Total Posts:39|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Libertarians: Why are you a libertarian?

Ayyuba
Posts: 218
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2013 11:25:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I am one because of maximum freedom, minimal taxation, a good national defense without policing the world, government responsibilty is more important (in my mind) with this view point than any other I have studied. Libertarianism takes the economic freedom of conservatism and combines it with the social freedom of liberalism in one kicka@@ viewpoint. Oh, and freedom of belief is really important to libertarians.
So you wanna know all about Sitara, huh? Knowledge is power, and you want knowledge of me? With great power comes great responsibility, so I hope you understand what you're getting yourself into. Don't say I didn't warn you.
http://www.writerscafe.org...
http://www.infowars.com...
http://www.condomdepot.com...
http://www.fundabortionnow.org...
"Anyone who knows anything about the presidency knows that liberalism and conservatism have jack sh*t to do with being president." -Im
airmax1227
Posts: 13,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2013 11:40:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I don't personally label myself anything, but I'm socially liberal and often economically conservative... that usually places me into the libertarian camp.

So to answer why I'm libertarian the question would have to be asked why I'm socially liberal and economically conservative (or at least opposed to too much government economic control/intervention), and I believe that's a conversation for another thread.

So I'm a libertarian because the definition of libertarian best fits with my social and economic views, but I didn't choose to be a libertarian per se.
Debate.org Moderator
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2013 4:21:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/24/2013 11:25:30 PM, Ayyuba wrote:
I am one because of maximum freedom, minimal taxation, a good national defense without policing the world, government responsibilty is more important (in my mind) with this view point than any other I have studied. Libertarianism takes the economic freedom of conservatism and combines it with the social freedom of liberalism in one kicka@@ viewpoint. Oh, and freedom of belief is really important to libertarians.

I seem to be the polar opposite of airmax.

I am only half-libertarian, but I'd rather call myself Libertarian than the other political party I would associate with (socialism, or at least quite far leftism).

I don't see any reason why the government should tell me what I can or can't buy when it comes to my wants. If I want to have sex before I'm married with somebody that isn't really in my demographic, then so be it! If I want to own a M1 Abrams tank, then so be it! The government should have no right to tell me what I can and can't do with my money in these sorts of situations.

That being said, I differ from Libertarians on economic issues. To me, Lassie-Faire economics doesn't work, and I point to the Great Depression as a big example (I know that it may not have been the only cause, but you can't deny that the lack of economic regulation was a major factor). Also, other 'big money' things like insurance I think should be publicized, as insurance companies bring in a lot of money, which needs to be regulated, and it just seems to be a lot more simpler if you just have the government do it. Plus, it's a good way to fund the government.
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2013 4:26:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I don't wanna face, the aggressive instinct, face it in you or me.
So we keep it under lock and key.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
InvictusManeo
Posts: 384
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2013 4:52:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I had a slow turning over to libertarianism early last year, after having several heated discussions about it with my online friends. I thought it to be a ridiculous and frankly immoral position to hold at first but my opinions changed when I considered a state of society - and mankind at large - whereby use of force and violence to placate the population was not the norm, and where people could live without this threat looming over their heads.

It feels wrong to me to force individuals to provide for others, under the threat of violence. I would prefer to believe that humanity were capable (and willing) to provide for others out of a genuine desire, and of their own volition, rather than doing so out of obligation. That obligation removes much of what I would like to hope for in humans, which is the ability to empathize and act selflessly in order to help others and in turn, to help themselves.

It's like a multi-choice test paper. A government may be democratic in that it offers up a variety of choices for it's citizens on who to elect, but ultimately, you have to pick one option. There is no choice. This is not freedom. And nor is it freedom when the majority dictate what is 'best' for a given population, when time has shown that the majority are often very, very wrong.

There is also too much corruption in government and in big business, and we allow this corruption to continue for some greater good, but by allowing it's continuation we are having a net negative impact on the world.
InvictusManeo
Posts: 384
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2013 4:53:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/25/2013 4:26:18 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
I don't wanna face, the aggressive instinct, face it in you or me.
So we keep it under lock and key.



