On Libertarianism

David · #1 03-01-2006, 01:35 PM

Human beings (preferable to "humans") are possibly genetically adapted to social groupings & hierarchies; it's the herd mentality that makes the tenets of liberty--attractive on the surface to virtually everyone--ultimately impracticable to the herd.

We might be DNA hard-wired to cede control of our bodies & lives to others. We must struggle against the stuporlike inclination to obedience, like Beethoven!

strandinthewind · #2 03-01-2006, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David

. . . We must struggle against the stuporlike inclination to obedience, like Beethoven![/SIZE]

Well, he had a bad childhood

SuzeQuze · #3 03-01-2006, 04:42 PM

Libertarianism is great in theory but in practice it leaves too many behind.

amber · #4 03-01-2006, 05:45 PM

I think humans are not quite "herd" animals. More like "small packs" or "prides" or "gaggles" - so I think we're safe with the tenets of liberty.

Sorcerer386 · #5 03-02-2006, 01:03 AM

I don't think that humans are at all GENETICALLY predisposed to conditions of grouping. I just think that is how society has become, and we are taught to find "likenesses" in others in order to adapt and survive. However, grouping is the downfall of libertarianism because it is where individuality becomes lost, hence stereotypes. In the ongoing battle of "nature vs. nurture," in this case I would go more with nurture. And to loop Stevie into this, it's like she said in that interview about children today being totally antisocial with all the technology around today. This has been a theory of mine for years...technology is leading to further isolationism (can isolation be an 'ism?) and causing society to become less social. I mean, when you can talk, send mail, shop, work, and even go to school online, social behaviors tend to go away, or not be learned at all. Therefore, as I loop back to the beginning, I don't think it's in the genetics to group oneself, but socially learned.

David · #6 03-02-2006, 11:01 AM

I like everyone's posts here. Thank you for responding.

But, please, use the phrase "human being" instead of "human," which smells like a clinical, grandstanding sociologist. It's akin to calling horses "equines."

The book to read is John Simon's "Paradigms Lost: Reflections on Literacy & Its Decline" (published by Clarkson-Potter).

SuzeQuze · #7 03-02-2006, 11:39 AM

Well, I think we have some hard wiring to group because we had to in order to survive on the plains. We needed some people to hunt, some to gather, some to take care of the children, etc. That caused socialization of those behaviors and their perpetuation. Hence nature and nurture go hand in hand.

The rise of the nuclear family's importance in society has caused people to cut themselves off from neighbors. Then the television was invented and became the window into the world, as skewed and unreal as it is, further alienating us from the local community. Now we have the Internet's window. Plus folks on their cell phones. I see dozens of people every day walking in the city and they never even look at each other, except to assess what they are wearing or how they look. They're on the phone or otherwise engaged in their own worlds.

By leaving people behind I mean that without social programs certain people in society cannot survive and I think that we should take care of the elderly, poor, infirm, impaired, etc., at least to some degree. Some people literally just cannot fend for themselves.