How did this generation grow up to be so repressive?

[Grizalltheway]

You missed a generation of rebels. Boomers rebelled against their parents (the Greatest Generation) and really kicked off the entitlement-oriented, me-first approach to life.

What you say hits upon the fact that the people in that video ... the young ones that is...are Baby Boomers...not Generation Xers. The "Baby Boom" involves people born during 1946 - 1964.

I don't know if they were "me first" at that stage. Thre was all that Peace and Love stuff. Anti-materialism. Then they generally grew up to become about as materialistic as materialistic can be. Also public health and safety fanatics and that has a lot to do with why they have been so repressive. At least I think so.

The real "me first" and "I'm special" stuff started with their children, I think. And I also think they're responsible for that.

I say "they" but I am a Baby Boomer. But I remember what it was like when we were young. For instance: I can't prove this but I would be very willing to bet that if you'd have taken a vote on legalizing marijuana among people in the 18 to 30 age group when I was in college you'd have gotten an overwhelming majority in favor. Heck, I think you'd have gotten that in favor of legalizing recreational drugs in general.

The mentality was very Libertarian. But it went away as that generation got older. In most of them anyway. Not me. I was Libertarian then and I"m Libertarian now.

Couldn't one say that Libertarianism is the ultimate "me first" philosophy?

[youngterrier]

The term libertarian is so broad that it's stupid. The original libertarians were socialists, anarchists, and leftists. Only since the 80s in the United States has the term grown to mean something like a hybrid between classical liberalism and Austrian economics.

Oh, by the way, in my opinion all libertarians are stupid. Philosophy only takes you so far.....then realism smacks you in the face.

[JohnStOnge]

Couldn't one say that Libertarianism is the ultimate "me first" philosophy?

Yes in a sense. The idea is that you can do whatever you want as long as you dont' directly, definitely, and positively harm anybody else. It does have an element of "my liberty is primary." But you can choose to be very selfish or you can choose to be very selfless.

The main thing...to me...is that true Libertarianism does not include an entitlement mentality. You do NOT believe that anybody else is obligated to make sure you get what you need. You do NOT believe that anybody else is obligated to hire you. You do NOT believe that someone should be legally liable for NOT hiring you because of your race, sex, sexual orientation, religion, etc. You do NOT believe that anybody else is obligated to deal with you in any way and you DO believe that they also should be able to do what they want for whatever reason they have.

You believe that you are free but other people are free as well. Nobody owes you anything.

[youngterrier]

libertarianism: The belief that it's worse to be told to treat other people like human beings than the action of actually treating other people as less than human.

Sounds legit.

[JohnStOnge]

The original libertarians were socialists...

Yes I have seen that claim on the internet. It's nonsense. Libertarianism and socialism are mutually exclusive. You can't have government controlling the means of production and also have people free to do as they want.

[JohnStOnge]

libertarianism: The belief that it's worse to be told to treat other people like human beings than the action of actually treating other people as less than human.

Sounds legit.

So you believe people should be forced to associate with others whom they don't want to associate with?

[DSUrocks07]

Gen X'ers rebelled against the values of their parents (baby boomers). The main reason why society is a much different place than it was back in the 50s and 60s...for better and for worse.

You missed a generation of rebels. Boomers rebelled against their parents (the Greatest Generation) and really kicked off the entitlement-oriented, me-first approach to life.

I'm saying that Gen X'ers rebelled against those rebels in the Baby Boomers.


















Rebception

Sent from my VM670 using Tapatalk 2

[DSUrocks07]

Baby Boomers embarked on a crusade of tolerance. Gen X'ers are torn between those who embrace that change and those who want to go back to "the way things were". Who are the ones who are making the most noise about gay marriage, immigration, and other societal changes? People in their 30s, 40s and early 50s. That is where the schism began and still exists.

Sent from my VM670 using Tapatalk 2

[youngterrier]

The original libertarians were socialists...

Yes I have seen that claim on the internet. It's nonsense. Libertarianism and socialism are mutually exclusive. You can't have government controlling the means of production and also have people free to do as they want.

AHHHHHHH

Wrong.

Libertarianism is a broad philosophy. You calling socialism "the government owning the means of production" is to misunderstand the philosophical terminology of socialism, anarchism, and libertarianism.

There is a difference between the state, a centralized governing body presiding authority over the masses and a community, or for historical correctness in terminology a commune,

Socialism says nothing about the role of the state, rather it is the perspective that the workers control the means of production. Not the state; not a bureaucracy.

In libertarian socialism, the idea is that the communities own the means of production and overall govern. It really isn't that different from libertarian capitalism, which at the same time maintains that local governments do their own governing.

