Libertarianism and Stage Orange

[TreeJeff]

Good day all.  I just finished watching the Stage Orange video, and found it very informative.  I was admittedly and surprisingly triggered some (which I want to work on :-) ) when libertarianism was mentioned in some contexts.  Much like jpcatrib's post about BitCoin, I am attempting to avoid political debate or activism, but more interested in where my current thinking fits on the SD spectrum.  So maybe I'm more orange than I thought, and I certainly don't speak for all liberty-minded individuals, but I think perhaps a better term to use in the discussion might have been Objectivism or libertarianism with a focus on unrestrained profit pursuits.  It is true that within the umbrella of libertarianism, there are folks that subscribe to the more Randian aspects of the philosophy.  I could be wrong, but I think that impression of libertarianism as a whole is an outdated, media-influenced perspective and the term is a bit misrepresented in the video and does not encompass the current state of libertarianism in the US, or really, around the world.  Libertarianism itself does not advocate for unrestrained pursuit of profits at the expense of lives and the environment.  It is a moral framework in which individuals could CHOOSE that focus.  And that is not the same thing, in my opinion, and it would probably be more in line with truth to not state it as such.

Like I was just at a libertarian event and there were MANY "hippies" present and folks advocating for holistic alternative solutions to health, education, environment, etc.  Also, some of the examples used in the video to show the limits of capitalism seemed to be of CRONY capitalism, which is due to both capitalists AND the government combined.

Many libertarians fully understand capitalism itself will not solve all of the problems in the world and some troubling consequences could arise.  However, many of these troubles are mainly due to all of the mindsets Leo is helping people fix with the channel.  Voluntaryism is a tool that, in the hands of those that are not considering their actions toward the environment or other people, can have negative results for others.  However, in the hands of individuals that truly care about humanity, nature, or the universe as a whole, it can be a huge benefit to not have government restrictions that potentially quell the improvement of lives.

I think some libertarians understand that no man is an island and it takes a community at times.  A libertarian doesn't necessarily desire capitalism for the thrill of competition, but because we want everyone to have the opportunity to live their life according to their values to the best of their ability, if they even want to.  And for those that are unable to do so because of some challenge they have, then it is important to assist them when feasible.  I want everyone to have liberty even if it means they do better than me.  It does not matter who they are:  gay, straight, Christian, Muslim, black, white.  The general idea is that the state is force and therefore immoral.  Now, I know that this is just a libertarian's way of thinking and from a universal perspective, morals are relativistic, but work with me here.  :-)  Essentially we do not want to stop others from living the way they want to in a section of the universe and we'd be happy to interact with them authentically without aggression, lying, cheating, stealing, etc.

Coming at this from a consciousness or relativistic angle where everyone has their own, perhaps deterministic, perspective, it is not our job to dictate to others how to live their lives and each person will have a different means of authentically "doing their thing."  That sounds more yellow to me than orange, but I may be overestimating where that sort of philosophy sits on the spectrum.  The idea would be to raise consciousness and live in a society such that we do NOT do the crappy things through capitalism mentioned in the video to a large degree and therefore don't need the state or any other type of "force" placed on people to keep them restrained.  "With great freedom comes great responsibility" sort of thing.  There are others that can probably articulate all of this better than me like Derrick Broze of the Conscious Resistance Network or Jeff Berwick of Anarchast.

I guess I feel it is unfortunate that libertarianism receives so much outright dismissal and maybe some mischaracterization.  Perhaps if folks realized that many of the people that identify as libertarian or voluntaryist can have views similar to those in several of the SD stages all just simply without the force of the state it may help to improve the perception of the term "libertarianism."  These could include hardcore religious in blue, pursuit of success in orange, extremely charitable as in green, maybe what you'd call enlightened self-interest in yellow, and truly spiritual and universally-oriented in turquoise.  All of that fits under the umbrella. 

