« More about Ron Paul and the Jews | Main | Robert Heinlein libertarianism vs. Ron Paul libertarianism »

December 28, 2011

Comments

Politics is about signaling and massaging your own ego. Beta males with high IQ have the largest chunck of their income taken by the government compared to anyone else. And the way they make their money is usually not fun(STEM), so every dollar they take means doing more not fun things. Morever the tax money goes towads groups that they compete with (high status rich, low IQ but good looking males) for the resources they have the hardest time getting, women.

I've often said regarding Objectivism that some of its greatest proponents and those most capable of EXPLAINING it are the least likely to actually BE Hank Reardons and Dagny Taggarts, because the Doers of a worldview can rarely articulate it as well as the THINKERS of it, and thinkers rarely do anything at all. i think this holds true for libertarians as well. I am not a doer, i never will be, i have no ambition and don't want to be rich, but i passionately believe in philosophies that would allow the best of OTHERS to become rich and successful and happy and creative and free, even if they can't articulate WHY the "system" in which they succeed allows them to do so. i've never heard a strong libertarian say "if only the country was governed along libertarian lines *I* would be rich and successful because *I* am being held down by the Man", its almost always aspy pattern spotting and big picture analysis from what i can tell.

Those guys are libertarians because they're very aware that they suck at politics, and want to eliminate government as a source of status.


It would not surprise me if Paul sympathizes heavily with paleo-libertarianism, which still remains true to libertarian economic principles but also takes right leaning positions on social issues.

Alternatively, Paul might not believe in much more than hoarding a bunch of gold for dodgy reasons but remains a nice spokesperson for the paleo-libertarians...

Libertarian ideas are thriving right now. This is its golden age, in a way.

There are major libertarian themes, such as government involvement is generally bad, and that every behavior under the sun should be accepted, that have gained a lot of traction on the right and left respectively. Individualism, the biggest current in libertarianism of all, has got to be at an all time high.

But you are quite right that libertarianism != success.

Libertarianism has two giant flaws:

(1) Hedonism as a personal ethos (or at least the kind of laid-back buddhist-style attitude) is never going to get you very far. This seems to go hand-in-hand with libertarianism. Success requires a personal fire, of which libertarians seem to have not a lot.

(2) Organizational success, leadership and managing a company requires stiff order, minimal dissent and conformity. It is all about establishing rules and business operations that work well and just repeating them over without variation. How is a libertarian going to manage that?

Since libertarianism is a dominant ethos among today's young, and since libertarianism does not seem to be an ideology of success, is it a good bet that the current crop of young people will be less successful on the whole because of that?

"Although I didn’t describe the typical libertarian in that old blog post, I will do it here: male, computer programmer or engineer, below average in physical attractiveness, above average IQ."

Yep.

Basically, libertarians are ugly nerds or beta nerds who refused to continue feeding a system that steals their money in the name of "social justice" and gives it to the very same alpha thugs they couldn't suffer in high school and who were banging the girls they secretly loved.

Is is a reptilian revolt against a system that deprives them of their only evolutionary advantage (intelligence), while masquerading as a logical construct.

Nothing wrong with that, the problem is that the laws of universal democracy mean they will never seize power through legal means.

American paleo-conservatives want to privilege and promote America over other countries, whereas libertarians strive to maximize individual freedom and wealth and don't give a fig about their country as such. In practical economic terms, a paleo-conservative would enact tariffs to protect American manufacturing from cheap imports. A libertarian such as Ron Paul is a doctrinaire free trader who would eliminate all tariffs, even if that meant the destruction of entire sectors of the American economy.

Paleos don't fulminate against, say, government-owned national parks. To libertarians, Yellowstone National Park represents a crime against private enterprise and the Rights of Man.

I'd like HalfSigma to explain why he thinks Ron Paul is a paleo-conservative more than a libertarian. I see it the other way around.

A libertarian is economic conservative, who takes an optimistic view of human nature. Once someone like that acquires some money, they start taking a darker view of others' motives, and turn into pure conservatives.

The above average IQ nerd good at technology might not be the greatest beneficiary of capitalism but they still do better under a capitalistic system than they would under a socialistic system. Someone like Obama has nothing to offer them. His policies are all about taking money from them and giving it to someone else. So it makes sense they would be libertarians and not socialists. Our standard of living depends on high IQ people who can invent and operate technology. Our dysgenic welfare and immigration policies are decreasing them as a percentage of the population and is causing a decline in our living standards. With fewer of them, it's also decreasing the numbers who would vote libertarian and replacing them with people who vote for socialist wealth transfer policies that are non-sustainable in the long run. I think our economic decline is going to accelerate and it's best for an intelligent person to start thinking about what investments, careers and places to live would be best during an economic collapse.

A Libertarian is just a Liberal who thinks they can hold a personal freedom loving philosophy which will allow them the right to not have to open their pocketbook if the Libertarian philosophy became dominant political philosophy.

Libertarianism is diving face first into Babylon.

Mr. Paul probably doesn't have intercourse with pigeons in the park while personally fellating his French poodle, but there is somebody who would and the Libertairan philosophy believes he should have that right.

Libertarianism will not restore values or morality in theis country, it will continue with the destruction of. It is not an alternative.

Libertarian is the "if it feels good, f*ck it, but don't tax it" political philosophy.

