|
It’s a toss-up between him and Omar for best character on any series. (Sorry for the derail - I was indeed just being a wise rear end) E: OMG HOW DID I NOT SEE THIS??? 
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2020 22:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 16:48 |
|
|
The most popular sci-fi franchises are Star Trek and Star Wars, which are both non libertarian settings. Star Trek is a post scarcity society without even money, and capitalism is parodied in a cartoonish alien race who were introduced with a completely irrational obsession with gold, a metal humans considered to be worthless outside of its technological applications. Star Wars doesn't seem to have a specific ideology aside from being vaguely antifascist, and it is of course hated by libertarians for introducing the occasional non-white male or non-damsel female main character. To get into libertarian sci fi you have to seek out real milwank goobers like Heinlein and read through a bunch of pages of oldman sex with young nubile women, sometimes willing, sometimes compelled by group marriage dynamics
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 04:16
|
|
|
yeah, garak is great...at rehabilitating the israeli spies he's based on!!
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 04:38
|
|
|
Heinlein is propped up by some libertarians due to Starship Troopers, but it's not exactly obvious reading the book that the author meant for the reader to take everything presented at face value. Add to this the movie, and... He did present libertarian sentiments as his alter ego, Lazarus Long, such as being against central banking, but Lazarus was more about literally having sex with his mother and other relatives, so this may have been a case of horny author rather than possessed ideologue. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 07:58
|
|
|
I think that the libertarian streak in SF authors has more to do with the ancillary traits than the topic itself. Any decent writer of course will at least end up exploring other perspectives outside of their own. It is pretty loving weird that Heinlein gets quoted like gospel by the libertarians, at least online. I don't know if that's still a thing or not. Nobody quotes Asimov but he had his poo poo together way more.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 08:22
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:To get into libertarian sci fi you have to seek out real milwank goobers like Heinlein and read through a bunch of pages of oldman sex with young nubile women, sometimes willing, sometimes compelled by group marriage dynamics Also Atlas Shrugged, which has a perpetual motion machine, supermetals, cloaking devices and more.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 08:32
|
|
|
Rappaport posted:Heinlein is propped up by some libertarians due to Starship Troopers, but it's not exactly obvious reading the book that the author meant for the reader to take everything presented at face value. Add to this the movie, and... Read "Friday." Or don't, and read about it, I guess. I don't remember "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" well enough to comment beyond saying that it often comes up in discussions of Heinlein's right-libertarianism. But "Friday" is the ancappiness turned way up and the horniness turned down to moderate-by-aging-SF-writer-standards. Also it comes through in his early short stories, too; particularly in the Randian vision of singular genius inventors. But the pinnacle of WTF-Heinlein has to be Sixth Column, in which the Yellow Hordes are defeated by a biological weapon that only kills Asians.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 09:41
|
|
|
Rappaport posted:Heinlein is propped up by some libertarians due to Starship Troopers, but it's not exactly obvious reading the book that the author meant for the reader to take everything presented at face value. Add to this the movie, and... heinlein is definitely libertarian where people make a mistake wrt his ideology is when they interpret starship troopers (the book) as fash. it's not, and i would argue that (knowing that he's a libertarian) it is taking "statism" to an absolute extreme and trusting you to recoil in revulsion from a society where the state demands service to receive the franchise; you are, indeed, not supposed to take the big lecture rico receives in officer school at face value. in fact, the very presentation of it - a john galt-esque manifesto, but ideologically inverted - is a big tip-off that it is supposed to be Bad. however, it's likely that heinlein's intent was for this to be an allegory representing all states, rather than just fashy states. or rather, that he is trying to convey that the state is inherently and unavoidably totalitarian as it expands. i'll give him this, he isn't trying to advance the neoconfederate corporate hellscape version of libertarianism that we tackle in this thread, but he's still very much a libertarian Jazerus fucked around with this message at 11:24 on Sep 24, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 11:21
|
|
|
TLM3101 posted:JRode, you quasi-hominid lard-homonculus
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 14:44
|
|
|
The Rabbi T. White posted:I don’t ever recall Garak talking much about Earth? It was Cisco. I just watched that episode.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 16:26
|
|
|