Be curious to hear some thoughts on this.  Are we still talking about mostly Stage Orange if coming at libertarianism from the aforementioned angles and intentions?

Thanks for any insight!

[jpcatrib]

@TreeJeff I agree with your vision. I agree that people usually have a misconception about what libertarianism is.

 

I do not know about the libertarian movement in the U.S., but here in Brazil, unfortunately, the movement is composed of many young Orange people who are often immature and end up being noisier. But my hope is that over the years, the movement will mature.

 

I think both libertarians and socialists see the same problem: politicians being corrupted by large corporations. We only disagree on how to solve this problem. Libertarians do not like big companies that are responsible for many of the world's problems, they just believe that state regulation will not solve this problem but rather make it worse.

 

I have thought a lot about it these days, and the "conclusion" I have come so far is that libertarianism is not fully framed in the Stage Orange, and every person has a perception on the subject. Just as a libertarian does not necessarily fit into the Stage Orange, a socialist may not fit into the Stage Green by defending the ideology for personal interests.

 

In my case, for example, I work for the government, and here in Brazil, public employees make a lot of money (compared to the rest of the population), work very little, and can never be fired. That, over the years, has made me more and more angry. I think the orange vision would simply be to continue on the job and get on with life. But I'm feeling so bad about the situation that I decided to quit my job and do something that really makes a difference in the world. Maybe I'm a bit biased, but in my opinion, that's a greener view.

 

Obviously, I am not denying that libertarians are often in the Stage Orange, as Leo pointed out to Ayn Rand, who preached selfishness as a virtue.

 

Either way, let's keep an open mind and it would be good to hear different opinions.

[Elisabeth]

I ... don't know really that much about the philosophy, but I have some libertarian friends and I've read through an anarchokapitalist blog to get the gist of that one. 

Through my half-informed but very broad perspective libertanianism seems like a mix of orange and green. If you put more emphasis on the non-violence and voluntary aspects of these philosophies, you go more green. People who only emphasize the personal freedom aspect make it orange.

I don't know how libertarianism looks from yellow. I guess some more limitations become apparent. I have a pretty standard set of objections towards libertarianism, which colored now by (somewhat stereotypical) spiral dynamics thinking goes something like

• Yes, the state uses force. Force is needed to controll red and really, the excesses of any other color.
• Blue can't really handle libertarianism. A lot of people need explicit rules because in a world without, they are lost. So they will not respect a society without rules. Likewise, a lot of people need extrinsic motivation. They are not in touch with intrinsic motivation. 
• Orange will use the absence of rules to further exploit
• Green breeds the idea of non-violence, but they are overly idealistic to believe that people will take care of each other on a purely voluntary basis. Maybe in a society of green-yellow libertarianism is a good arrangement. 

I know this is not a precise formulation of anything but you get the idea. 

I'm not saying some libertarian ideas can't be usefully implemented, but by and large I think it overlooks the necessity of the current system for people who are either in a disadvantage or at stages bellow high orange. 

[TreeJeff]

@jpcatrib Thank you for your thoughtful response. 

My perception of the movement in the US is that it is mixed between all of the stages >=Blue similar to your recent thoughts about the term encompassing many colors of the spectrum.  But there probably is a decent fraction who focus on Stage Orange pursuits and follow the Randian ideals.  I am hopeful that it will make progress in Brazil to some higher-level thinking because it seems to have here to a degree.

I agree entirely regarding the libertarian/socialist views on problems in society.  Both mean well for the most part.

Congratulations on your decision to resign from your position.  The cognitive dissonance and living inauthentically must be quite challenging.  I truly hope it works out for you.  I agree the Stage Orange thing to do would be to stay with the position to get ahead further, consequences be damned, while your new goal does have shades of green.  Any thoughts on how you would like to change the world?

         

[TreeJeff]

@Elisabeth Thank you so much for your open-minded, honest response.  Quite insightful.

