Is WordForge Really A Family of Friends?

Yeah, I kinda noticed that also.

 

So has it been proven that Enty is Excelsius?

 

^ No, but it's also not been proven that Elvis really dies from eating too many burgers, but what am I supposed to believe

 

So johnm is the family member folk dont like talking about?

 

He didn't eat hamburgers.

He ate grilled peanut butter and nanner sandwiches.

 

For all the blather about how self-reliant some of you are, there's nary a word that claims that this "family" business that Storm suggested is untrue. Whether I'm part of it or not is irrelevant: It's clear to me that you consider yourselves part of a family, or community.

Interesting.

 

You have a real hard-on for Libertarianism don't you?

 

What I've always seen as unique about Americanism is concern for the common man. By common man I refer not only to the Marxian "proletariat," and certainly not to any definition based on race or narrow group interest. I refer to the People of the United States -- the common humanity that resides in our nation.

The constitution was established by the People, not by the monied classes or selfish bastards who only cared about property. The constitution was made so that everyone could benefit -- not just those already privileged with all that the world had to offer. For the constitution to survive, there had to be a form of group spirit, but a group spirit that was forged in the entire nation, rather than either an excess of individuated differences through personal megalomania or partisan interest.

Libertarianism may see itself as appealing to individual freedom, but in the end, it appeals to the worst of humanity -- unenlightened selfishness, which is the diametric opposite of civic spirit. Its attitude is "got mine, fuck off." But when the rubber hits the road, it's often a different story.

It's interesting to me that the great libertarians here -- whom I respect in a way -- nevertheless have no desire to repudiate their communitarian vestiture in WordForge. They are, in this respect, a walking, talking contradiction that betrays the weakness of the libertarian religion.

 

In other words, "yes".

Admittedly, I don't know much about ism's, but are you suggesting that Libertarianism and community are mutually exclusive?

 

I think that to a very large extent, it is. If everyone is a selfish bastard, which is what the libertarian religion presupposes, then communities such as this one shouldn't exist.

For example, who the hell is paying for this site? Who pays the freight? It certainly ain't the membership. It's the owner. From a libertarian point of view, why would the owner pay for this site if he didn't think it was profitable? There isn't even advertising that defrays the cost.

To libertarians, any community spirit is, strictly speaking, irrational. It defeats the entire premise of libertarianism, which is that it's okay to be selfish because everyone else is. But if everyone else is, why does this site even exist?

So, yes, libertarianism is fundamentally incompatible with communitarianism. That is, unless the flat absolutes that libertarianism espouses are simply not absolute, and in actuality very far from the truth. In fact, I suspect that this is the case, despite everything that the most extreme libertarians say.

In the avoidance apostasy, the creed itself cannot stand.

 

I always figured that Libertarianism was about the freedom to be a selfish bastard...not an obligation to be one.

 

Are you on crack?

The spirit of libertarianism, from what I've seen, is that charity is only true and just if it is indeed given freely and not forced. Being selfish with and clinging to your freedoms has nothing to do with being selfish with your money. It's a shame so many people can't see the difference.

 

If this is true, libertarianism is even more dysfunctional than I thought. Libertarianism, in this instance, would be indistinguishable from social darwinism, in which those who have money and are selfish can prey on the weak or the compassionate.

Libertarianism, in this respect, would countenance nothing more than the law of the jungle. As cynical as I am about libertarianism, even I did not think so ill of its religion. But in this respect, I could be wrong, and you could be right.

That's not part of the spirit of libertarianism at all. Libertarianism acknowledges no obligation other than to the self, so how could it have anything to say about charity? Any "charity," in the end, is dictated by purely selfish interests. Any charitable donation would detract fundamentally from the selfish interest and, moreover, strengthen one's potential enemies. Such donations would run completely against the grain of the irreducible core of libertarianism, which is its supposed justification in the self.

With charity as with taxes, if a libertarian doesn't feel like giving, he won't -- regardless of the need. Since libertarians take such a dim view of human nature, it's no more than a fig leaf to say that they will otherwise "voluntarily" give to charity as they wish. It's a bit like saying that the wolf will "voluntarily" help the hens he guards at the henhouse. It sounds glorious and sacrificial, but it goes against the very nature of the faith.

If libertarianism were truly what you say, compassion would be a tenet of its faith. From everything I've seen from its greatest proponents here, insult is closer to its core than any consideration of altruism or related concepts.

The last time I read of the issue, saying that "Nigeria" should have an extra "g" in it wouldn't exactly qualify as the most compassionate statement in the world.

 

Beaten by Shoes again.

 

You lost me.

 

:bitch:

 

I think we might have different ideas for the definition of "prey".

That's crap. In the jungle, you can rape and kill without being thrown in jail. Libertarianism does not equal complete lawlessness.

 

Who establishes the jails?

You're right -- libertarianism doesn't equal completely lawlessness. I did say that it held one law in abeyance: The law of the jungle, which in fact is the law of the powerful and the predatory. It's the one law that they acknowledge should prevail, as I have clearly pointed out.

