“What does “freedom” actually mean? Self-indulgent Libertarian hypocrisy knows no bounds”

[Hotspring 44]

An article in salon.com (Jeremy Sherman, AlterNet) dated, Monday, Feb 27, 2017 05:00 AM PST.

I have made many of the same 'observations' as what have been mentioned in the article.

I have copied some of the article to this post (sort of 'cherry-picked; but is in order from top to bottom and spaced apart so as not to misquote, rewrite, or or alter the 'meanings' of the article).

“I once had a conversation with a Libertarian friend who insisted that freedom was the answer to everything — ironic since he was getting married the following week.

“Freedom to have sex with others while married?” I asked. “Of course not,” he said.

“Freedom for your children to do whatever they want?” “No, that’s different,” he said.

“Freedom for everyone to have a nuclear bomb?” “No, that wouldn’t be good.”

“Freedom for people to steal?” “No, that has to be controlled.”

“You don’t really think that freedom is the answer to everything,” I said. “The real question is what to constrain and what to let go free. The question in social engineering is the question in all engineering. It’s a question of tolerances: What to constrain with tight tolerances and what to let run free with loose tolerances. That question is built right into the paradoxical declarations that we should all, “be intolerant of all intolerance,” or “tolerate all intolerance.”

“Sorry, that’s not my question,” he said.

“But why?” I asked. “Because it’s hard and I don’t want to bother with it.””...

… “It’s so much easier to be a hypocrite, to claim that total freedom or total constraint are the only possibilities and that you favor one and oppose the other.”...


… “Pretend that there’s no question, control is always bad, freedom is always good. Or vice versa.”...

… “These days, libertarianism is one such cult, growing in popularity, in large part through sponsorship by the Koch brothers network of donors, spending billions through private charities to achieve a cabal of about 400 billionaires’ ultimate aim, to be unconstrained in everything they do. The cabal was inspired by a self-serving misreading of the Soviet Union. Fred Koch, the Koch brother’s father was a key provider to Stalin as he built the Soviet Union’s oil industry. When Fred saw the devastation wrought by his client Stalin he wrote that, “What I saw in Russia convinced me of the utterly evil nature of communism. . . . What I saw there convinced me that communism was the most evil force the world has ever seen and I must do everything in my power to fight it, which I have done since that time.”

Rather than bite Stalin’s hand that fed him he conveniently focused on the rationalization that Stalin employed to justify his dictatorship. Fred went on to say in 1938 that “Although nobody agrees with me, I am of the opinion that the only sound countries in the world are Germany, Italy, and Japan, simply because they are all working and working hard.” He loved fascism; he hated communism.”...

… “Freedom and responsibility:
You’re free on the dance floor, but unless you’re special (P.S., you’re not) your freedom comes with responsibility for not constraining other people’s freedom. You don’t get to crowd everyone into the corner by dancing wildly with your eyes shut shouting “I believe in freedom!”

Social movements: The best and worst movements in human history have all had the same rallying cry, a proud “We demand more!” That’s the cry of those crowded out but also those who already have more than their fair share. It’s the cry of the women’s and civil rights movement but also of the Nazis. So what’s the difference between the good and bad versions of that rallying cry? Hypocrisy, demand for more dance floor when you’re already taking up plenty of it."...

..."Free will vs. determinism: We claim that free will as better than determinism but actually we’re ambivalent. What we’d really like is the freedom to advance and the determinism that locks in the advances we’ve already made. What we really want is a ratchet, freedom to climb, constraint against falling.

We can have that ratchet if we shut our eyes, dance impulsively and shout “freedom is the only answer!” while crowding everyone else into the corners by meaning only our personal freedom, the hell with theirs."

The complete article is here.

[SonomaPatientsCoop]

I am reminded of a line from Gary Johnson when he was on NPR's "Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me" some years ago. He was asked what it meant to be a Libertarian. He responded with an anaology of driving on deserted rural highways in NM at night. Coming to a red light. So you stop. Look both ways. Then you drive on through.