I can certainly see libertarianism being considered a mix of orange and green.  And I think on a practical level, it probably often manifests in the ways you describe with some folks focusing on more green vs. orange and vice-versa.

I will also admit that I am not sure how it would look from Stage Yellow because I'm not sure I fully understand Yellow yet.  The voluntaryist position just seemed to have quite a few similarities to Yellow when I was reviewing it on the site from which Leo sourced his information.

For example:

World View:
The world is a complex, self-organizing, natural system that requires integral solutions.
Life Motto:
“I manifest myself, but not at the cost of others.”

Life Philosophy:
I am searching for freedom and embrace (integral) space and complexity.

The "World View" is essentially a free market of ideas, which a libertarian would praise.  I guess it is unclear to me though the result the SD model ultimately shows the universe/humanity is achieving (probably because I'm not in turquoise) and how libertarianism itself would limit said result.  That's not a criticism of your statement.  I just legitimately do not understand the full SD model yet I think.

I really liked your formulation.  I think it made some great points.

On 6/26/2018 at 0:55 PM, Elisabeth said:

 

• Yes, the state uses force. Force is needed to controll red and really, the excesses of any other color.
• Blue can't really handle libertarianism. A lot of people need explicit rules because in a world without, they are lost. So they will not respect a society without rules. Likewise, a lot of people need extrinsic motivation. They are not in touch with intrinsic motivation. 
• Orange will use the absence of rules to further exploit
• Green breeds the idea of non-violence, but they are overly idealistic to believe that people will take care of each other on a purely voluntary basis. Maybe in a society of green-yellow libertarianism is a good arrangement. 

I'm not saying some libertarian ideas can't be usefully implemented, but by and large I think it overlooks the necessity of the current system for people who are either in a disadvantage or at stages bellow high orange. 

      My thoughts:

• The state is certainly one way to control red.  This would probably be considered self-defense though depending on the entities involved.  Libertarians do not necessarily advocate for pacifism, though some are.  Red is kind of the last color on the spectrum where a libertarian philosophy is not "compatible" because there is inherent physical aggression on the part of those entities primarily in Stage Red, though it is accepted as a reality in the world.  Excesses of other colors could certainly be controlled through the state (using physical pain or death itself), and maybe that is the most effective means a group of people come up with for a given scenario.  Education, social and financial ostracism, and secession could also be attempted first. 
• Your description of Blue made me lol.  Not because I think it's incorrect, but because I think there is a lot of truth to it.  Part of the existential crisis and human condition.  Libertarianism allows for religion for a set of rules where people can find some guidance.  But I agree, there are some challenges that may arise depending on the guidance.  I think though the view many people probably watching Leo's videos have on moral relativism would apply here and deem it as just...there.    
• Yes, agreed on Orange.  As mentioned above, a libertarian would want to try education, social and financial ostracism, and secession first, which may or may not work in specific circumstances.
• Yes, agreed on Green as well.  I, and many other libertarians I would imagine, have no illusions about the creation of some utopia where everyone has food through charity, etc.  Some do just wave their hand though and say that it will be taken care of. 

Your excellent statement about the green-yellow society I think is exactly my point for authoring my post.  Again, no illusions that the current state of humanity as a whole would probably not fair well in a pure voluntaryist paradigm.  And there is a great deal of debate about how to handle a host of complicated issues.  It would probably take at least a green-yellow society to have it work smoothly.  That is the reason there is emphasis on non-aggression, secession, and education in libertarianism, to hopefully raise awareness of others to improve their situations and mindsets to reach these stages.  As I mentioned, it is simply a moral framework into which Blue through Turquoise could fit.  And I think the narrow way Leo described the term itself and kind of pigeon-holed the philosophy to primarily Stage Orange was potentially doing it a disservice and perpetuates the negative connotations associated with it.  I don't hold it against him.  Just want to give a different perspective from someone else who has studied the philosophy quite a bit.

Thanks again.