Am I a political hypocrite?

[luv2drnkbr]

Until about a half a year ago, I was a liberal democrat.  Then I started to think I was a libertarian, then an anarchist.  Now, I've realized that I can't define it because what I want for myself is different than what I want for others.

(Not previously, but nowadays) I go to great lengths to preserve my individual liberty and pretty much don't think about laws or society in general.  I simply do what I'm going to do and interact with people in a manner consistent with my own morals, and I consider law only in terms of the hassle of its consequence and the chance of being caught.

However, I am very glad that laws and society and government exist, because I believe most people, if they acted freely because law and government were abolished, would act much less ethically than I would, and I think they would generally destroy civilization.  My life time experience with people has lead me to believe they will always put short-term gain and immediate self interest above all else, including long-term gains and interests.  In short, most people are stupid.

So as much as I find governments of all sorts to be grossly inefficient and I dislike many laws, I am very very happy to live in a society that has such things because most people are sheep in addition to being stupid, and I think these inefficient laws protect them and me and do more good than harm by being in place.  And it doesn't bother me at all that I pick and choose which ones I obey.

Is it weird or hypocritical that I go about my life freely without thought of governance but think it's a really good thing that others feel constrained by laws and government?

Or am I just some kind of psycho?  I really just don't trust the judgment of others.

[1713284409]

1713284409

[ElectricMucus]

You don't have to define yourself in the left/right/authoritarian/libertarian plane.
It's not 1, 2 or more-dimensional every agenda is one axis in hilbert-space and every single one is wrong.

The absolute vector value of each agenda you live under corresponds to the level of tyranny you are exposed to.

PS: call me a hypocrite too

[FirstAscent]

Until about a half a year ago, I was a liberal democrat.  Then I started to think I was a libertarian, then an anarchist.  Now, I've realized that I can't define it because what I want for myself is different than what I want for others.

(Not previously, but nowadays) I go to great lengths to preserve my individual liberty and pretty much don't think about laws or society in general.  I simply do what I'm going to do and interact with people in a manner consistent with my own morals, and I consider law only in terms of the hassle of its consequence and the chance of being caught.

However, I am very glad that laws and society and government exist, because I believe most people, if they acted freely because law and government were abolished, would act much less ethically than I would, and I think they would generally destroy civilization.  My life time experience with people has lead me to believe they will always put short-term gain and immediate self interest above all else, including long-term gains and interests.  In short, most people are stupid.

So as much as I find governments of all sorts to be grossly inefficient and I dislike many laws, I am very very happy to live in a society that has such things because most people are sheep in addition to being stupid, and I think these inefficient laws protect them and me and do more good than harm by being in place.  And it doesn't bother me at all that I pick and choose which ones I obey.

Is it weird or hypocritical that I go about my life freely without thought of governance but think it's a really good thing that others feel constrained by laws and government?

Or am I just some kind of psycho?  I really just don't trust the judgment of others.

I think you're rational and sensible. You realize laws and regulations are absolutely necessary in today's society, especially given the population. You believe in yourself as someone who generally does the right thing, but you respect the law enough and understand it will keep you in line should you ever feel inclined to push against the boundaries of your current freedoms too hard.

As cool as you might think being libertarian is, you've come to realize that a lot of the things about libertarianism just aren't appropriate.

[Hawker]

You are normal.  Everyone knows that speed kills.  Everyone speeds.  Its our nature to recognise the need for regulation and its also our nature to resist.

[NghtRppr]

You are normal.  Everyone knows that speed kills.  Everyone speeds.  Its our nature to recognise the need for regulation and its also our nature to resist.

Speed limits exist on private roads too.

[Hawker]

You are normal.  Everyone knows that speed kills.  Everyone speeds.  Its our nature to recognise the need for regulation and its also our nature to resist.

Speed limits exist on private roads too.

And people speed on private roads as well.  I'm not sure what your point is.

[NghtRppr]

My point is that regulations aren't entirely products of the state. Trying to argue that we need regulations and therefore we need states is fallacious reasoning.

