The Instigator
notpolicydebategod
Pro (for)
Winning
38 Points
The Contender
Johnicle
Con (against)
Losing
36 Points

The concept of Libertarianism

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/11/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,227 times Debate No: 3590
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (16)
Votes (20)

 

notpolicydebategod

Pro

I understand that the topic is very vague. I will be definding Libertarianism.

Libertarianism is the concept that every person has the right to do as they wish as long as they are not infringing on anyone else's happiness or freedom. An example would be drug legalisation. Each person has the right to f*ck themselves up but the second that they steal from someone to get more drugs, they are wrong.

It is better than liberalism. Liberals tolerate all lifestyles and actions that do not hurt others. However, they are also very liberal with money. They raise taxes and spending constantly. This is negative and something that libertarians would never intentionally do unless absolutely necessary.

Conservatism is good with money. However, they are intolerant of abortions, gay rights and the poor. This is unacceptable.

Moderation can hardly be considred a substantial concept because it is completely unpredictable and can be anywhere on the political spectrum.

Thank you.
Johnicle

Con

You're right, the topic is quite vague... but I'm here to debate that Libertarianism isn't great... Libertarianism has its harms and the CONCEPT, has inherent problems that must be viewed.

I. Laws that protect people from them self.
Libertarianism seems to be severely flawed in the view that the laws that protect people from them self seize to exist (at least under the concept of it). Such laws include drugs, alcohol (even for people at the age of 2), pornography, seat belts, speed limit, rehab (and who has to go), and any law that keeps people from getting into trouble (with them self). These laws are so necessary in today's society that using Libertarianism would simply be a bad concept. If any one of these had a looser chain on the law, people could ruin their lives much sooner... funny... my opponent is trying to NOT hurt any one else but when people's lives are changed so significantly without these laws, they DO hurt other people.

II. Allowing "Libertarianism" will lead to spreading of bad behavior.
I would assume that my opponent would agree that some of what I have named does lead to bad behavior and a bad life. If a child would see his father get into any of these bad behaviors (such as drugs, speeding, and alcohol abuse), they too will inevitably follow the wrong road. There is a reason that the drinking age is set at 21. It's because people's brains are not yet developed before then. If we were to follow the concept of Libertarianism, the drinking age would be gone and kid's brains would be at risk. But back to the spreading of bad behavior... With the government not caring about such laws, it would be easier to get into this bad behavior which would mean that this theory of "not effecting" the wrong people simply non-existent.

III. Libertarianism is a bad concept.
Bad behavior must be stopped. Following this concept spreads it significantly. That is not good. Thus, the concept of Libertarianism is not a good concept. Following laws that protect people from them self are essential to a well run society.

My opponent's last speech was really meant for clarification. I used his clarification to make arguments against Libertarianism. So I won't specifically rebuttal against his "points" since he really didn't have any.

Thank You!
Debate Round No. 1
notpolicydebategod

Pro

I. Laws that protect people from them self.
--- Such laws include drugs,

+ Drug legalisation can be great. There will be higher tax revenue, our jails will be severely less crowded keeping dangerous criminals imprisoned, less money will be spent on the war on drugs (trillions have been spen this year), there will be no drug related violent crime because the gangs will no longer be necessary.

+ alcohol for people under the age of 2 will not happen because people under 18 will still not have consent without their parents'. in many countries the alcohol consumption age is much lower than 21.

+ pornographic censorship is wrong. as is all censorship. however, parents will be able to block it with their v-chip still, which is fair.

+ seat belts should be optional. fines, court money, tax dollars, overstretched police etc is a huge hassle

+ speed limit was designed to protect all drivers. libertarians arent stupid. we like the liberty we were guaranteed in our constitution. the speed limit hurts others, which is un-libertarian.

+ rehab is a punishment for things ilke drunk driving, which can hurt others. not libertarian.

--- my opponent is trying to NOT hurt any one else but when people's lives are changed so significantly without these laws, they DO hurt other people.

+ I'm sorry. I don't feel that when people are not hurting other people they are hurting other people. That is the Libertarian concept.

II. Allowing "Libertarianism" will lead to spreading of bad behavior.
--- If a child would see his father get into any of these bad behaviors (such as drugs, speeding, and alcohol abuse), they too will inevitably follow the wrong road.

+ These people have the liberty to choose to go down the wrong road as well as the right one. They should be given the freedom to run their lives.

--- There is a reason that the drinking age is set at 21. It's because people's brains are not yet developed before then.
+ The drinking age was set about 100 years ago. We have the highest drinking age in the world with the exception of nations that allow no drinking. The drinking age in America is ridiculous. It should be lowered to 14 -16 like in most European countries. But a reasonable compromise 18 when people have the llegal right to make decisions.