What gets distorted in capitalistic vs socialist dialogue is that the understanding of property is different. Capitalists usually subscribe to the property rights philosophy of John Locke, in that everything you have earned is yours, at which you can do whatever you want with that property (that's a terrible abbreviation but the majority of people who read this post subscribe to Lockean property rights). Socialists subscribe to an understanding of property (as described by Joseph Pierre-Proudon) that is different in the sense that they make the distinction between property and possessions, in that possessions are what one uses for one's self where as property is usually a means of capital at which requires the labor of others to accumulate more profit and money. To put it metaphorically, if I have a hammer and I use it for myself, it is a possession; if i pay you to use my hammer to make items for me to sell while giving you only a small cut for your labor, it's property, which most likely will lead to exploitation. When a marxist or an anarchist says they want to abolish private property, they don't want to take all of your stuff away, they just want to take the stuff that's used collectively, like the factories, etc and put in them in the possession of the community to maximize the profits the worker can earn. In said establishment, you can keep your house, your nice car, your summer home, etc, but you can't use your factory to exploit people. The definition of exploitation is rather broad, and I could get into it, but I think it's best summarized by the labor theory of value.

With all of that said, I don't necessarily agree with everything socialist, so please don't deflect from the discussion at hand. My point is that our understanding of property rights is not as static and concrete as we think it is. It's different for each philosophy and geographically you'll find different definitions. For instance in America, you'll see the obsession with John Locke, while in post-communism Ukraine, you will see people resenting paying rent to an individual after years of subscribing to marxist understanding of property.

In short, originally the term libertarian was a way of classifying anarchist school of thought, as there were a variety of thinkers, the first of whom were indeed socialists like Bukanin, Proudon(being the first), and Benjamin Tucker. In theory, if a society adopted property rights in a fashion that is consistent with the abolition of property in the socialist sense, it could work with a minimal amount of government, communally, just as likely as one of the American libertarian model.

The concept socialism isn't synonymous with bureaucracy and centralized planning, rather it's a statement of who should own the means of production. It's not about the government, it's about the proletariat and the workers owning the means of production, and believe it or not the understanding of property in a socialist way is just as common in the world as the capitalist.

So, basically the TL;DR is that you, like many have a misunderstanding as to what socialism is, and factually, you are wrong in this instance about libertarianism. The first libertarians and anarchists were socialists and this concept of right-wing libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism is a relatively new concept.

I'm not promoting left-anarchism, as I already said all libertarians are stupid, as I have critiques of each school of my own, but let's stick with substance here and not make broad-yet-vague claims of which we haven't researched. It's annoying

[JohnStOnge]

Yt, go to a dictionary and look up the definition of socialism.

[youngterrier]

libertarianism: The belief that it's worse to be told to treat other people like human beings than the action of actually treating other people as less than human.

Sounds legit.

So you believe people should be forced to associate with others whom they don't want to associate with?

Depends on your definition of "association"

An economic transaction is not "association" and I don't think one should be allowed discriminate in said transaction based on race, gender, etc. In philosophy, that's "unjust" but in real life that makes those who are of a minority or less empowered gender, race, etc remain less empowered, especially in a capitalistic world in which everything is for sale.

the reality is that we don't live in a vacuum. Pardon me if I think it's worse for a minority to starve than it is to force a food vendor whose racist viewpoints denied said minority food even though the minority had adequate funds to pay for food.

That's what it boils down to.

[youngterrier]

Yt, go to a dictionary and look up the definition of socialism.

So you're saying that the dictionary has a better definition of socialism than those who actually right socialist literature?

FUCK LOGIC!!!!

Why are you so selective when it comes to the reality you live in?

legit medical association says homosexuality isn't an illness.

JSO decide that isn't true, even though he isn't a doctor

Dictionary fortifies JSO's beliefs about socialism, while socialist thinkers and writers have a different definition?

JSO decides the latter isn't true even though he isn't a socialist....because the dictionary should be your primary source on any philosophical or economic scholarship.....even though it isn't even a primary source of any kind.

Just a stubborn old man

[youngterrier]

20 hours later and I'm still waiting for a more elaborate answer from the "socialist specialist" and champion of selective reading, to give me a more thorough rebuttal other than "lolz look up socialism in the dictionary"

Either own up to the fact that you were dead wrong Jon, or buck up and defend yourself.

I'll be waiting but my expectations are low

[UNI88]

You missed a generation of rebels. Boomers rebelled against their parents (the Greatest Generation) and really kicked off the entitlement-oriented, me-first approach to life.