[Hawker]

My point is that regulations aren't entirely products of the state. Trying to argue that we need regulations and therefore we need states is fallacious reasoning.

Read the OP.  His question is about hypocrisy.  Whether its done on private land or a public road is not the issue.

[FirstAscent]

My point is that regulations aren't entirely products of the state. Trying to argue that we need regulations and therefore we need states is fallacious reasoning.

Ahh, but we do need regulations. As an example, many libertarians choose to remain ignorant about the effects of their actions, because they only study books which agree with their political views, and as a result, often remain uninformed about processes and effects outside of their world view, and that generally means that their actions cause problems. Thus the need for regulation.

[MatthewLM]

Until about a half a year ago, I was a liberal democrat.  Then I started to think I was a libertarian, then an anarchist.  Now, I've realized that I can't define it because what I want for myself is different than what I want for others.

(Not previously, but nowadays) I go to great lengths to preserve my individual liberty and pretty much don't think about laws or society in general.  I simply do what I'm going to do and interact with people in a manner consistent with my own morals, and I consider law only in terms of the hassle of its consequence and the chance of being caught.

However, I am very glad that laws and society and government exist, because I believe most people, if they acted freely because law and government were abolished, would act much less ethically than I would, and I think they would generally destroy civilization.  My life time experience with people has lead me to believe they will always put short-term gain and immediate self interest above all else, including long-term gains and interests.  In short, most people are stupid.

So as much as I find governments of all sorts to be grossly inefficient and I dislike many laws, I am very very happy to live in a society that has such things because most people are sheep in addition to being stupid, and I think these inefficient laws protect them and me and do more good than harm by being in place.  And it doesn't bother me at all that I pick and choose which ones I obey.

Is it weird or hypocritical that I go about my life freely without thought of governance but think it's a really good thing that others feel constrained by laws and government?

Or am I just some kind of psycho?  I really just don't trust the judgment of others.

So you think your actions, preferences and morals are godly and other people are idiots and must be forced to act towards your utopian vision (A little bit of hyperbole, I know)? Or are you trying to justify what we have today because you can't stand trying to understand a better way?

Maybe "short sightedness" is what maintains statism? There is a positive feedback loop as statism then makes people more short sightedness and evil. People will use (Using the state is very close to impossible except for particular groups) and worship (Like a religion) the state in hope it can solve problems when in fact it makes them worse, creating a terrible spiral that can only be reversed when people see that statism is evil.

The State is the great fiction through which everybody endeavours to live at the expense of everybody else.

http://www.panarchy.org/bastiat/state.1848.html

I'd then add: The state is the great fiction through which everybody tries to force their particular morals on everybody else.

In a free society crime will be much lower. It stands to common sense. There is no reason to believe there should never be law and order to solve the conflicts between humanity, however. First people need to learn to become peaceful and independent. No living off others by force and forcing social ideals on others. The only way we can abolish statism is to remove the core philosophies against libertarianism. Libertarianism as a philosophy is anti-crime while statism breeds crime. Statism is a worship of aggression and control.

[NghtRppr]

As an example, many libertarians choose to remain ignorant about the effects of their actions, because they only study books which agree with their political views, and as a result, often remain uninformed about processes and effects outside of their world view, and that generally means that their actions cause problems

How do you know what libertarians are reading at home? Let me know when you have something based on facts.

[JBDive]

However, I am very glad that laws and society and government exist, because I believe most people, if they acted freely because law and government were abolished, would act much less ethically than I would, and I think they would generally destroy civilization.  My life time experience with people has lead me to believe they will always put short-term gain and immediate self interest above all else, including long-term gains and interests.  In short, most people are stupid.

I do not support your theory. People if left un-governed will self govern and those not willing to conform to a set of standards will be driven out of society. It is the existence of an overbearing Government which lends itself to the defiant behavior which society would naturally drive out or force to conform however with an overbearing Gov't society does neither as it has given up it's self control of society to the state.

[The Script]

Is it weird or hypocritical that I go about my life freely without thought of governance but think it's a really good thing that others feel constrained by laws and government?