--- With the government not caring about such laws, it would be easier to get into this bad behavior which would mean that this theory of "not effecting" the wrong people simply non-existent.

+ Every person will have personal liberties as our founding fathers intended. The government negating such laws would bring more tax revenue, less police overstreching, less crowded prisons and a less clogged court system.

III. Libertarianism is a bad concept.
+ Hmm...Libertarianism is a good concept.

+ Liberty is a right in our Constitution that our founding fathers wanted us to have. His main point is that laws hurting only the criminal are necessary however:
= Court systems will be less clogged creating speedier trials
= Police will stop criminals who are comitting crimes with victims instead of spending time harassing self-perpetrators
= The money spent on victimless crimes is exorbitant.
= American citizens are put in jails without hurting anybody.
= Rapists and murderers are let out early with parole to make room in prisons that could be less crowded.
= George Washington, James Madison, and Benjamin Franklin wanted this country to be Libertarian.
= Life, LIBERTY, and the pursuit of happiness

Anyone interested in the Libertarian is more than welcome to visit www.lp.org

Thank yuo for reading.
Johnicle

Con

I'll just go straight down to prove that Libertarianism is (plain and simple) dumb...

Drugs: I can't believe some of the things that I read... My opponent insists that allowing drugs to be legal, you support the true Libertarianism concept. But what he fails to realize is that by legalizing drugs you will have MORE problems. Let me explain... 1) Less people in jail is tentative as people who become desperate for drugs (assuming that it's more now that it's legal) will be more incline to commit crimes. Some of the worse crimes are committed while people are high (particularly on Meth). People will be more incline to steal money to get more drugs and will be more incline to get rid of the people who bother them while their high (such as their children and significant other)... 2) EVEN if there is less jail space taken up, there will MORE graveyard room issues as more people will begin to commit suicide. There is a reason that so much money is spent on the war on drugs, because drugs are BAD. My opponents concept will simply transfer money spent on the war on drugs to DRUGS them self. He says, "Drugs legalization can be great"... but the CAN in that statement is vaguer than this topic.

Alcohol: *sigh... You simply must not understand where our current society is right now. You say that adults won't let their kids drink... but this simply is not true. Parents allow their kids to drink now and the ones who don't will have their kids be able to (since they weren't allowed to (at least under your system)). This will lead to an increase in Fetal Alcohol Syndrome and will also lead to undeveloped brains. Libertarianism leads to such destruction of one self, that impact on others is inevitable.

Pornography: One freedom that my opponent fails to see is the freedom to say NO. Censorship destroys that freedom. Could you imagine 80 year old grandparents stumbling on two 20 year olds having sex? They have the freedom to NOT see that on TV. But you have the almighty v-chip but I don't even know what that is let alone two 80 year olds. Some parents don't give a crap about blocking TV, but that shouldn't mean that we as a government shouldn't. Furthermore, some things CAN'T be blocked such as movies (without an age limit under Libertarianism), cable TV, billboards, restaurants, bars, and even random people on the street.

Seat belts: They must be used to enforce children to wear seat belts. This "hassle" saves millions of lives a year. A highway patrol man once told me that he has never unbuckled a dead person from a car... WHY? Because people that wear their seat belt don't die unless the crash is VERY serious. Simply put, these seat belts are enforced because other people don't understand how dangerous it is without them, and until then, they must be enforced.

Speed Limit: I'll just drop this from the round. It isn't part of Libertarianism, I'll accept that but I don't need this to prove that Libertarianism is a bad concept.

Rehab: I'm sorry but rehab hurts no one else. And if it does, would that mean that under this concept we get rid of it? Rehab can be a punishment, but can also be a safety for people who enter voluntarily. Furthermore, if he considers punishment as a way of hurting others, does that mean that we get rid of all jails and all forms of fines. Libertarianism (summed up) is absolute freedom with no punishment or backlash for your actions (which in itself isn't completely true)

Libertarian concept: Here is where your "concept" becomes one big contradiction. What I was trying to say is that if you allow all of these things to be legal, then you WILL hurt other people (because of the massive spread). I want you to simply answer these questions...

Under the Libertarianism concept,

1) are drugs legal?

2) is pornography legal for all ages?

3) are there any seat belt laws?

You see, with all of these things being legal, you do hurt other people. Which therefore makes your concept either non-existent or at least severely flawed.

Individuals destiny is their own: You see, if someone grows up in a drug house, they have a greater chance to follow the same path (especially when it's legal). Why is it that when a father is abusive (only an example), that the son has a HUGE chance at also becoming abusive (even if not as bad)... It's the same with all of these Libertarianism "immoral" actions, it will just continue to trickle down and spread until it DOES effect everyone. It will inevitably lead to a worse world.