Star Wars is kind of a libertarian setting in that everybody is armed all the time and everybody is always raging against the oppressive government, so smuggling is rampant. Of course, in the time of the prequels, the lassiez faire rule of the Republic has led to its ruin as corporations have grown into powerful groups willing to raise armies to subject people into their control, and the de-canonized EU had the New Republic, which was a legitimate galactic government with taxation and regulation. Libertarianism makes sense as one possible perspective for fighting authoritarianism, but it's a weaker one that pretty much needs to be discarded as soon as you want to set up a system that works. A central government can be threatening, but your fellow man and independent non-governmental groups can be just as threatening usually moreso.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 17:58
|
|
|
The fact that they can print limitless robots to do basically everything in star wars (but for some reason don't) is also not really done in a way that makes any sense so i think that sort of limits the politics you can read into the setting.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 18:00
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:heinlein is definitely libertarian Yeah, he is a brand of libertarian, if we take Jubal Harshaw and Lazarus Long as Heinlein mouth-pieces, and why wouldn't we? One of the "ideal" societies the cast of the "world as myth" cantos encounters is essentially a watchman state, but with bizarre and horrifyingly violent penalties for crime. But they're very "polite drivers", so this is okay somehow? And with the magical widget that Jacob invents in "the number of the Beast", while the story starts out as them just trying to flee for their lives, one of the first things the cast considers when given a peaceful enough time is how to make money off Venusian real estate. Heinlein just doesn't seem as... Obsessed with the NAP or things like that sort that the thread berates, as you point out, he's more about people loving and getting to use whatever the crazy inventions they make in whatever way they like. Hell, even Lazarus at one point actually creates a state. And he "likes" Slayton Ford, who would be the absolute boogey-man to jrod.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 18:33
|
|
|
Are there any Libertarians that support public healthcare?
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 18:42
|
|
|
Enigma89 posted:Are there any Libertarians that support public healthcare? Ones with cancer and no health insurance, I expect.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 18:44
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:Star Wars is kind of a libertarian setting in that everybody is armed all the time and everybody is always raging against the oppressive government, so smuggling is rampant. Theoretically yeah, but realistically libertarians hate the poo poo out of it because again, nonwhite main characters, girl Jedi. Jazerus posted:heinlein is definitely libertarian He was very libertarianish in a free-love anti-religion kinda way (but no gay stuff absolutely not, just old man sex with young girl harems thank you very much), but there's no real indication that he thought the big speech in ST was bad. That's not to say he necessarily believed all of it, maybe he was just playing with ideas, but his was a big pro-mil guy who probably believed some of it, like the part about how only military veterans can be trusted to lead because they and only they have enough character to take personal responsibility for the good of society (side note: lmbo). That Colonel Jessup kind of outlook that soft civilians only tuck themselves safely into bed at night because Hard Men are out there making Hard Decisions shows up in his other works. Plus, the end of the book? Maybe I didn't get it and Rico's dad showing up and being all "hey son I was wrong about everything, being a wealthy elite businessman is empty and pointless compared to being in the infantry, I'm your first sergeant now! Thanks for showing me the way, I love you son let's bond over bug-killing" is supposed to be bad, but it didn't seem like that? The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress is libertarianish in a frontier rugged individualism kind of way, although the setting doesn't really make sense for it (it's not really clear how you can all be rugged individualists when everyone depends on a central authority to supply oxygen, heat, water, etc). But it is extremely Libertarian fiction in the sense that the protagonists essentially have a magic deus ex machina on their side (the main character accidentally creates a perfect AI on the moon colony's central all-controlling mainframe, and luckily this AI agrees that rugged individualism is awesome and instantly puts full command of all the colony's environmental and security and control systems in the hands of the rebels) VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 19:38 on Sep 24, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 19:32
|
|
|
Enigma89 posted:Are there any Libertarians that support public healthcare? I think Hayek low-key supported it, since someone with type I diabetes from age 14 and someone else can hardly be said to be starting at the same level on the big playing field. But libertarians are even better than christians at ignoring whatever decent prescriptions their holy books might have.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 19:34
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Theoretically yeah, but realistically libertarians hate the poo poo out of it because again, nonwhite main characters, girl Jedi. There is some lesbian sex being seen as "good", although again this might just be horny author syndrome. And the aforementioned Jacob Carter does mention he had a homosexual encounter, but "they tried it and it didn't work for them". And Heinlein did author a book about transsexualism, too.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 20:29
|
|
|
