I think that libertarians would argue that the illegality is what drives a lot of the problems we see in illegal immigration and illegal drug use. I think that’s not true and they ought to be more accepting of the consequences of what is fundamentally a moral decision for them.
On the acceptance of welfare, there is a cultural split among libertarians between left libertarians and right libertarians. There’s probably some kind of name for the differences, but I don’t know them. What I’ve observed is that right libertarians are deeply offended by almost anything tax-funded, but recognize that the time for libertarian-inspired welfare reform is not now. Left libertarians simply prioritize the reduction of government spending on welfare below lots and lots of other things. But neither are OK with it.
The Congress has a 10% approval rating but the incumbency rate is 95%. What voters care about don't matter. But the voters need to believe their voice counts because otherwise they are really helpless instead of pretending that they matter and acknowledging their helplessness. It's not blackpill, it's just recognizing that some people are just born in sh*tty eras. It sucks to tell oneself that but time is long and it bends towards entropy. Safe travels
> "[...] message mindset fit is a political narrative that truthfully appeals to voters, while also resulting (intentionally or not) in consequences that accrue power"
That actually sounds like the strategy taken by effective altruism, but just in a different direction ideologically.
Food for thought but the term "effective altruism" by definition implies being a good person and still winning; altruism implies doing good and being effective requires winning. It's just so happens that the 21st century incarnation of EA ended up carrying certain biases. Like embracing charity as a primary mean to enact change, putting priorities on environmental protection, animal suffering and AI safety, and enjoying orgies (lol). The biases make it dubious if EA is actually good or effective.
I guess the goal is to be "effectively altruistic" but actually do it right.
Thought-provoking post tho! p.s. I also did CS&CO at Waterloo.
I deny that libertarianism enacts unpopular laws. Libertarians are too unpopular to get elected, so they never enact anything!
Libertarians get a lot of their policies in a de facto if not official way.
Illegal immigration is done on a mass scale with impunity, and with large legal loopholes (birthright citizenship, amnesty, asylum, reunification).
Illegal Drugs are easy to obtain and most drug users are not punished in any way. Many dangerous drugs can be obtained legally (opioids).
Libertarians dont like the welfare state, but I feel like nearly all have accepted it and it doesn’t animate them.
Basically every single wired pervert sex thing is allowed and celebrated now.
Libertarians got what they wanted but it didn’t really have the results they were hoping for.
I think that libertarians would argue that the illegality is what drives a lot of the problems we see in illegal immigration and illegal drug use. I think that’s not true and they ought to be more accepting of the consequences of what is fundamentally a moral decision for them.
On the acceptance of welfare, there is a cultural split among libertarians between left libertarians and right libertarians. There’s probably some kind of name for the differences, but I don’t know them. What I’ve observed is that right libertarians are deeply offended by almost anything tax-funded, but recognize that the time for libertarian-inspired welfare reform is not now. Left libertarians simply prioritize the reduction of government spending on welfare below lots and lots of other things. But neither are OK with it.
The Congress has a 10% approval rating but the incumbency rate is 95%. What voters care about don't matter. But the voters need to believe their voice counts because otherwise they are really helpless instead of pretending that they matter and acknowledging their helplessness. It's not blackpill, it's just recognizing that some people are just born in sh*tty eras. It sucks to tell oneself that but time is long and it bends towards entropy. Safe travels
> "[...] message mindset fit is a political narrative that truthfully appeals to voters, while also resulting (intentionally or not) in consequences that accrue power"
That actually sounds like the strategy taken by effective altruism, but just in a different direction ideologically.
Food for thought but the term "effective altruism" by definition implies being a good person and still winning; altruism implies doing good and being effective requires winning. It's just so happens that the 21st century incarnation of EA ended up carrying certain biases. Like embracing charity as a primary mean to enact change, putting priorities on environmental protection, animal suffering and AI safety, and enjoying orgies (lol). The biases make it dubious if EA is actually good or effective.
I guess the goal is to be "effectively altruistic" but actually do it right.
Thought-provoking post tho! p.s. I also did CS&CO at Waterloo.