I had a libertarian phase. Talking to a friend about it years later he mentioned his own tendencies in that regard, and how it's a lot easier to contemplate when you're young, healthy, and have that notion that survival is something you can readily do regardless of the circumstances around you.
I had a libertarian phase. Talking to a friend about it years later he mentioned his own tendencies in that regard, and how it's a lot easier to contemplate when you're young, healthy, and have that notion that survival is something you can readily do regardless of the circumstances around you.
You grow more, and realize that comfortable survival, and sometimes survival itself, is a web of interdependence with others. It's nice to have a hospital when you break your leg, for example.
Some people realize and admit that. What we see with a lot of libertarians (and MAGAs) is that they want the fruits of society but none of the responsibility. Covid was a great example, denouncing mitigation and the health care professionals recommending it, but heading straight to the hospital demanding to be fixed when they went down. (Or even better, demanding quack remedies and blaming the hospitals when people die of their own stupidity.)
I started off as a libertarian. Was an actual dues paying member back in the foolish days of my youth. I came to it through reading science fiction and not having a lot of life experience--as you say, getting older and wiser and more thoughtful (rather than "smart") tends to bring home the actual nature of freedom and of life and interdependence.
As Josh notes, however, not everyone learns that lesson. This seems to be especially true of libertarians that come from or live in privilege. They don't learn the same lessons that the lack of privilege teaches.
Life is always a trade off and the libertarians are correct in that there is no such thing as a free lunch. It is the nature of the trades that you make in life that matters, I think--and the libertarian mindset tends to make very short-minded and historically unaware trades. It also fosters a non-cooperative, overly competitive world view that often ends up being toxic when you have 7 billion plus people trying to live on the planet.
Do you think Heinlein was a libertarian? I learned a lot from his books- started very young-but TANSTAAFL always stuck. So did “cast your bread upon the waters”. I also dabbled in Libertarianism, but I am currently homeless in my political beliefs. I also realized a long time ago that the real art of the deal means that no one gets everything they want, and you should be pleased if you got something you wanted- and so did the other guy. I guess that is real life experience. It does not always sit well.
Heinlein described himself as a libertarian, but his actual views were somewhat mixed. He started out on the left and became increasingly conservative over time.
The key thing about Heinlein (and many other speculative fiction writers) is that they are essentially contrarian. They look at an existing situation and ask why this and why not that? What if this? There is a difference between exploring these things in a fictional setting and trying to live them--and there is the danger of confusing the beliefs of the writer (and thinking you actually know their beliefs) with what they are and what they would do in real life.
This is why libertarianism tends to pall as you age. It looks good on paper, but that is really the only place it looks good or works. There si the idealistic striving for certain things--liberty and freedom, but it must (in the end) be coupled with the real questions/issues of how to make it work.
"Insight that only a certain amount of 'living' can usually bring". True in most cases. But with MAGAs and Covid, even when their loved ones die or they wind up in the hospital, they still denied it. The doctors, the hospitals, everyone was lying, except for the crackpots on Fox or with Trump. As many have said, hit 'em with proof of the truth and they still don't accept it. How did so many Americans get so stupid?
For accuracy's sake I suppose I should amend that comment to read "...only a certain amount of living and paying attention can bring". Or something similar. I've been at this living thing for a while now. Wish I knew a lot more than I do, but wouldn't know nearly as much if I hadn't paid at least some attention to what was going on around me along the way. Often find myself thinking these days I wish I'd paid a lot *closer* attention.
As to the number of stupid Americans, well, if you ever come up with an answer on that one, I think a whole lot of people would like to hear it, including me. Especially me.
There has long been a strain of anti-intellectualism in right wing politics.
My father tends to catch a particular thought on a political matter and then obsess with it for a few weeks, and during the GWB's first term, he liked to recite regularly that Bush stated things in black and white terms, and didn't do 'nuance'. (He really liked to lean on the word nuance with a particular contempt.)
Back then in my mid-twenties as a sort of Republican who was beginning to drift away, I nodded along.
But that really stuck with me, because nuance matters. Details matter.
Teaching people to think in simplistic, black and white tropes is politically profitable, but it's terrible for the health of a society that works based on the communal knowledge and inclinations of the public.
Which brings us to a whole other problem that Tim's book highlights quite nicely- what's good for parties and candidates is often terrible for actual governance.
I have a thing about experience. It's not a guaranteed growth, but an opportunity.
You can convert experience into new knowledge, or you can reject it and stick to your existing worldview.
It's natural and easy to do the latter and we really have to work to do the former. We never really know how well we're doing, either, which is why it's important to keep honest people around that will give their own perspectives.