Or am I just some kind of psycho?  I really just don't trust the judgment of others.

Sorry, but if this is the case, why are you asking for our opinions?

[luv2drnkbr]

I do not support your theory. People if left un-governed will self govern and those not willing to conform to a set of standards will be driven out of society. It is the existence of an overbearing Government which lends itself to the defiant behavior which society would naturally drive out or force to conform however with an overbearing Gov't society does neither as it has given up it's self control of society to the state.

What evidence do you base this claim on?

The idea that people self-govern is completely ludicrous.  All the evidence of human history suggests otherwise.  We are violent tribalistic territorial primates.

[luv2drnkbr]

In a free society crime will be much lower. It stands to common sense. There is no reason to believe there should never be law and order to solve the conflicts between humanity, however. First people need to learn to become peaceful and independent. No living off others by force and forcing social ideals on others. The only way we can abolish statism is to remove the core philosophies against libertarianism. Libertarianism as a philosophy is anti-crime while statism breeds crime. Statism is a worship of aggression and control.

Actually common sense tells me that threats of punishment do deter crime, as does life experience, research, statistics, history, and other data.

You really need to provide some kind of evidence for such an outrageous claim.  It's a fantasy to think that people will do the right thing without coercion when it benefits them to do the wrong thing.

[luv2drnkbr]

Is it weird or hypocritical that I go about my life freely without thought of governance but think it's a really good thing that others feel constrained by laws and government?

Or am I just some kind of psycho?  I really just don't trust the judgment of others.

Sorry, but if this is the case, why are you asking for our opinions?

It is possible to want input even if I feel there's a strong chance I will discard it, simply for the possibility of finding good advice.

[luv2drnkbr]

I didn't mean to be as mean as my last few posts sound.  I'm just completely floored that some of you actually think people will self-govern and do the right thing when the whole of human history says otherwise.

[Hawker]

I didn't mean to be as mean as my last few posts sound.  I'm just completely floored that some of you actually think people will self-govern and do the right thing when the whole of human history says otherwise.

I know what you mean - it is weird how dreamy and idealistic some of these guys are..  In another thread, FredericBastiet and Bitcoin2Cash are seriously arguing that everyone should be entitled to have nuclear weapons.

Imagine if http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Lee_Loughner had a nuke instead of a pistol;  does it really help the situation to argue that his victims could have detonated their nukes as well?

I grew up in Ireland at a time when there was an paramilitary army made up of people who believed their "liberty" was infringed by there being too many Protestants in the northern counties.  I dread to think what they would have done if they had been able to use nukes. 

[JBDive]

I do not support your theory. People if left un-governed will self govern and those not willing to conform to a set of standards will be driven out of society. It is the existence of an overbearing Government which lends itself to the defiant behavior which society would naturally drive out or force to conform however with an overbearing Gov't society does neither as it has given up it's self control of society to the state.

What evidence do you base this claim on?

The idea that people self-govern is completely ludicrous.  All the evidence of human history suggests otherwise.  We are violent tribalistic territorial primates.

You prove my point in your answer, "We are violent tribalistic", what is a tribe?

[JBDive]

I didn't mean to be as mean as my last few posts sound.  I'm just completely floored that some of you actually think people will self-govern and do the right thing when the whole of human history says otherwise.

I know what you mean - it is weird how dreamy and idealistic some of these guys are..  In another thread, FredericBastiet and Bitcoin2Cash are seriously arguing that everyone should be entitled to have nuclear weapons.

Imagine if http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Lee_Loughner had a nuke instead of a pistol;  does it really help the situation to argue that his victims could have detonated their nukes as well?

I grew up in Ireland at a time when there was an paramilitary army made up of people who believed their "liberty" was infringed by there being too many Protestants in the northern counties.  I dread to think what they would have done if they had been able to use nukes. 

Any number of social studies show people will band together, form a governing body, lay down rules and expectations of the group and so forth when left to their own. Even smaller studies of students in a class or sub group have shown they do the same, they set rules of expected behavior even if those rules are not written or even fully communicated everyone knows what is considered normal and defiant  behavior.