The capacity use assumptions only after they are logically verified, I believe, is the capacity to realize the evil and uselessness of the state.
Based on the summary article, I have problems with the study. I don’t disagree that there may be some dispositional factors that influence the receptiveness of the individual to classical liberalism (libertarianism). But the theories mentioned in the article are weak. For example, they posit that perhaps libertarians are less opposed to victimless crimes because they experience less intense feelings of disgust. But it could equally be the other way around - libertarians experience less intense feelings of disgust precisely because they are less opposed to victimless crimes. This goes with the “mind your own business” orientation of most libertarians … thinking in detail about a particularly disgusting sexual act may very well arouse the same intense feeling of disgust in the libertarian as it does in the conservative but the libertarian simply chooses to banish such thoughts from his mind for the simple reason that thinking about them is disgusting and useless.
Furthermore, the article seems to imply that morality is formed in the same way that food tastes are formed… a largely blind process by which preferences get expressed as “morals.” But there are a lot of things that I find disgusting now (e.g. blind patriotic expressions of “my country right or wrong” “kill them all, let God sort them out” and so on) that I was perfectly OK with just four years ago. The shift in my view of what is right and wrong has altered how I feel about the very same actions, at a visceral level.
Clayton -
I was that way for a long time as well. What you said is probably true to some degree. I know, ever since early high school which is when I began developing my hardcore conservative beliefs, I was very conservative and I would have considered myself a Christian fundamentalist. I still had the personality traits of a libertarian though, at least according to this study. Socially, I’m an introvert. I still had relatively low levels of “disgust.” I was more rational than emotional. I think I just hadn’t been acquainted with the libertarian argument before.
A lot of opinion-molding is done because you accept certain positions by default and only can change them when you come across an argument so convincing that it is able to be dislodged. Personality traits could determine whether or not you dislodge one of these core beliefs when you stumble upon a fringe argument. It could be the case that I always had the capacity to become libertarian, I just hadn’t been introduced to the argument, whereas someone who is predisposed to be a collectivist socialist with no respect for freedom may reject an argument for anti-statism the first time upon hearing it because it doesn’t jive with them, for whatever reason.
Or not. Who knows
For instance though, a lot of computer programmers are libertarian. I don’t think this is a coincidence. We most likely have similar personality traits.
How do people become anarchists?
You have to sign up for a card which holds all your biometric data. You’ll be added to the National Register of Non-conformist Political Ideologues and need to log onto their website once a month to arrange a retina scan. Freedom awaits you.
… You have nothing serious to post in this thread? Really?
Not really, no.
Why not? And why did you feel the need to post something non-serious when everyone else in the thread posted something serious?
The more that I look around ‘mainstream’ forums, the more that I’m convinced that the answer is not being an idiot. Anarchism is in a very real way a liberation through the death of three things
- Aggregation of human affairs
Such as the belief that ‘America’ is all that meaningful a term except in describing whatever the government has done or general societal trends.
- Questioning of government
Not just ‘What should government be for?’ but a real questioning of the institution as a whole. What it is, the means available to it, and why it’s actually necessary
- An understanding of free action
Whenever you look at anarchist solutions to problems, or an analysis of problems I usually see quite a praxeological method of cause and effect based upon individual desires. This manifests itself through actually thinking through things which are immediate deadfalls to most other people. For instance when talking about poverty the statist brain seems to generally just buzz out of existence at the idea that there are other ways to solving it. The answer for 90% of statists claims about things which can’t be solved by markets is the democratic problem:
In order for something to be supported in a democratic society it must be supported by the majority.
If you’re talking to an average statist then they will agree with this, if you’re talking to a smarter one then they will state the reasons why this isn’t necessarily the case, but then you can really challenge the efficiency of democracy in the first place.
In almost all countries the majority of people have a good deal of money, especially because the majority is unlikely to totally exclude the rich
In a free market society commercial or ‘capitalistic’ means are not the only means of action, other means are available so long as they are voluntary
Therefore if the majority of people want something, and they have a good deal of money then they can address the problem and they will want to as they support it happening. If the problem does not involve money and can be solved through simple labor, then they will do this to and the equality in society doesn’t actually matter.
This then means that according to the statist’s own argument people should come together in order to solve problems which are supposedly unsolvable through capitalistic means! If this is not the case then either the statist admitts that democracy doesn’t reflect the will of the majority, or the matter is so massive that it requires coercion on others to come about, something which social austricism could usually bring about in the first place, and where cash payments and other forms of social pressure will work in almost all others.
Jeez! Lighten up mate. Not everything has to be serious.
“Jeez” yourself. How about you try to make me “lighten up”, hmm?
Now can you actually answer my questions or not? What are you afraid of?
lol
Well?
Well what?
Do I need to repeat myself?
Would you? Please. This all very entertaining for me.
Here goes:
With that out of the way…
So you admit to trolling here?
…I think their post was pretty obviously and honestly not serious. I’m not sure who appointed you the silly police, but as an outsider its hard to see why you seem upset about it.
Believe me, it’s not me who is acting the troll. I certainly didn’t post here expecting anyone to get all weird and aggressive. I think you need to lay off the coffee.
By “trolling” I was referring to his refusal to answer my questions. I thought that was obvious.
Am I supposed to be intimidated by this? Or otherwise care? Do you really think this is going to dissuade me here? Come on.
Really now? I’d love to see you expand on this. Surely you’re able to.
Then what exactly did you expect?
I couldn’t care less what you think in this regard.