I always thought that honesty would rule the day. I always thought that integrity would rule the day. I always thought that telling the truth would rule the day. And it doesn’t.
2016 Libertarian Presidential Candidate
Gary Johnson: ‘I Always Thought Telling the Truth Would Rule the Day. And It Doesn’t.’
[After years of behaving as if this hypothesis were true I finally concluded that it was irrational to expect people to be rational.—Joe]
I was all set to vote for Gov. Johnson, mainly as a protest vote, until he opened his mouth. He took a reporter to task for using the term illegal immigrant. He said it was hurtful and how would you like to called that if you were living in the US without documentation.
Pretty much killed the vote right there.
I prefer to call them just plain criminals.
The correct term is Foreign Outlaws.
“I always thought that honesty would rule the day. I always thought that integrity would rule the day. I always thought that telling the truth would rule the day.”
And yet he picked former Massachusetts Governor William Weld whom, besides being rabidly anti-2A, did not live up to honesty, integrity, or truth. Awfully nice of Gary to show the the libertarian party was perfectly fine with statism and a boot upon their necks as long as they could dull the oppression with marijuana induced stupor.
This was the deal breaker for me.
Some people have a very, very hard time realizing that there is evil in the world.
Or do they? Maybe they’re only pretending to have a hard time understanding.
In any case, that which appears “logical” to one person will be totally different from what appears “logical” to another. You might be tempted to attribute the differences to to different levels of knowledge, but in fact a person’s intent, as much as anything else, determines what he sees as “logical”.
If one’s intent is to rule, to control and confiscate, and to minimize resistance, then lying one’s ass off on a regular basis would be entirely “logical”. Thus it is that Bill Clinton for example was openly admired by the media types for his ability to lie well.
It is all very “logical”, “common sense” and “practical”, and I repeat once again, it rules the entire world. Imagine for a moment that you believe, without question, that Mankind is a plague upon the Earth. “Logically” then, you’d favor authoritarian systems, which result in stagnation, decline chaos and mass death. If you could become immensely wealthy in the process of confiscation during all of that, so much the better. Pure “logic”, no?
So you see you’ve been dancing around the concept of “love they neighbor”, maybe without realizing it. Love, or the lack of it, will set your “logic” parameters. To the damaged person, rescuing children during an active shooting would not make any sense. It would be “illogical” to risk life and limb. A whole person on the other hand, would jump right in and do what’s necessary to save innocent life, because it would be the only “logical” thing to do. The slightest hesitation would result in regret afterward.
Libertarians are crippled in this respect. They will never be effective because they draw a crooked line across the map, and call it something like “Freedom vs statism.” That line falls in a different place than the “Good vs evil” line, and so they constantly find evil popping up behind their line of battle and shooting them in the back. Occasionally this results in cognitive dissonance for the libertarian, such as when they notice that most of the sexual deviants they’ve supported expanded rights for in the name of freedom turn out to be democrat voting fascists who want to take their guns. But that line of thought never leads to a useful conclusion, because the average libertarian is personally invested in defending their own drug use or sexual deviancy to an extent that prevents them from recognizing the objective standard of morality.
“After years of behaving as if this hypothesis were true I finally concluded that it was irrational to expect people to be rational.—Joe”
I expect you to continue behaving as if people are rational, Joe.
Yes. But when I think of it I might mix in some emotional persuasion as well.
The rational are easy to convince with facts and statistics. The irrational interpret those attempts as suspicious,and immediately dismiss your arguments. It’s much less stressful to grasp the nearest emotional proclamation to “do something.”