Why don't human beings desire liberty?

[Stranger]

@bloomj31

The other thing I think we could talk about is how libertarianism appeals to people with money. I’ve never met a poor libertarian. But there are more people without money than people with money. So, we’re outnumbered.

That’s an opportunity: we can hire them to fight on our behalf.

[Esuric]

@bloomj31

The other thing I think we could talk about is how libertarianism appeals to people with money. I’ve never met a poor libertarian. But there are more people without money than people with money.

I’m a poor libertarian. Nice to meet you.

[bloomj31]

@Esuric

@bloomj31

The other thing I think we could talk about is how libertarianism appeals to people with money. I’ve never met a poor libertarian. But there are more people without money than people with money.

I’m a poor libertarian. Nice to meet you.

This is a first. Tell me, why do you choose liberty?

[Esuric]

@bloomj31

This is a first. Tell me, why do you choose liberty?

Because I lived in tyranny (Yugoslavia) and was trapped in poverty. Now I’m not trapped. It’s simple really.

[bloomj31]

@Esuric

@bloomj31

This is a first. Tell me, why do you choose liberty?

Because I lived in tyranny (Yugoslavia) and was trapped in poverty. Now I’m not trapped. It’s simple really.

I’ve always thought freedom would matter most to those who’ve been denied it. Very informative post.

[Esuric]

@bloomj31

I’ve always thought freedom would matter most to those who’ve been denied it. Very informative post.

Complacent American teenagers really get on my nerve.

[Knight_of_BAAWA]

@filc

Maybe if you spent more time reading posts spent less time worrying about being right you’d stop making a fool of yourself.

@J. Grayson Lilburne

My friend, please let’s not resort to name-calling.

@J. Grayson Lilburne

As it turns out, Krugman’s apologists shouldn’t demand more context for his notorious quotes, since it only shines even more light on how confused and backward he is as an economist.

Looks like name-calling to me.

[Knight_of_BAAWA]

@bloomj31

The other thing I think we could talk about is how libertarianism appeals to people with money.

It appeals to people who love to run their own lives, rather than be ruled or rule others. It’s the type of person who is the master of his or her own mind. Money has nothing to do with it.

[liberty_student]

@bloomj31

I don’t really want to argue about anything. I want to figure out how to defeat socialists. But I don’t think any of the answers on this board reflect an understanding of the mass appeal of socialism. The trade axiom is irrelevant. What matters is that people choose the wrong thing. How does it happen?

But do you understand that you are a socialist yourself? Unless I missed some transformation in the last week or so.

First you have to understand what collectivism is, then you can check your premises, to see if you are a collectivist, but I would advise that if you think you can defeat socialists, while being a collectivist yourself, then you are just kidding yourself.

Individualism is serius bizness.

And there is a lot more to radical individualism than Rothbard. I suggest you check out Nielsio’s site, V for Voluntary and go through the reading section. I’m betting you still have not read Etienne de la Boetie on popular consent.

[bloomj31]

I don’t think I’m a socialist. By the way, I got Friedman’s book and Hoppe’s book.

[Byzantine]

Liberty to do what?

[liberty_student]

@bloomj31

I don’t think I’m a socialist.

If you’re not an anarchist, you’re a socialist, because all statism, even objectivism is socialism.

@bloomj31

By the way, I got Friedman’s book and Hoppe’s book.

Awesome. I think you will really like Hoppe. He appeals to conservatives in a big way. And I am a big fan of Friedman.

[bloomj31]

@liberty student

If you’re not an anarchist, you’re a socialist, because all statism, even objectivism is socialism.

In your opinion.

@liberty student

Awesome. I think you will really like Hoppe. He appeals to conservatives in a big way. And I am a big fan of Friedman.

I’m going to get started on them soon.

[liberty_student]

@bloomj31

@liberty student

If you’re not an anarchist, you’re a socialist, because all statism, even objectivism is socialism.

In your opinion.

I think it is logically coherent. The state, even the night watchman state, is socialist. It is a monopoly, by force, and not the market. So even Objectivists are socialists, in that while they will argue that the state can exist funded by donation, they insist upon a legal monopoly, which whether you pay for it or not, is imposed on you by others.