I can only speak from personal experience, but for me, health care was the wedge that got me thinking that maybe this libertarian stuff wasn't all it was cracked up to be. I was denied coverage by BC/BS of Iowa; that made me realize that, wait, if one company can deny me, then they all can... and why should these people, that I have zero control over, zero recourse, have control over my health like that? It took a few more years but that was definitely the early seed.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 20:34
|
|
|
Hm ok I haven't read those, the only Heinlein book I've read with any reference to homosexuality was Stranger In A Strange Land, where one of the women characters briefly fears that Michael Valentine Smith, being a human raised by Martians with no knowledge of human society, might try banging another dude, but then she remembers that homosexuals are sick twisted humans so Smith's inherent ability to read people's character would make him properly recoil from gay men and stick to banging only the women in his free love sex cult.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 20:37
|
|
|
Rappaport posted:Hell, even Lazarus at one point actually creates a state. And he "likes" Slayton Ford, who would be the absolute boogey-man to jrod. yeah, that was good from Heinlein actually. You have a structureless town-sized population in space, and you have a top-notch bureaucrat on hand whose skills are precisely suited to the job. It turns out sometimes you need that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 20:39
|
|
|
Golbez posted:I can only speak from personal experience, but for me, health care was the wedge that got me thinking that maybe this libertarian stuff wasn't all it was cracked up to be. I was denied coverage by BC/BS of Iowa; that made me realize that, wait, if one company can deny me, then they all can... and why should these people, that I have zero control over, zero recourse, have control over my health like that? Health Care I think should have a public option but I still agree with a lot of libertarian positions and after seeing how the country has gone in the last 8 years it has made me realize that there are some things that the Republicans and Democrats really do agree on and that will never change. I will say that I am starting to feel more and more I am a person without a party that I wholly agree with anymore but in general the Libertarian party is probably my preference.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 20:51
|
|
|
Enigma89 posted:Health Care I think should have a public option but I still agree with a lot of libertarian positions and after seeing how the country has gone in the last 8 years it has made me realize that there are some things that the Republicans and Democrats really do agree on and that will never change. Learning, in all objective factors, that public health care is 1) better and 2) cheaper than whatever we have, was a huge thing too. It is vital social infrastructure. It is not, in any way, a fungible consumer good.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 21:04
|
|
|
Golbez posted:Learning, in all objective factors, that public health care is 1) better and 2) cheaper than whatever we have, was a huge thing too. It looks like even Hayek was for it Quote from the condensed version as it appeared in the April 1945 edition of Reader’s Digest posted:There is no reason why, in a society which has reached the general level of wealth ours has, (the certainty of a given minimum of sustenance) should not be guaranteed to all without endangering general freedom; that is: some minimum of food, shelter and clothing, sufficient to preserve health. Nor is there any reason why the state should not help to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance in providing for those common hazards of life against which few can make adequate provision. I will say though that I am incredibly disappointed in the Libertarian party in the last few elections. There was big potential with this election and they ran a really weak candidate, I can't believe it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 21:06
|
|
|
Only the last few? The LP has been a loving disaster for its entire history. Fifty years and they have accomplished precisely nothing. No congressmen. No senators. No governors. They haven't broken double digits in state legislators, if they've elected any at all. Why would you give them more money and time? What makes you think they will ever accomplish anything? The LP is a goddamn racket. Source: Card-carrying member of the NC LP for years. We won soil and water board twice. That was it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 21:09
|
|
|
Golbez posted:Only the last few? The LP has been a loving disaster for its entire history. Fifty years and they have accomplished precisely nothing. No congressmen. No senators. No governors. They haven't broken double digits in state legislators, if they've elected any at all. Why? Because there is really no other option anymore. I feel most passionate about foreign policy and there is very little difference between the Democrats and Republicans on this anymore. I have generally always floated toward the peaceful candidates like Ron Paul, Kucinich, Gravel and Bernie.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 21:13
|
|
|
