> "Eliezer S. Yudkowsky" <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > What's my point? In my opinion, the majority of libertarians whose
> writing on
> > the subject I have read have also lost their objectivity, to the point of
> > being unable to perceive that libertarianism has flaws. It's not good
> >to be the best system; they insist the system is perfect. They have
In my experience, no 2 libertarians agree on everything, not even here in Australia which has very few libertarians to begin with.
> become a
> > political cause, rather than a rational choice. One cannot have both.
> I haven't read or talked to _anyone_ who thinks that libertarianism is
> "perfect" - and my readings on the subject are wide and copious. This is an
> unsupported straw man. Nor do most consider it a "system" (see below).
> > I still think much less government would produce better results by almost
> > moral standard. But I no longer believe in libertarianism.
> I don't "believe in" libertarianism either - as if it were a religion or
> some monolithic body of doctrine, or a specifiable "system". Libertarianism
> is nothing more or less than an across-the-board commitment to individual
> freedom, generally summed up as a desire to prohibit physical coercion.
> Ideologies abound, but ideology isn't the essence; libertarians differ
> (sometimes bitterly) on just about everything except the fundamental
> commitment to liberty. It's a movement, not an ideology.
> What moved me to engage the original poster a bit impatiently was my
> weariness of the ignorant stereotypes parroted by those who rely on the
> mass media for their "information", and obviously don't know any
> libertarians personally: lack of compassion, insensitivity, money-grubbing,
> hardheartedness, ad nauseum. How about making an honest attempt to learn
> how libertarians actually think and feel?