I’m not going to get into a long debate on it with you. Every day you move closer to my position, I will wait patiently until you arrive. [:)]

[DanielZ]

@filc

As for selfeshness why on earth should we make people not selfish? First off I have a hardtime believing that any act can be selfless, and second off our world functions because of individual desire and preference. If everyone sacrificed themselves for another we’d be useless. We want selfishness, selfishness is not the root of our problem. We want greedy capitalists to continue and improve our quality of living.

I understand why you have a hard time believing that any act can be selfless, after all, we do get some satisfaction out of giving or helping others. And, as I addressed in a previous post, selfishness is separate from desire and preference because it is without regard to others. Sure, everyone can have desires and wants, but if your wants have no regards for others… Well, that sounds like any socialist that is OK with stealing from the rich to give to the poor.

And I’m not suggesting that everyone “sacrifice themselves for another”… The motivation to succeed would simply be different. Suppose a businessman or an inventor create a new product because they want to improve the lives of their neighbors. In a sense, it is the very same end, but the means to that end are very different. If there were zero selfishness, why would anybody need to infringe on anybody else’s rights?

-Daniel

[DanielZ]

@bloomj31

@filc

As for selfishness why on earth should we make people not selfish?

I don’t think it can be done anyways. This is what Sowell calls the “unconstrained vision.” He points out that people who talk about changing human nature must at first accept that human nature is malleable and not something fixed and innate. Selfishness is, in my mind, an intrinsic human quality, it can’t be gotten rid of that being said…

@filc

selfishness is not the root of our problem.

In a sense, selfishness is THE problem, but it’s not a problem with a solution. I think we need to employ systems that utilize the selfishness of man, not try to get rid of it or tame it. That’s why capitalism works and socialism doesn’t.

I agree…

When I posted my original response, I was simply trying to answer “why does society always choose government?”. I was never trying to say that we can somehow get rid of selfishness, and I was never equating selfishness with desire or wants, etc. It is easy to confuse these terms, but in the end they are separate.

I still am convinced that selfishness is the reason behind why society always chooses government.

-Daniel

[DanielZ]

@Knight_of_BAAWA

@Daniel Z

Easy… Selfishness!

Being selfish as itself doesn’t mean we need a government or even desire one.

Sure… But I wasn’t trying to answer the question “why do we need government?”. And do we desire government? Mmm… I don’t know, but averaged over history, the tendency toward government is undeniable. What does that say about what is in human nature? Sure nobody desires to be afraid of snakes, spiders, altitude, you name it, but is it human nature???

-Daniel

[Wilmot_of_Rochester]

@bloomj31

The other thing I think we could talk about is how libertarianism appeals to people with money. I’ve never met a poor libertarian. But there are more people without money than people with money. So, we’re outnumbered.

In fact, the only reason I got into conservatism and libertarianism is because I stand to benefit materially from them. If I thought that I stood to gain more from being a socialist, I’d be a socialist, but I don’t think I do. Yet.

That is a statement really void of reality.

Much goes into a person’s ideology; contemporary material well-being is an insignificant part of it. Most of what determines your ideology will come from social structures and institutions. You may be the poorest man on Earth, but if your parents worshiped Reagan, you’ll probably walk the line of a conservative.

[Omega]

@wilderness

But I did this post as I find it necessary to assure clarity in our discussion. Thanks for sticking through this. It’s not you nor me. It’s how it goes. You post. I post. We work through it and figure out what’s up, etc…

wilderness,

Though I haven’t much time for the forum right now I want you to know that your attitude is appreciated. I think your statement says alot about you as a person, and, I agree; You post, I post, we work through it and figure out what’s up.

This has never been about who is right or to argue (in the popular sense of the word) just for the sake of argument; I seek the truth.

I am not angry at you (or anyone else here for that matter) and have no animosity or hard feelings.

For now, I think it is best to agree to disagree on certain things.

Best regards

[bloomj31]

@Wilmot of Rochester

That is a statement really void of reality.

Much goes into a person’s ideology; contemporary material well-being is an insignificant part of it. Most of what determines your ideology will come from social structures and institutions. You may be the poorest man on Earth, but if your parents worshiped Reagan, you’ll probably walk the line of a conservative.

I think you’re wrong. At least as far as I go. You know why I care about conservatism and libertarianism? Money.

My parents are also very liberal and every school I’ve ever gone to has been mostly liberal. I just know that I’ve got a little bit of money and I want to keep it.

So my statement may be off in regards to your life, but it’s not off in regards to mine.