Drinking Age: Perhaps you didn't read WHY the drinking age is at 21... It's because the brain is not developed yet. We have these laws to protect people from them self (either because of carelessness or lack of knowledge)... The drinking age is fine... BUT under Libertarianism, you would allow anyone to drink whenever (not even your "reasonable 14, 16, or 18) THIS IS BAD. Having no drinking age would lead to many poor choices, and way too many unnecessary accidents.

III. Nope, Libertarianism is a bad concept :)

The final rant of reasons: Here, I want to bring up what you said in your rehab argument. You talk about how rehab is a punishment therefore not libertarian. So what punishment is then? Would that mean that our jail systems are non-libertarian? Also, you talk about the founding fathers. Well, they aren't the ultimate of ultimate people... they found our country, but not all their concepts are gold... such as libertarianism. Therefore, you can see that it is a bad concept and vote Con accordingly.

Thank you for this interesting debate. I like learning about new concepts such as this.
Debate Round No. 2
notpolicydebategod

Pro

Drugs: Less people will commit crimes with drugs because the drug gang will become extinct. Remember when alcohol prohibition ended, alcohol gangs and crimes stopped immediately. Also, crime would be significantly reduced with the legalisation of drugs for other reasons. The police could pay attention to other crimes wioth victims. Imagine if the police were searching for theives and stopping murderers instead of stopping drug deals. The court system would be less clogged. And most importantly, our prisons would be less crowded, therefore violent criminals would not be parolled back onto the street.

Alcohol: People over the age of 18 should have the right to consume alcohol. At the age of 18, your brain is just as developed as the age of 21. Under the age of 18 will not have the right to choose but people over the age of 18 will. America has the highest drinking age in the world with the exception of nations who ban alcohol altogether. 18 year olds can vote, sign and die for their nation, they should have the liberty to drink.

Pornography: 80 year olds will have the right to look at pornography and anyone over the age of 18. People who don't want to see that can use television contriks like the v-chip and block it from their televisions.

Seat belts: I agree. Seat belts are the best but if a person disasgrees, they should be able to do so. They should be able to unbuckle if it's their desire.

Rehab: Libertarians are huge on crime. We are stricter on crime than Republicans and Democrats. Rehab is a punishment for drunk drivers and things. When rehab is used as a punishment it is justifiable.

Under the Libertarianism concept,

1) are drugs legal?
Yes. Some drugs are medically beneficial; drug legalisation would unclog the court system and prisons; bring tax revenue; give police more time and save money.
2) is pornography legal for all ages?
No. Only people over the age of 18 will have these liberties.
3) are there any seat belt laws?
No. Each person has the Constitution's liberties granted to them.

Drinking Age: We have the highest drinking age in the world with the exception of nations that ban alcohol altogether. 18 year olds vote and die for this county, they should be able to drink as well.

Every person has the right to do what they want as long as it does not hurt anybody else. This is the concept of Libertarianism. Thank you.
Johnicle

Con

Libertarianism is NOT a good concept. It allows people to do whatever they want to them self with us not having any power to help them. I will be going straight down the flow explaining how these things that libertarianism allows DO hurt other people.

Drugs: 1) More people will commit crimes with drugs. When people get desperate for drugs, what will they do...? ANYTHING to get that money to get drugs. When they are high on drugs (especially meth) and their kids are "annoying them"… what will they do, get rid of the annoyance. The CREATION of meth endangers everyone within a 100 foot radius. It DOES hurt other people. 2) There is a significant difference between the effects of alcohol and the effects of drugs. Although alcohol has a dependence factor, it is NOT as great as drugs have. People get addicted to drugs like they get addicted to smoking, right away with no warning. It only takes one and if you make it legal, what is stopping every high school student from "just trying it." If you truly allow ANYONE to do anything ("that doesn't hurt anyone else"), you will allow any kid to do drugs (and all of the topics we are discussing in this debate)… To not allow them to do drugs would be against the concept of Libertarianism which is why it is not a good concept. 3) Parents high on drugs don't care about their kids. The reason the police are so uptight about drugs is that it affects children more than anyone. There ARE victims in drug cases, and these victims are the innocent children of these crack-heads. You concept HOPES that no one else will be hurt, but that simply is not true. 4) The court systems would be unclogged but with too many disadvantages. Sure, we can make EVERYTHING legal, but that would mean that murder would be legal. That would mean that no one goes to trial for murder, but it would also mean that murder would become a daily routine. In other words, unclogging a court system simply means that more people are doing wrong acts. Thus, this idea of drug legalization is wrong.

Alcohol: Your concept allows for EVERYONE to hurt them self. Therefore all ages can drink. People FOR SURE have their brain developed at the age of 21, but you offer alcohol for all ages. Another serious flaw in your concept. Lowering the age to 18 wouldn't be a disaster, but allowing it for EVERYONE would be catastrophic.