What you say hits upon the fact that the people in that video ... the young ones that is...are Baby Boomers...not Generation Xers. The "Baby Boom" involves people born during 1946 - 1964.

I don't know if they were "me first" at that stage. Thre was all that Peace and Love stuff. Anti-materialism. Then they generally grew up to become about as materialistic as materialistic can be. Also public health and safety fanatics and that has a lot to do with why they have been so repressive. At least I think so.

The real "me first" and "I'm special" stuff started with their children, I think. And I also think they're responsible for that.

I agree they weren't "me first" at that stage but they eventually traded in their VW Microbuses for BMW's and became very materialistic as you mention. They then either 1) spent themselves into serious debt and can't retire in the lifestyle to which they are accustomed and deserve and they want the government to bail them out or 2) they were more frugal and retired in their early-mid fifties and are sucking off the government tit via social security and medicare and contributing to this country's massive debt that their children, grandchildren and great grandchildren are going to have to pay for. It might not be an "I'm special" mentality but it is a "me first" entitlement mentality.

[UNI88]

Yes I have seen that claim on the internet. It's nonsense. Libertarianism and socialism are mutually exclusive. You can't have government controlling the means of production and also have people free to do as they want.

AHHHHHHH

Wrong.

Libertarianism is a broad philosophy. You calling socialism "the government owning the means of production" is to misunderstand the philosophical terminology of socialism, anarchism, and libertarianism.

There is a difference between the state, a centralized governing body presiding authority over the masses and a community, or for historical correctness in terminology a commune,

Socialism says nothing about the role of the state, rather it is the perspective that the workers control the means of production. Not the state; not a bureaucracy.

In libertarian socialism, the idea is that the communities own the means of production and overall govern. It really isn't that different from libertarian capitalism, which at the same time maintains that local governments do their own governing.

What gets distorted in capitalistic vs socialist dialogue is that the understanding of property is different. Capitalists usually subscribe to the property rights philosophy of John Locke, in that everything you have earned is yours, at which you can do whatever you want with that property (that's a terrible abbreviation but the majority of people who read this post subscribe to Lockean property rights). Socialists subscribe to an understanding of property (as described by Joseph Pierre-Proudon) that is different in the sense that they make the distinction between property and possessions, in that possessions are what one uses for one's self where as property is usually a means of capital at which requires the labor of others to accumulate more profit and money. To put it metaphorically, if I have a hammer and I use it for myself, it is a possession; if i pay you to use my hammer to make items for me to sell while giving you only a small cut for your labor, it's property, which most likely will lead to exploitation. When a marxist or an anarchist says they want to abolish private property, they don't want to take all of your stuff away, they just want to take the stuff that's used collectively, like the factories, etc and put in them in the possession of the community to maximize the profits the worker can earn. In said establishment, you can keep your house, your nice car, your summer home, etc, but you can't use your factory to exploit people. The definition of exploitation is rather broad, and I could get into it, but I think it's best summarized by the labor theory of value.

With all of that said, I don't necessarily agree with everything socialist, so please don't deflect from the discussion at hand. My point is that our understanding of property rights is not as static and concrete as we think it is. It's different for each philosophy and geographically you'll find different definitions. For instance in America, you'll see the obsession with John Locke, while in post-communism Ukraine, you will see people resenting paying rent to an individual after years of subscribing to marxist understanding of property.

In short, originally the term libertarian was a way of classifying anarchist school of thought, as there were a variety of thinkers, the first of whom were indeed socialists like Bukanin, Proudon(being the first), and Benjamin Tucker. In theory, if a society adopted property rights in a fashion that is consistent with the abolition of property in the socialist sense, it could work with a minimal amount of government, communally, just as likely as one of the American libertarian model.

The concept socialism isn't synonymous with bureaucracy and centralized planning, rather it's a statement of who should own the means of production. It's not about the government, it's about the proletariat and the workers owning the means of production, and believe it or not the understanding of property in a socialist way is just as common in the world as the capitalist.

So, basically the TL;DR is that you, like many have a misunderstanding as to what socialism is, and factually, you are wrong in this instance about libertarianism. The first libertarians and anarchists were socialists and this concept of right-wing libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism is a relatively new concept.

I'm not promoting left-anarchism, as I already said all libertarians are stupid, as I have critiques of each school of my own, but let's stick with substance here and not make broad-yet-vague claims of which we haven't researched. It's annoying

An interesting analysis and it definitely has more than a little truth to it.

[youngterrier]

AHHHHHHH

Wrong.

Libertarianism is a broad philosophy. You calling socialism "the government owning the means of production" is to misunderstand the philosophical terminology of socialism, anarchism, and libertarianism.

