’m mistaken here, please let me know.