 

Yeah. I hear Libertarians all the time saying that one's right to do what ever ends at the point where it infringes on another's right. That doesn't sound like the law of the jungle to me.

 

That could be true except for one thing: Who defines "right"? "Right" is defined not by the People, but by libertarians themselves. Which only goes to show you that were the People not powerful enough to impose ("coerce") their interpretation of both the extent and limitations of rights upon libertarians, libertarians would ascribe absolutes to such rights to the extent that they themselves would benefit from them.

While it is true that rights pre-exist their definition by the People, such rights are also, as I said, fundamentally meaningful only as interpreted. If it's not the People who interpret them (through the constitution and through constitutionally mandated courts), then it would have to be each libertarian individual himself.

Any meaningful use of the word "right" implies actual limitations that override the specific will of any given individual. Rights that are interpreted by individuals alone are no more than expressions of selfish interest, but this is the only view of them fully compatible with the libertarian definition of "right." This goes specifically to prove my point. In an ideal world, the libertarian recognizes his own rights. In such a world, "right" is nothing more than a word for "what I recognize." It is logically inescapable, therefore, that any system built purely on libertarian rights uses "rights" in a purely illusory way, since it establishes nothing more than what the libertarian as an individual would selfishly want.

Addendum: The response that individuals can contractually bind himself to recognize rights is only at one step's remove from this idea, since it is the sine qua non of libertarianism that one is free to avoid entering into a contract. (In fact, the "social contract" is never recognized by pure libertarians as binding on them regardless of their will.) If one does so, "right' is defined by voluntary contract, which is simply another way of saying that it is defined by what the contracting individual is willing to accept.

 

Every libertarian recognizes that a criminal justice system is part of the legitimate function of government.

Not at all. All people would be equal under the law, or at least as equal as they are under the current law.

The rich would be stopped from initiating force or fraud against the poor as much if not more than they are now.

Currently, government is a plaything of those with money. It has vast powers to make laws specifically to benefit the rich. A limited, libertarian government would not be creating regulations to benefit certain companies or industries.

 

Short answer - no.

Longer answer - there are obviously a handful of people here who have gotten to know one another in real life (ex. Storm/Tex/Evenflow/Mrs.Flow), and have formed friendships. But overall WF is primarily a small power clique that exists at the top of the food chain (Elwood/Tamar/Shitkeeper/Little Nicky), in other words the board's owner and his lieutenants. It's a cult of personality that now revolves around Elwood, just like TK used to be when the more popular trolls were still participating. Hence Tex's now infamous moniker "Eliteforge." Just like at TBBS it was the Lisa/T'Bonz/Neroon/Christian show, and then a whole bunch of lesser boss monster mods in the various forums.

WF is most definitely distinct from the other boards I participate at in that there is no overall sense of supportive community - it's just day after day of mindless flaming and insulting, people digging at one another. It's nice to visit other boards where conversations between people don't include calling each other "fuckwits" or flinging charges of being a pedophile.

 

...or stop certain companies or industries, either.

As you say, currently government is a plaything for those with money. But it seems to me a libertarian society would be just as much a plaything, or more, because a small government would be easier to buy.

Just for example, a small government would be wide open for legislators bought by EnronWalColaSoft (even in Libertopia, campaigns are won by those with the most money) who would then rewrite the laws of Libertopia to benefit Big Business. Very soon you'd have a state indistinguishable from the world in the original "Rollerball".

Possibly the one advantage of Big Government is that it's too big for even Big Business to fully control.

 

Sounds like Romper Room.

 

Sounds like adult conversation.

 

But this itself is not a libertarian idea. Libertarianism fundamentally recognizes the legitimacy of no power other than that of the individual. Under tenets of libertarianism, the individual's sovereignty always overrides that of the state. Thus, if there is a system of public law, that law's legitimacy is established only if it is recognized by the individual in question. Since equality under anything -- even public law -- is not in itself a necessary component of selfish interest, the idea of equality under law must be nothing more than an accommodation of libertarianism to factors beyond its ken.

This is yet another example of the internal contradictions of the entire edifice built on selfishness, one of which is the religion of libertarianism. It supposedly allows some compromise with communitarian interest -- equality -- even though this equality is fundamentally incompatible with pure libertarianism. (Once again, equality under anything -- even law -- is not necessitated by pure selfish interest. In a world without the communitarian interests that lead to public law, the libertarian would not consistently recognize any equality of any kind if he himself were superior, since this would not be in his selfish interest.)

Thus, the idea that libertarianism is tempered by its recognition of the need for equality under law is not as much justification of its religion as a sop to everything it stands against. In such manner, libertarianism can claim no credit for equality under the law, nor, likewise, can it be said to be meritorious simply because equality under law exists.

 

Then what exactly do you get out of this board?

 

If that's true, then I've totally misunderstood what Libertarianism means. I was under the impression that there would be a government and that it would be there to protect people's rights. The way you say it, it sounds like a Libertarian society would have absolutely no government at all.

 

What? You've never gotten into a flame war and talked about people's Mom's here?

 

Individual results may vary.