There is a difference between the state, a centralized governing body presiding authority over the masses and a community, or for historical correctness in terminology a commune,

Socialism says nothing about the role of the state, rather it is the perspective that the workers control the means of production. Not the state; not a bureaucracy.

In libertarian socialism, the idea is that the communities own the means of production and overall govern. It really isn't that different from libertarian capitalism, which at the same time maintains that local governments do their own governing.

What gets distorted in capitalistic vs socialist dialogue is that the understanding of property is different. Capitalists usually subscribe to the property rights philosophy of John Locke, in that everything you have earned is yours, at which you can do whatever you want with that property (that's a terrible abbreviation but the majority of people who read this post subscribe to Lockean property rights). Socialists subscribe to an understanding of property (as described by Joseph Pierre-Proudon) that is different in the sense that they make the distinction between property and possessions, in that possessions are what one uses for one's self where as property is usually a means of capital at which requires the labor of others to accumulate more profit and money. To put it metaphorically, if I have a hammer and I use it for myself, it is a possession; if i pay you to use my hammer to make items for me to sell while giving you only a small cut for your labor, it's property, which most likely will lead to exploitation. When a marxist or an anarchist says they want to abolish private property, they don't want to take all of your stuff away, they just want to take the stuff that's used collectively, like the factories, etc and put in them in the possession of the community to maximize the profits the worker can earn. In said establishment, you can keep your house, your nice car, your summer home, etc, but you can't use your factory to exploit people. The definition of exploitation is rather broad, and I could get into it, but I think it's best summarized by the labor theory of value.

With all of that said, I don't necessarily agree with everything socialist, so please don't deflect from the discussion at hand. My point is that our understanding of property rights is not as static and concrete as we think it is. It's different for each philosophy and geographically you'll find different definitions. For instance in America, you'll see the obsession with John Locke, while in post-communism Ukraine, you will see people resenting paying rent to an individual after years of subscribing to marxist understanding of property.

In short, originally the term libertarian was a way of classifying anarchist school of thought, as there were a variety of thinkers, the first of whom were indeed socialists like Bukanin, Proudon(being the first), and Benjamin Tucker. In theory, if a society adopted property rights in a fashion that is consistent with the abolition of property in the socialist sense, it could work with a minimal amount of government, communally, just as likely as one of the American libertarian model.

The concept socialism isn't synonymous with bureaucracy and centralized planning, rather it's a statement of who should own the means of production. It's not about the government, it's about the proletariat and the workers owning the means of production, and believe it or not the understanding of property in a socialist way is just as common in the world as the capitalist.

So, basically the TL;DR is that you, like many have a misunderstanding as to what socialism is, and factually, you are wrong in this instance about libertarianism. The first libertarians and anarchists were socialists and this concept of right-wing libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism is a relatively new concept.

I'm not promoting left-anarchism, as I already said all libertarians are stupid, as I have critiques of each school of my own, but let's stick with substance here and not make broad-yet-vague claims of which we haven't researched. It's annoying

An interesting analysis and it definitely has more than a little truth to it.

question everything my friend it's a lot more enlightening of an experience. Every political philosophy has a little bit of truth behind it

[Ibanez]

So you believe people should be forced to associate with others whom they don't want to associate with?

Depends on your definition of "association"

An economic transaction is not "association" and I don't think one should be allowed discriminate in said transaction based on race, gender, etc. In philosophy, that's "unjust" but in real life that makes those who are of a minority or less empowered gender, race, etc remain less empowered, especially in a capitalistic world in which everything is for sale.

the reality is that we don't live in a vacuum. Pardon me if I think it's worse for a minority to starve than it is to force a food vendor whose racist viewpoints denied said minority food even though the minority had adequate funds to pay for food.

That's what it boils down to.

You sound like R.Kelly when he asked what the definition of teenage was.


Ha. Good one.

[AZGrizFan]

This doesn't go here, but I thought it was funny.

[Grizo406]

Depends on your definition of "association"

An economic transaction is not "association" and I don't think one should be allowed discriminate in said transaction based on race, gender, etc. In philosophy, that's "unjust" but in real life that makes those who are of a minority or less empowered gender, race, etc remain less empowered, especially in a capitalistic world in which everything is for sale.

the reality is that we don't live in a vacuum. Pardon me if I think it's worse for a minority to starve than it is to force a food vendor whose racist viewpoints denied said minority food even though the minority had adequate funds to pay for food.

That's what it boils down to.

You sound like R.Kelly when he asked what the definition of teenage was.


Ha. Good one.

[Grizalltheway]

This doesn't go here, but I thought it was funny.