I am getting a lttile tired of this whole idea that all libertarians, republicans, democrats, etc all magically believe the same thing. Or that "we" fully understand what "they" believe.

Personally I think we would be far better off if we had no political parties. Stopped drying to force millions of odd shaped pegs into a handful of pre-cut and pre-defined holes. I know that I know people across the political spectrum that on many issues I agree with, or at least think they have valid points to be adressed, then I do with many in "my" party.

[Hotspring 44]

Re:

I am reminded of a line from Gary Johnson when he was on NPR's "Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me" some years ago. He was asked what it meant to be a Libertarian. He responded with an anaology of driving on deserted rural highways in NM at night. Coming to a red light. So you stop. Look both ways. Then you drive on through.

I admit that I had to do a search to find out who Gary Johnson is.

However, before I looked up who Gary Johnson is I had a thought that instantaneously came to mind...
...I know it is stereotyping per se, however, although it may have been stereotyping, it was quite accurate, I might add... ... The thought that did come in a flash was:
1- I was 99+% sure that guy (Gary Johnson) is white, and he is at least 45 years old, and I also thought he is either self-employed and or owns his own business and, of course, somebody that is well-known, at least in his own neck of the woods; and, of course, the fact that you knew who he was enough to mention him, even though I don't remember him running for president, I'm sure I have heard his name when he did run for president I just don't remember.

Another thought that I had a few short moments later is: an African-American comedian of whom I see the face of and hear the voice of (I also don't remember his name), making a similar comment about driving “while black”, on deserted rural highways in NM at night, coming to a red light, then stopping, and looking both ways, and in the mirror (which is something Gary Johnson did not mention), and waiting for the light to turn green before going...
... Oh, there I went again, stereotyping!...

I am getting a lttile tired of this whole idea that all libertarians, republicans, democrats, etc all magically believe the same thing. Or that "we" fully understand what "they" believe.

Well, I kind of know what you mean. I am “a little tired of”and actually quite exasperated with the level of divisiveness within the realm of politics that I have seen in the last few years.

Personally I think we would be far better off if we had no political parties.

I think that if our planetary human societies got along far better than we do, there probably wouldn't be any need or desire for “political parties”. We most certainly are not there yet and I don't expect to live anywhere near long enough to see that happen even if that will ever happen at all, I cannot be sure.

Stopped drying to force millions of odd shaped pegs into a handful of pre-cut and pre-defined holes. I know that I know people across the political spectrum that on many issues I agree with, or at least think they have valid points to be adressed, then I do with many in "my" party.

For one thing, I do not belong to any political party, I am a registered voter in California, I am not affiliated with any party, and am registered as such.

That being said, I too also have agreed with particular things that individual people who are members of 'different' political parties, and even some of the so-called top politicians within those parties too, for that matter.

Obviously, I don't think there are any two people on the planet that agree 100% about everything, never mind seven or eight billion people.

However, you can be sure about certain things that certain political parties in America, (I am referring to the last 15 or so years, specifically); because political parties have what is commonly referred to as a “platform” therefore, in a very real way there are actually real life well-defined norms, wherein the vast majority of folks in a particular “political party” adhere for the most part to the parties “platform” that has been “built”.

I remember an old television ad, I think was in the late 60s to early 70s; I think it was about something to do with the educational system, at least in California... ... I remember in the ad somebody saying something about trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. Your “peg” and “hole” analogy reminds me of that ad.

Anyway, I think that for the absolutist type of people that, yes, that's just how they are; everything has to be either black or white, right or wrong, win or lose, round or square, peg or hole etc.; there is no apparent conception of a middle ground with that way of thinking; that way of thinking equals no such thing as making any kind of compromise, etc .

That kind of thinking to me as far as I'm concerned, is an extreme form of extremism.

Anyway, I think that the absolutist (for example: A mindset whereas there is only “a handful of pre-cut and pre-defined holes”; in essence... ... And therefore… ...there are no other debatable reality or facts whatsoever to consider | …

Is (that) the type of thinking, which you are referring to which you say you are ...”getting a lttile tired of” ?