Pornography: Cross-apply what I said during alcohol. But besides that, you must see that people won't know how to use this v-chip. I don't even know what it is and I know technology better than the average person. Not to mention that porn would spread into regular channels because "that's what people want to see"… Therefore, the possibility of being able to block these channels is very slim. Stations such as CBS and ABC would eventually allow it on their TV, and all innocence, will be wiped of our American soil.

Seat Belts: We must have laws to protect people from them self. Seat belt laws for adults should happen, but seat belts for children MUST happen. He seems to think that you'll only get these liberties when you're 18, but that is NOT how he described the concept to be. We must keep these laws to protect everyone. The influence for children would otherwise be too great for them to actually "make this choice."

Rehab: All I have to say here is that we MUST have rehab for people that do drugs and people that over-excessively drink. Making it an "option" makes it ineffective.

Questions: 1) I touched on previously. 2) YOUR CONCEPT SAYS THAT PEOPLE CAN DO WHATEVER THEY WANT AS LONG AS IT HURTS NO ONE ELSE. YOU BREAK YOUR OWN CONCEPT BY SAYING THAT MINORS CAN NOT LOOK AT PORNOGRAPHY. 3) Same here, minors would not be required to wear seat belts and babies would not be required to be in car seats. That is an unnecessary cost. The 10 minutes it takes for a cop to pull someone over for a seat belt violation could very well save many people's lives.

Simply to prove that the age of people makes no difference, I quote my opponent from round 1, "Libertarianism is the concept that every person has the right to do as they wish as long as they are not infringing on anyone else's happiness or freedom"

Drinking Age: We presently have the highest drinking age in the world, what we should NOT have is the lowest drinking age in the world. That would inevitably be worse.

For all of these reasons, I urge you to vote CON.

Thank You!
Debate Round No. 3
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by HandsOff 8 years ago
HandsOff
welcome aboard.
Posted by Johnicle 8 years ago
Johnicle
Although old debates are not read very often, I would like to apologize for my conduct and debate on this point. Although I argue things that I believe to be wrong all the time, I have changed my stance on Libertarianism. In fact, when I register to vote, it will be under the Libertarian party. Thanks for the education on what America should be.
Posted by HandsOff 9 years ago
HandsOff
THIS is a libertarian stance on universal healthcare: http://www.objectivistcenter.org...
Posted by HandsOff 9 years ago
HandsOff
that also goes for supportin obama.
Posted by HandsOff 9 years ago
HandsOff
you simply cannot be a liberatarian and support universal healthcare. end of story. it's not a debatable point. i'm not trying to insult you.
Posted by notpolicydebategod 9 years ago
notpolicydebategod
Barack Obama's universal health care plan allows people to choose any plan they want, and is not controlled by the government but rather by the company. It is a good plan and the Libertarian Party would support Obama's plan. Although, we would prefer something less expensive. But I know for a fact that I am Libertarian.
Posted by notpolicydebategod 9 years ago
notpolicydebategod
News flash: I know what I am. How dare you insult me like that. I don't support every issue of every party. Personally, I feel that tax breaks would be sufficient but health care is not the most important issue for me. I'm for killing No Child Left Behind, legalising marijuana, for abortion, for gay rights, and for welfare reform and almost every other Libertarian issue. So don't tell me what party I belong to. Or what concept I believe in.
Posted by HandsOff 9 years ago
HandsOff
News flash: just saw that you were for uninversal health care. you're not a libertarian.
Posted by notpolicydebategod 9 years ago
notpolicydebategod
I support Obama because I believe he will make a good president and because the Libertarian Party has not nominated a candidate yet. And he is hardly a socialist.
Posted by HandsOff 9 years ago
HandsOff
Oh yeah, I was also perplexed by the Obama vote. He makes JFK look like Herbert Hoover. When are you guys going to get it? Today's "conservatives" are already more liberal than yesterday's democrats. And today's democrats are outright socialists.
20 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Willoweed 5 years ago
Willoweed
notpolicydebategodJohnicleTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had amazing arguments
Vote Placed by dankeyes11 7 years ago
dankeyes11
notpolicydebategodJohnicleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Lifeisgood 7 years ago
Lifeisgood
notpolicydebategodJohnicleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:41 
Vote Placed by The_Devils_Advocate 8 years ago
The_Devils_Advocate
notpolicydebategodJohnicleTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Johnicle 8 years ago
Johnicle
notpolicydebategodJohnicleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by jiffy 9 years ago
jiffy
notpolicydebategodJohnicleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by MaxHayslip 9 years ago
MaxHayslip
notpolicydebategodJohnicleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 9 years ago
Logical-Master
notpolicydebategodJohnicleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by ChevySdyme99 9 years ago
ChevySdyme99
notpolicydebategodJohnicleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by colbert4prez 9 years ago
colbert4prez
notpolicydebategodJohnicleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03