Enigma89 posted:Why? Because there is really no other option anymore. I feel most passionate about foreign policy and there is very little difference between the Democrats and Republicans on this anymore. So you keep putting faith in a group of people that has shown zero reason for it for fifty years, and your only reason is, "there's no other option." Sure it is: Start a new party. The LP is clearly run by grifters and/or morons, so why should you continue to prop them up? Let it die. Otherwise, I mean I guess you could stick with them but don't pretend like you're accomplishing anything by it. Instead of giving them time and money, volunteer or something - giving a single person a free meal will do far more for the world than the LP has done in fifty years. Edit: Or don't start a party. Don't care about party. Vote individuals. But don't pretend that the LP is some kind of magical key to freedom, or that it ever was. Edit x2: Can't help but notice that 3 of the 4 people you mentioned currently caucus as Democrats. Maybe there is an option for you, and it's been in front of you the whole time. But apart from that, don't care as much about party. Definitely don't care about the LP. Golbez fucked around with this message at 21:18 on Sep 24, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 21:15
|
|
|
Golbez posted:So you keep putting faith in a group of people that has shown zero reason for it for fifty years, and your only reason is, "there's no other option." I take part in different party primaries depending on the candidates. I have switched from D/R/I depending on the election. I am not starting a party, I rather leave the country than do that. I can't imagine the positions I have are really that unpopular. I was just watching these highlights. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBcMUZAXMW4 Enigma89 fucked around with this message at 21:30 on Sep 24, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 21:22
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:The fact that they can print limitless robots to do basically everything in star wars (but for some reason don't) is also not really done in a way that makes any sense so i think that sort of limits the politics you can read into the setting. 1. They really can't print infinite robots, the Trade Federation's army is literally funded by conquering planets, not every sci-fi setting is some kind of post-scarcity singularity 2. Robots in Star Wars aren't really good at doing most things. Star Wars kinda defines itself by being a setting where everything is run-down and a mess instead of the optimism of science fiction where what the future brings will solve all our problems. Enigma89 posted:Why? Because there is really no other option anymore. I feel most passionate about foreign policy and there is very little difference between the Democrats and Republicans on this anymore. Right now the difference between the two is much more stark from one of them fighting to encourage the spread of disease, maintain the unaccountability of the police, mass-deport people without trial, use the agency responsible for mass deportation as a private army to attack detractors, and overall destroy what few democratic structures our country has left. The way points of view get pushed in American politics is by factions within the parties fighting for control over the platform. It's not great, but otherwise it's been made structurally impossible for a third party to make a meaningful foothold on a national scale. And real political change means more than just the president, it means electing congressmen, senators and representatives, it means electing your state government, it means electing your local government. I know not everybody has time to deal with their local government, but if you can't at least pay attention to the congressional level, you probably don't really care much about getting real governmental change anyways.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 21:54
|
|
|
Enigma89 posted:I have generally always floated toward the peaceful candidates like Ron Paul Ron Paul sure loved peace when he voted to attack Afghanistan.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 21:57
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Ron Paul sure loved peace when he voted to attack Afghanistan. Hey now. He also proposed letters of marque and reprisal to fight terrorism.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 22:01
|
|
|
Bobby Digital posted:Hey now. And applauded Israel for bombing a nuclear power plant in 1981. So much peace!
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 22:08
|
|
|
Golbez posted:Fifty years and they have accomplished precisely nothing. No congressmen. No senators. No governors.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 22:53
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:And applauded Israel for bombing a nuclear power plant in 1981.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 23:00
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Ron Paul sure loved peace when he voted to attack Afghanistan. That was justified IMO. Who What Now posted:And applauded Israel for bombing a nuclear power plant in 1981. That's not our issue, that's our regional issue. If Israel does it, then that's fine by me.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 23:18
|
|
|
Enigma89 posted:
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 23:19
|
|
|
Ah the "peace is very important except for all the times it isn't" doctrine.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 23:23
|
|
|
Dronestrikes in Iraq: evil warmongering butchery by the Republicans and Democrats who are the same Dronestrikes in Afghanistan: beautiful little gifts of freedom to brighten up weddings, cafes, schoolbuses, etc!
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 23:27
|
|
|
Enigma89 posted:That was justified IMO. Lol, no it wasn't. Elaborate, please.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 23:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 16:48 |
|
|
Remember how the Afghanistan government offered to partner with us and help find Bin Laden and we said "gently caress you", and he totally escaped while hundreds of US soldiers and countless civilians died in a war that's still going on today which we will inevitably lose? Great idea thanks for voting for it Ron Paul
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 23:49
|
|