Discrimination is a choice but that does not infer it should be congratulated.
How can you then say racist values are subjective yet are validated by an objective action of evolution? I am also wondering if you mean social darwinism rather then evolution.
I’d probably suggest a different response. “I use a priori reasoning, deductive logic” “I follow the Austrian School of Economics, which has predicted every big financial crisis / event for the last century in this country”
Yes, state propaganda. The cloak of ideology is more important than anything else. It is how they keep their power. The whoredom of the intellectuals.
Maybe call yourself a non-archist instead… or a voluntaryist. Avoid the tared baggage the traditional socialists (anarchists) have given the name by bot rioting in the streets, destroying private property and breaking the non aggression axiom (principle).
I think ‘we’ is the wrong word here. I do not hold discriminatory views. Individuals are individuals, they are not a representation of whole groups.
Reducing your ‘exposure’ is a personal decision so I will never contest that one MUST associate with others, however I think it beneficial to do such.
What if there is a black kid in a suit and a white guy who thinks he’s a rapper? [^o)]
The black kid obviously mugged somebody for their suit, so you choose the white guy who thinks he’s a rapper.
Here is my 1/2 cents worth:
1] Stop trying to free or improve the world, or even one other person - concentrate only on freeing yourself.
2] Stop trying to rid the world of governments or trying to educate others about the evils of governments. Look for ways to circumvent governments that are in accord with both your own personal morality and level of courage.
3] do not get involved in or join with any political movements .
4] stop trying to change others- instead, look for those who already agree with you.
Of course there is a lot more, but these might give you a good start
But were you a liberal (in the contemporary, leftist sense)? One of the hallmarks of this flavor of liberalism is a belief in the moral imperative that equality of outcomes must be achieved at any cost. Did you once subscribe to this belief? Was it an economic argument that changed things for you? At what age did this happen? What exactly convinced you to change?
Are you sure you mean “instinct”? Isn’t such a decision simply the result of a rational calculation based on historical empirical evidence?
What evidence ?
One’s own experience.
Thanks everyone for their advice.
Yeah, my brother considers his service of the highest good one could do. And he works his ass off to do a good job.
A liberal as in holding mostly the views of a typical democrat, not an extreme liberal. Most democrats pride themselves as being pragmatic, and wouldn’t believe in equality of outcomes at any cost, but rather that the gov’t should do what it can to move toward equality without interferring so much that it grinds the economy to a halt. I wasn’t an extreme liberal in the sense that I would have pushed for ever greater state intervention for equality, because the idea that the state can’t do the impossible was definitely present.
What convinced me to change were the arguments that the government can’t achieve the goals they want to - no matter what they were trying to do. It started with realizing the damage and fraud of the federal reserve, realizing that a central bank is the furthest thing from a free market (I believed in the doublethink idea that the federal reserve was a part of the free market). That happened by reading de Soto’s book Money, Bank Credit, and Economic Cycles (I majored in Econ among other things so was fed the typical Keynesian and Monetarist macroeconomic theories), which shifted my worldview on those three issues.
Then it was just a matter of reading enough other books and articles to realize that the stated ends of government are not what happens in the real world. I suppose you could say that if the state could do much of what it tries to fool you into thinking it can (make people more equal and do so without harming everyone else, smooth out the business cycle, make the world a safer place, etc), the NAP might not be enough to convince me of a worldview based on freedom. But since freedom and the flourishing of individuals and society go hand in hand, it was pretty easy to switch views to those of liberty.
Although I have to admit, realizing that there is no place for the state in dealing with racial inequality (the market does a better job), or that the state didn’t play some role in bringing about greater freedom for minorities was one of the hardest ideas to accept even after the arguments were clear.
Read Dale Carnegie’s “How to Win Friends and Influence People”.
Out of curiosity…What does your brother do in the military… ?
Most Democrats seem to place a premium on the desire to achieve these goals itself, rather than whether the goals can or are actually achieved. That is, it is the thought that counts–the caring.
What about the negative uninentional consequences of the policies you supported? Did you recognize these and did they play a role in your abandonment of your ideology?
Very interesting! Could you expand on this? What made it so hard to accept? Did it have to do with giving up the moral highground? The abandonment of a surefire way to earn political capital in one’s sphere?
He’s a navigator / officer in the air force.
Negative unintentional consequences were the main reason.
It’s not about morality, but a question of what actually happened and what would have happened in history, with regards to the idea that Lincoln freed the slaves, and the idea that the government’s help was instrumental in bringing about equality between the races in America.
Both of those ideas ignore the fact that it was the state that institutionalized slavery and inequality in the first place, and that it is freedom (as in the market and economic development) that really brought an end to slavery, and which minimizes discrimination based on race.
But it still leaves questions like: If Lincoln hadn’t ended slavery, when would it have actually ended? (This ignores everything else that was sacrificed in his grab for power), and without the federal gov’t’s help, wouldn’t there still be widespread institutionalized racism in the South? (This question is one that still gets me)
And he is a liberal too ? I ask because I partly assumed that liberals were big on ‘human rights’ and (allegedly) were not fans of right-wing militarism…which wouldn’t square with being part of the military.
In America, there are just as many liberals in the military as conservatives. In fact, the conservatives (IMO) are just as likely to be ordering the liberals into battle from the safety of a command bunker thousands of miles away.
I don’t know if you have been to the US Juan, but Americans love their troops and their army. It is the only place I know of where people say, “Thank you for your service” to soldiers all the time, even when they have served during peacetime, like they have made some tremendous personal sacrifice. I know in Canada, we don’t make a big deal about soldiers and soldiers generally don’t make a big deal that they served.
This is precisely the spot I am in. I’m an an-cap that converted from good ol’ American leftism.
Honestly, I’m still sort of ‘in the closet’ about anarchism to my parents. They know that I’m a self-identified libertarian, and that I have really radical views, but I really haven’t bothered to tell them the whole truth about what I believe. I probably should.
Everyone else knows though, and I’ve been pretty successful at convincing some of my friends to take my positions seriously. No full converts yet, but a few are well on the way. Also, it helps that I’m pretty good at proselytizing.
In any case, I know the feeling. I think I’ve only met one or two other ‘libertarians’ in the world, and one anarchist (who’s a communist.)
Good luck with your endeavors. I would honestly suggest that you read up on your weakest topics. You’ll sound far more authoritative if you really really know why you believe what you believe, and can argue circles around anyone who wants to challenge you. [:D]
EDIT: when I say that I haven’t told my parents, that’s only significant because I’m living with them. Just until I move up to a university in the fall. Only a college sophomore ; )
Heh.
I haven’t been to the States…But I do see that militarism is something (most) Americans are rather comfortable with. (sadly).
Anyway, it occurred to me that liberals would have a harder time justifying their involvement in the military given things like ‘collateral damage’, but then doublethink is second nature to liberals/lefties so they needn’t be bothered much by killing ‘a few’ civilians…