A bit out of date, but it still makes me lawl:

[youngterrier]

Depends on your definition of "association"

An economic transaction is not "association" and I don't think one should be allowed discriminate in said transaction based on race, gender, etc. In philosophy, that's "unjust" but in real life that makes those who are of a minority or less empowered gender, race, etc remain less empowered, especially in a capitalistic world in which everything is for sale.

the reality is that we don't live in a vacuum. Pardon me if I think it's worse for a minority to starve than it is to force a food vendor whose racist viewpoints denied said minority food even though the minority had adequate funds to pay for food.

That's what it boils down to.

You sound like R.Kelly when he asked what the definition of teenage was.


Ha. Good one.

lolz just saying people are wrong is a perfect argument you guyz!

[JohnStOnge]

20 hours later and I'm still waiting for a more elaborate answer from the "socialist specialist" and champion of selective reading, to give me a more thorough rebuttal other than "lolz look up socialism in the dictionary"

That's because this is the first time I've come back to this thread since yesterday.

It is perfectly reasonable to refer to the dictionary for the definition of a word. When I refer to "socialism" I am referring to the commonly accepted set of definitions; which are in various dictionaries. As "socialism" is commonly understood, it involves control of the means of production. As "libertarian" is commonly understood, a system that controls the means of production would interfere with libertarian behavior.

But if you want to go by different definitions that's fine. Let's just describe the behavior directly. A lot of people who were in the 18 to 30 year old range when Woodstock transpired believed that the society of the time was repressive and that people should have a lot more liberty with respect to thought and action. I do not know for sure but I believe, for instance, that those in that group at that time favored legalization of recreational drugs. I think they favored more sexual liberty. I also think they would have been against things like the draconian DWI laws we have now. So on and so forth.

Again, I don't know that for sure and can't prove it. But I don't think anybody alive and old enough to see what was going on around them at the time would think it an unreasonable set of beliefs.

[CID1990]

20 hours later and I'm still waiting for a more elaborate answer from the "socialist specialist" and champion of selective reading, to give me a more thorough rebuttal other than "lolz look up socialism in the dictionary"

That's because this is the first time I've come back to this thread since yesterday.

It is perfectly reasonable to refer to the dictionary for the definition of a word. When I refer to "socialism" I am referring to the commonly accepted set of definitions; which are in various dictionaries. As "socialism" is commonly understood, it involves control of the means of production. As "libertarian" is commonly understood, a system that controls the means of production would interfere with libertarian behavior.

But if you want to go by different definitions that's fine. Let's just describe the behavior directly. A lot of people who were in the 18 to 30 year old range when Woodstock transpired believed that the society of the time was repressive and that people should have a lot more liberty with respect to thought and action. I do not know for sure but I believe, for instance, that those in that group at that time favored legalization of recreational drugs. I think they favored more sexual liberty. I also think they would have been against things like the draconian DWI laws we have now. So on and so forth.

Again, I don't know that for sure and can't prove it. But I don't think anybody alive and old enough to see what was going on around them at the time would think it an unreasonable set of beliefs.

This morning I tried to sneak one out while I was still in bed, but I sharted and it leaked out onto the sheets. Made me late for work.

[JohnStOnge]

An economic transaction is not "association"

Sure it is. That is a self-evidently inaccurate statement.

and I don't think one should be allowed discriminate in said transaction based on race, gender, etc.

So, let's say a Black person in an inner city doesn't want to buy anything from a store owned by an Asian. Do you think we should have laws that say that if we catch on to the fact that he's not shopping there because he doesn't want to buy from an Asian he should be penalized or forced to buy from the Asian? Or do you think the Asian should be able to sue him for not buying from him?

Obviously if the Asian has set up shop in a predominately Black area and Blacks don't want to buy from his store because he's Asian that could severely impact his life. His business could fail.

So should we force the Blacks in the neighborhood to buy from the Asian store?

[JohnStOnge]

The first libertarians and anarchists were socialists and this concept of right-wing libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism is a relatively new concept.

YT, I looked into it and there is such a thing as "Libertarian Socialism." Whether "the first" libertarians were of that vein is debatable. But it doesn't matter for the purposes of this discussion.

In the context of this time and this place (the United States), libertarianism is what you call "right wing" libertarianism. It doesn't matter if it's a relatively new concept or not. When one says or writes "libertarian" everyone pretty much knows what they are talking about.

And what most people would consider to be a "Libertarian" philosophy is inconsistent with what most people consider to be "Socialism." To me, "Libertarian Socialism" is an oxymoron. And I think most people would agree with me.

But if you want to believe otherwise, feel free.