Speaking of, this reminds me- how many late 20s below average attractiveness above average IQ alt-righters who wish there were more quality women out there are fans of Jared Taylor at AmRen? You know he married a 22yo heritage foundation intern?

wait, ron paul isn't a true libertarian? other than being anti-abortion, how do you figure this?

@ Dan

Anything goes libertarianism is just another form of cultural Marxism. Today's young people can barely function in the real world. They lack impulse control (30 is the new 20 and so forth). It's taking people a lot longer to shed their bad habits and failed ideologies or in other words to "grow up".

"Speaking of, this reminds me- how many late 20s below average attractiveness above average IQ alt-righters who wish there were more quality women out there are fans of Jared Taylor at AmRen? You know he married a 22yo heritage foundation intern?"

I heard she was Jewish and that explains his (bizarre, for a white supremacist) lack of anti-Semitism. Makes sense nerds would go after Jewish and Asian women.

Sailer's argued a lot of women's writing on politics ends with the argument the writer should be found more attractive; why not men's? (Or that the writer should get more money, which is the same thing for men. ;) )

There's a point that nerds might have the most to *gain* from libertarianism even if they are not its *greatest beneficiaries*. Nerds don't have families they need to protect from the coarse popular culture and aren't poor enough to need handouts. If you don't consume a lot of government resources and want to be free to smoke marijuana, play violent video games, and have kinky sex, libertarianism is for you.

All the more power to Jared, just saying it is funny that he has a following of mid to late 20s guys who can't find a wife and he snags one of their best potential prospects

Paul is a paleoconservative. Too many people assume conservatism is synonymous with morality. It isn't. Conservatism is about merely keeping the government in check, and nothing more. If you wish to grow the government, in any shape or form, you are a liberal. It isn't any more complicated than that, yet people make it so, for example:

"Libertarianism will not restore values or morality in this country, it will continue with the destruction of. It is not an alternative."

Moral values are personal and private. They also spring from the people, not the government. It is "bottom up", not "top down".

"The main point of the post was to identify the irony of the filthy rich who are the greatest beneficiaries of capitalism are rarely libertarian."

I've found a way to start hilarious arguments with people like HS. Say that Cuba has an awful healthcare system and they'll be defending communism within 2 minutes. Like most journalists, they actually believe that communism makes people better off.

http://m.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/dec/19/vaclav-havel-another-side-to-story?cat=commentisfree&type=article

The greatest beneficiaries of capitalism are the bourgeois... no matter how wealthy. Although no society without lots of private property can afford to feed its indigent. And no society without private property has any wealth. The top gets what it wants in a communist system.

http://freekorea.us/2007/04/10/its-good-to-be-the-king-kim-jong-ils-home-and-office-by-google-earth/

I disagree with the premise that libertarians are poor. Most rich people aren't libertarians (though the Koch brothers are some of the richest in the country), but neither are most people of any economic strata. I'd find it plausible if libertarianism peaked (still being a minority) at some upper-middle class income level, but it would be most uncommon among the poor. I'd like to see some actual data though.

Some people seem to be repeating something like Bryan Caplan's "revenge of the nerds" theory:
http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2007/06/redistribution_1.html
Personally, I never got why there is such a common trope depicting a conflict between jocks and nerds. The jocks at schools I went to were nice people, even to nerds.

TGGP,

The nerd/jock dictotomy is a prole thing. I grew up in a lower middle class prole school and most of the people around you are mediocore IQ and not going to college. People specialize. Those with the IQ to rise out of that life become nerds and those without it become jocks. A lot of this has to do with social (peer and parental expectations) pressure and the population characteristics. Also parents don't have the same resources to indulge all of the kids interests (hence specialization).

In middle and especially upper middle class environments the nerd/jock dichotomy only exists at the extremes. The athletic kids can also be smart and won't be culturally derided for it. Also, junoir is expected to get perfect SATs and be captain of the lacrosse team because Harvard values both, and his parents will pay the money for training, equipment, tutoring, and shuffling him around to do it all.

Libertarianism is for losers who do what all losers do - blame everyone but themselves. Other people have no trouble succeeding in the current system and humanity's lot has considerably improved over the 20th century far more than in the much more Libertarian 19th century.

The nerd/jock thing is, as far as I can tell, an American trope. You actually see it a lot more often among journalists, who resent their lack of success both in high school and in later life, than actual engineers. They then claim to be nerds, to associate themselves with successful software entrepreneurs and gain some air of glory. Brits seem to think the whole thing is strange.

The irony is that a nerd personality is helpful in the lower class (where it keeps you off the streets) and harmful in the upper class (where it keeps you out of Goldman Sachs).

There's also the strange phenomenon of people pretending to be nerds. To some degree it seems to be replacing the old counterculture...being a hippie is old hat, so hipsters make ironic reference to Star Wars instead. I am noticing increasingly cute girls showing up at scifi cons--not sure if successfully marketing anime to teenage girls has actually produced larger numbers of female nerds, or if the stigma's gone down.

It's also sort of a way to do an end-run around American anti-intellectualism...sure studying and doing well in school is uncool, but if you associate it with a transgressive counterculture it becomes rebellious and thus cool. Sort of the way feminists into kinky sex reconfigure their desire to be dominated by a man (in bed only!) as transgressive (good) rather than patriarchal (bad). It's quite funny actually.

Societally, probably not a bad thing. We could use a few more engineers with the rise of China. I don't know what America gets out of the whole small-town football culture or the Jersey Shore/Britney Spears popular culture or hip-hop, honestly. Better football skills?

The comments to this entry are closed.