I had a libertarian phase. Talking to a friend about it years later he mentioned his own tendencies in that regard, and how it's a lot easier to contemplate when you're young, healthy, and have that notion that survival is something you can readily do regardless of the circumstances around you.
You grow more, and realize that comfortable survival, and sometimes survival itself, is a web of interdependence with others. It's nice to have a hospital when you break your leg, for example.
Some people realize and admit that. What we see with a lot of libertarians (and MAGAs) is that they want the fruits of society but none of the responsibility. Covid was a great example, denouncing mitigation and the health care professionals recommending it, but heading straight to the hospital demanding to be fixed when they went down. (Or even better, demanding quack remedies and blaming the hospitals when people die of their own stupidity.)
I started off as a libertarian. Was an actual dues paying member back in the foolish days of my youth. I came to it through reading science fiction and not having a lot of life experience--as you say, getting older and wiser and more thoughtful (rather than "smart") tends to bring home the actual nature of freedom and of life and interdependence.
As Josh notes, however, not everyone learns that lesson. This seems to be especially true of libertarians that come from or live in privilege. They don't learn the same lessons that the lack of privilege teaches.
Life is always a trade off and the libertarians are correct in that there is no such thing as a free lunch. It is the nature of the trades that you make in life that matters, I think--and the libertarian mindset tends to make very short-minded and historically unaware trades. It also fosters a non-cooperative, overly competitive world view that often ends up being toxic when you have 7 billion plus people trying to live on the planet.
Do you think Heinlein was a libertarian? I learned a lot from his books- started very young-but TANSTAAFL always stuck. So did “cast your bread upon the waters”. I also dabbled in Libertarianism, but I am currently homeless in my political beliefs. I also realized a long time ago that the real art of the deal means that no one gets everything they want, and you should be pleased if you got something you wanted- and so did the other guy. I guess that is real life experience. It does not always sit well.
Heinlein described himself as a libertarian, but his actual views were somewhat mixed. He started out on the left and became increasingly conservative over time.
The key thing about Heinlein (and many other speculative fiction writers) is that they are essentially contrarian. They look at an existing situation and ask why this and why not that? What if this? There is a difference between exploring these things in a fictional setting and trying to live them--and there is the danger of confusing the beliefs of the writer (and thinking you actually know their beliefs) with what they are and what they would do in real life.
This is why libertarianism tends to pall as you age. It looks good on paper, but that is really the only place it looks good or works. There si the idealistic striving for certain things--liberty and freedom, but it must (in the end) be coupled with the real questions/issues of how to make it work.
Thank you for a very thoughtful answer.
Good take, this. Insight that only a certain amount of 'living' can usually bring.
"Insight that only a certain amount of 'living' can usually bring". True in most cases. But with MAGAs and Covid, even when their loved ones die or they wind up in the hospital, they still denied it. The doctors, the hospitals, everyone was lying, except for the crackpots on Fox or with Trump. As many have said, hit 'em with proof of the truth and they still don't accept it. How did so many Americans get so stupid?
For accuracy's sake I suppose I should amend that comment to read "...only a certain amount of living and paying attention can bring". Or something similar. I've been at this living thing for a while now. Wish I knew a lot more than I do, but wouldn't know nearly as much if I hadn't paid at least some attention to what was going on around me along the way. Often find myself thinking these days I wish I'd paid a lot *closer* attention.
As to the number of stupid Americans, well, if you ever come up with an answer on that one, I think a whole lot of people would like to hear it, including me. Especially me.
There has long been a strain of anti-intellectualism in right wing politics.
My father tends to catch a particular thought on a political matter and then obsess with it for a few weeks, and during the GWB's first term, he liked to recite regularly that Bush stated things in black and white terms, and didn't do 'nuance'. (He really liked to lean on the word nuance with a particular contempt.)
Back then in my mid-twenties as a sort of Republican who was beginning to drift away, I nodded along.
But that really stuck with me, because nuance matters. Details matter.
Teaching people to think in simplistic, black and white tropes is politically profitable, but it's terrible for the health of a society that works based on the communal knowledge and inclinations of the public.
Which brings us to a whole other problem that Tim's book highlights quite nicely- what's good for parties and candidates is often terrible for actual governance.
I have a thing about experience. It's not a guaranteed growth, but an opportunity.
You can convert experience into new knowledge, or you can reject it and stick to your existing worldview.
It's natural and easy to do the latter and we really have to work to do the former. We never really know how well we're doing, either, which is why it's important to keep honest people around that will give their own perspectives.
Agree completely. Well said. Life itself is an opportunity, but no guarantees there either.