Anyway, I think the article merely pointed out some common aspects of the way in which the platform of the Libertarian party and of course the authors “friends” answers to the questions...

... More specifically, the Libertarian platform regarding economics is basically a laissez-faire economic tax structure, whereas, basically, you're on your own Bud... ... Most of the rhetoric I've heard from the Libertarian politicians basically have said that they do not want to pay one penny of tax money for anybody else's benefit; that the tax that they do pay is only supposed to exclusively benefit them personally.

So yes, the dance floor analogy in the article as far as I am concerned, is very accurate.

That being said, I realize there are 20% statistically that on a particular political parties platform they disagree...
... In other words, one out of five statistically will disagree with at least some part of their parties platform, so it's no surprise to me that, if you look hard enough, you will undoubtedly be able to find somebody in any political party that exists in the United States of America who you can agree with on at least one thing politically.

[podfish]

I am reminded of a line from Gary Johnson when he was on NPR's "Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me" some years ago. He was asked what it meant to be a Libertarian. He responded with an anaology of driving on deserted rural highways in NM at night. Coming to a red light. So you stop. Look both ways. Then you drive on through.

The analogy escapes me, and I don't blame me.

Gary Johnson proved himself a bit of an idiot, or at least a goofball, in the last election. He didn't show any signs of having thought anything through, or considering anything in context.

other ideas on this thread make sense; libertarians aren't really interested in absolute freedom, where any individual can indulge in completely unconstrained action. And forcing people into political groupings, whether labeled as a party or as an ideology, obscures important differences between them. But until someone posits an alternative, it seems the only way to cause deliberate change. Accidental change, not so much. Ants don't need parties. But either you have a leader directing change, or you collect enough sort-of-likeminded people to direct it. Now whether directed change is actually possible is a deeper philosophical question.

[SonomaPatientsCoop]

The analogy escapes me, and I don't blame me.

You've never come to a red light on a deserted road...and, after stopping- driven through? Never crossed a streed against the "don't walk" signal...because there was no reason for a "law" to stop you when there was clearly no reason you couldn't make the rational decision to do so without harming anyone else?

I agree with many of your other points. But I'll admit to having voted for Gary Johnson... not because I thought he was the best candidate- but because my vote here in CA means pretty much nothing- so I will support any 3rd party candidate who has any chance of getting the % to get federal funding and a place at the debates. More ideas better.

I'll also add- I first became aware of the Libertarian party probably 20 years ago- when they got media coverage for sending out their magazine to their members with the cover being sattelite imagery of their address. They were among the first to raise the issue of the rise of the "surveillance state" which has become a big issue in the past number of years.

Personally I think we need dozens of political parties...or none at all. One of the big problems I had with Bernie (and with Trump, and "the Tea Party" ) is that unlie Ross Perot or Ralph Nader (or even Gary Johnson)... is that they tried to hijack an existing conversation between two parties- rather then add an additional and valid voice to the conversation. We aren't going to get out of this mess continuing with dualities- the world is not black/white but a million shades of grey...and we need voices repreenting each and every one of those shades.

[podfish]

(re: his analogy escapes me)You've never come to a red light on a deserted road...and, after stopping- driven through? Never crossed a streed against the "don't walk" signal...because there was no reason for a "law" to stop you when there was clearly no reason you couldn't make the rational decision to do so without harming anyone else?

I'm not claiming I think people should blindly obey laws - it would be hypocritical of me if nothing else. I just don't get the analogy - what does safely violating traffic laws have to do with libertarianism?? Only libertarians are willing to violate regulations when they think they can do so safely? I associate that more with Republicans (ba dump).

I agree with your observation that dualities never capture reality, and that having two parties doesn't serve anyone well. I don't know the history of it, but I gather that the founders of the country were pretty sure that strong parties shouldn't be allowed to develop. Oops.