Re: Why not just unauthorized
"Do you at least allow your actions and behavior to be modulated or modified by your family group? Your close friends? A spouse? Or do you always assert your dominance over them as well?"
Nope. I do not allow my behavior to be modified by anyone. I pursue what I believe regardless of others. If they believe in what I believe, they can choose to affiliate themselves with me. If not, why would they choose to spend time with me?
"Our entire species is based on our ability to work and play within a social context, including the suppression of our own desires and wants for the betterment of those around us that we know."
Individual humans may choose to suppress their own desires in order to help others. But that must remain their choice. You don't force that upon them at the barrel of a gun.
I think you'll find that, given the choice, the overwhelming majority of people choose to help others. Those that don't get ostracized. But therein lies the key: the utilization of social pressures rather than force to ensure harmony. That means that all extremes are unwelcome. Including the moralistic extreme that desperately wants to control the actions of others. For example, via controlling sexual practices.
The instant you bring the threat of force into play as a means of ensuring compliance with one group's demands you are removing the "social animal" portion of the equation.
"We only built civilizations when we were able to take our urges to fuck, eat, and kill and subsume them for what was to be future gains."
Actually, we probably built civilization as a means to more easily obtain grains for making beer. Self restraint is a fairly novel concept to most civilizations, and certainly Victorian levels of restraint are outright bizarre, in historical context. Traditionally, civilizations have created entire social structures to allow the carefully directed release of pent up violent, sexual, etc. energies in order to ensure social harmony.
Telling everyone to be repressed all the time "for the children" - or whatever is the nonsense of the day - is actually pretty odd. Enforcing that with violence leads nowhere good. Every time it's been tried, violent revolution has followed.
"Finally, it's cute the way you froth at the mouth when I tell you about society, as if you've never heard about it."
It's cute that you think I'm "frothing at the mouth" by telling you to get off my lawn. You are so wrapped up in your own righteousness that what you accuse me of, who you accuse me of being and what you accuse me of believing are hilarious. If you knew anything about me, if you had read my posting history to come even remotely close to understanding what I believe in, you would probably implode under your own inability to rationalize your view of the world as defined through your narrow sterotypes.
An unwillingness to bow to a collectivist viewpoint or to subsume my personal morality to your own (or anyone else's) doesn't mean I am a right wing libertarian, selfish, or care only for myself. But oh, you feel the need to believe that, to stamp with that and to attack your perception of me rather than who I myself am.
"And that schtick about killing you is precious."
So, I take it you're one of those people who demands that violence be done to others to force them to comply with your morality but are too much of a fucking coward to hold the knife yourself, eh? If I had any respect for you, it's completely gone.
"I guess I know who to talk to if I want to see hyperbole taken to it's own extreme."
Yes, that's what I do. I look at the extreme version of your position in order to show you the irrationality of what you espouse. You are demanding that people be given the option of compliance with your morality or incarceration. The extension of that, of course, if that if they choose to forgo incarceration then physical violence will be done to them. If they resist the physical violence done to them, they will be killed.
The logical extension of this is that if anyone believes in their own morality enough to refuse to have it be subsumed to your morality you are willing to have someone else kill them for not believing what you believe. Apparently, however, you're too much of a coward to do it yourself.
And for what, hmm? Individuals demanding the right to engage in activities which don't harm anyone but themselves. But because their beliefs differ from yours, violence should be done to them. How does that make you different from the peckerheads that launched the crusades? Or the Inquisition?
You want to see your beliefs enforced through the apparatus of the state, just as they did. Ah, but that logic makes you uncomfortable. So it's better to attack me personally. It's easier to view me as a hateful, selfish monster than to turn that judgmental gaze inward and examine the bleakness of your own soul.
"In general, you just prove my earlier assertion about how libertarians are nothing more than a bunch of selfish pricks who believe they are owed something and have no real interest in governance, society, or humanity, beyond its capacity to provide a cheap thrill or quick high."
Actually, I don't prove that at all. You seem to think I do, but that's because you're operating on A) false sterotypes and B) associating me with the wrong sterotype.
One problem you have is an inability to see gradations. "Libertarian" is a huge spectrum. On the right, there is the tea party: staunchly independent, rabidly anti-state, even anarchist to a large degree. They are - by and large - a collection of cognitive dissonance. The Tea Party believe in the "right" to tell others what to do, but also believe in the right not to have anyone tell them what to do. They have no real solutions to operating an economy, groups of individuals or any facet of a modern nation.
On the left, you have left libertarians. The group I belong to. We believe strongly in the state as a means of handling various social problems, but also believe that the state should be kept as minimal as possible. Where it doesn't need to intrude into people's lives, it should not be allowed to.
Some things we need a state for. National defense, education, health care, emergency services, policing, various flavors of scientific endeavor, environmental protection and a few other things. Left libertarians understand that we must subsume part of our individuality to the whole in order to see these necessary services accomplished. This is generally done through taxes, and by accepting laws such as environmental regulations.
But left libertarians vehemently oppose the unification of church and state. The nation has no business in the bedrooms of the citizenry. We vehemently oppose censorship, internet tracking and pretty much anything else that attempts to tell everyday citizens what they may or may not think - or do.
Where our thoughts or actions do not harm others they absolutely should not be restricted or restrained. We should not be forced to believe what someone else tells us to believe, no matter the circumstance.
Left libertarians champion freedom of thought, freedom of expression and freedom of belief while understanding that freedom of action may need to be curtailed under very specific circumstances in order to meet the needs of society at large.
If you cannot understand the difference between left and right libertarians then you're a fool, and no amount of debating can educate you.
To sum up my personal beliefs, you can always refer to the following:
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few (or the one).
The needs of the few (or the one) outweigh the desires of the many.
The desires of the many outweigh the desires of the few.
The freedom of the mind of the individual is sacrosanct.
Now, if you want to keep on equating me with the right wing libertarian anarchist types, you go right ahead, but you'll only be proving out your own idiocy in public. I am strongly anti collectivist, yes. But that doesn't mean I don't understand the narrow, carefully applied uses of social infrastructure.
It just means I am a human being, not a drone.