libertarian says: Want to win? Vote socialism

[William Tell]

It would have been a good "Said no libertarian ever" meme. Unfortunately though, a libertarian has said it.
This dude actually thinks we should let things run the course of Soviet Russia. Tens of millions of lives later, everyone will want liberty. Then we will get Putin. Unbelievable insanity.

In her magnum opus Atlas Shrugged Ayn Rand is revealing an idea on how to fight tyranny that very few libertarians and an-caps understand. The way to effectively fight tyranny is not by resisting it, but by giving in.


In the beautiful novel, the first to understand the consequences of libertarian philosophy are some of the smartest: John Galt, Daneshold and Fransisco, as well as their philosophy teacher.


The consequences of a rational philosophy are, among other things, that you allow other people to experience the consequences of their choices.

Libertarians all over the world are trying to change existing societies. To all who will listen, I will say, you cannot win by fighting. Please give up the fight, you’re not helping the cause of freedom, you’re hurting it–a lot.



For example, what happened with USSR? They tried communism, and experienced that it didn’t work like their theory suggested. It didn’t become paradise just because the government dictated everything. So these days, they are not as eager to “live for the benefit of others”.

https://exit.liberty.me/2015/04/18/want-to-win-vote-socialism/

 

[angelatc]

I am not sure that the USSR is a great example of how letting communists run things for a bit is the means to an end for liberty.

 

[Ronin Truth]

Libertarians vote, libertarians don't.

 

[William Tell]

Libertarians vote, libertarians don't.

 

[VIDEODROME]

Derp....,


Maybe we just need to tell the Socialists that if you want big government, you should start voting Libertarian, because when people realize how much responsibility comes with freedom, they'll do a 180 and turn to the progressives.

 

[William Tell]

Derp....,


Maybe we just need to tell the Socialists that if you want big government, you should start voting Libertarian, because when people realize how much responsibility comes with freedom, they'll do a 180 and turn to the progressives.

That thought crossed my mind as well. I don't think the Socialists are gullible in that way though.

 

[Ronin Truth]

Funny stuff. It's pointing at your giraffe avatar. Find me a libertarian that votes and I'll show you a statist.

 

[William Tell]

Nah, its pointing at yours, Ronin, look ^^^^^

 

[Krugminator2]

There is no evidence looking at Europe that voting socialist encourages liberty over the long haul. Statism tends to beget more statist solutions to correct the problems that arise.

Not to mention, life is great. There has never been a better time and place in world history to be alive than the United States in 2015. People whine like life is so bad. Things can definitely improve and become more free. But a person on welfare collects triple the average income of someone in Mexico. I'm quite certain collapsing the system would make life worse for everyone in exchange for a unlikely potential upside that would come about years after everyone here is dead.

 

[Ronin Truth]

Nah, its pointing at yours, Ronin, look ^^^^^

Not in post #4.

 

[mad cow]

Funny stuff. It's pointing at your giraffe avatar. Find me a libertarian that votes and I'll show you a statist.

Ron Paul?

 

[William Tell]

Not in post #4.

The #7 is more important to the Celts.

 

[William Tell]

Find me a libertarian that votes and I'll show you a statist.

Thomas Woods, etc.

 

[Christopher A. Brown]

Find me a libertarian that votes and I'll show you a statist.

Two labels only equal a set of cognitive distortions that lead to zero understanding of anything

Partisanship and erroneous absolutes are a cognitive foul.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

The OP may be especially outlandish, but this whole "bring on the collapse" strategy is actually fairly prevalent in the liberty movement. The problem, obviously, is that it simply assumes, on no evidence whatsoever, that whatever rises out of the ashes will be better than what currently exists (a potentially catastrophic form of "the grass is always greener..." syndrome). To the extent that we can make any predictions at all, we should predict the opposite. States that emerge from chaos are generally quite nasty, because they're insecure. The Bolsheviks, for instance, didn't slaughter millions simply because they were sadistic nutjobs (though they were that too), but also because their hold on power - in the early days after 1917 - was extremely tenuous, and they had to rule through brute force and terror, as there was no other way. It's the same today in may of the nastier states in Africa or the Middle East. There are ruthless dictators in those places less for ideological reason than because the state is new and unstable and there's no other way to hold on to power. Whatever older forms of government that once existed there with a sense of legitimacy (traditional monarchies, tribal government e.g.) were swept away, and democracy does not exercise the magic spell over the masses in these countries that it does in the West. So only the crudest form of rule remains.

N.B. This should also be of interest to the anarchists, who are rooting for the collapse in their own way.

 

[P3ter_Griffin]

That thought crossed my mind as well. I don't think the Socialists are gullible in that way though.

Actually, if you remember back to the government shutdown, after they had already brought 'non-essential' DoD back from furlough, they (obama whitehouse) 'threatened' that food stamps would not be dispersed the next month if the shutdown didn't end. I think it would have backfired, and I agree that it is not a good way to garner support for either the socialist or the liberty minded.

 

[HankRicther12]

I agree with him to some extent. I mean when you think about how has this insanity been able to be propped up for so long? Because of "idiots" like me who still get up every day and bust our butts growing the food, keeping the power on, the water running, etc. Honestly, I would like to see the Republicans just cling viciously to things like gun rights, free speech, etc, drop the warmongering obviously, but as far as anything economic, let the Dems do what they want, then let people see what happens.

As it is we have this ugly mash of socialism/capitalism and anything wrong gets blamed on the Capitalism and anything good gets credited to the Socialism, but of course the socialist ideas can't exist without people (the Capitalists) to take the money from, but most don't see that side of it.

 

[Ronin Truth]

Ron Paul?

Sadly yes. It applies to public office holders too. Ron also claims to be a voluntaryist. They don't vote or hold any public offices either.