God I love Rush.
thett3
Posts: 14,349
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2013 6:06:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Since when are you libertarian?
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2013 6:20:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/25/2013 6:06:40 PM, thett3 wrote:
Since when are you libertarian?

Since she decided, without much apparent reason, to change many of her core views and call herself a libertarian.
Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2013 10:16:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Someone heard what I believed and called me a libertarian, I looked it up and thought "yea I guess I am."
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2013 12:00:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/24/2013 11:25:30 PM, Ayyuba wrote:
I am one because of maximum freedom, minimal taxation, a good national defense without policing the world, government responsibilty is more important (in my mind) with this view point than any other I have studied. Libertarianism takes the economic freedom of conservatism and combines it with the social freedom of liberalism in one kicka@@ viewpoint. Oh, and freedom of belief is really important to libertarians.

Did my arguments help persuade you?

I lean libertarian because it's a viewpoint that respects individual liberty, while emphasizing freedom, personal responsibility, limited government, and the rights of the people. And I believe these elements create a formula for economic prosperity as well as a moral and just society.

I can't call myself a "Libertarian" because I'm not going to join a third party, I have little faith in them. And also, some government functions are necessary. Specifically, clean air and water regulations, workplace safety rules, and I support outlawing racial discrimination in the workplace. It doesn't seem fair that someone can limit the opportunities of a person based solely on their racial heritage.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2013 12:10:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
David Icke and Ron Paul led me to Libertarianism.

When David Icke said "All freedom is our natural and eternal right, not the gift of some dark suit or uniform to decide if its going to give it to us or not" is when the principles of Liberty became clear to me.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Ayyuba
Posts: 218
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2013 11:10:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/26/2013 12:00:09 PM, Contra wrote:
At 11/24/2013 11:25:30 PM, Ayyuba wrote:
I am one because of maximum freedom, minimal taxation, a good national defense without policing the world, government responsibilty is more important (in my mind) with this view point than any other I have studied. Libertarianism takes the economic freedom of conservatism and combines it with the social freedom of liberalism in one kicka@@ viewpoint. Oh, and freedom of belief is really important to libertarians.

Did my arguments help persuade you?

I lean libertarian because it's a viewpoint that respects individual liberty, while emphasizing freedom, personal responsibility, limited government, and the rights of the people. And I believe these elements create a formula for economic prosperity as well as a moral and just society.

I can't call myself a "Libertarian" because I'm not going to join a third party, I have little faith in them. And also, some government functions are necessary. Specifically, clean air and water regulations, workplace safety rules, and I support outlawing racial discrimination in the workplace. It doesn't seem fair that someone can limit the opportunities of a person based solely on their racial heritage.
Yes, and you can be a libertarian without being a Libertarian. Ron Paul is a lkibertarian in the Republican party.
So you wanna know all about Sitara, huh? Knowledge is power, and you want knowledge of me? With great power comes great responsibility, so I hope you understand what you're getting yourself into. Don't say I didn't warn you.
http://www.writerscafe.org...
http://www.infowars.com...
http://www.condomdepot.com...
http://www.fundabortionnow.org...
"Anyone who knows anything about the presidency knows that liberalism and conservatism have jack sh*t to do with being president." -Im
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2013 12:16:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
It doesn't seem fair that someone can limit the opportunities of a person based solely on their racial heritage.
You're not limiting anything but the use of your own property. They didn't have that opportunity before you came along and then you took it.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
YYW
Posts: 36,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2013 12:56:19 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Libertarianism exists on the premise that economic freedom is prior to social freedom, and that economic freedom and social freedom exist in different spheres. But, given that freedom is the ability to make choices, and the range of choices that any one of us is necessarily limited by both economic and social circumstances -often, circumstances beyond our control- it must then also be the case that insofar as both economic choices and social choices are limited by circumstance, then freedom is constrained to the extent that choices are limited. The point of libertarianism is, at least in theory, to give individuals the freedom to do what they like with their time, money and bodies -a notion which is predicated upon the idea that men are entitled to all and only that which they produce, themselves -and that moral obligations (especially those of solidarity to otherS) go no further than individuals freely submit themselves, of their own volition, to those obligations. So, men are free to be as self interested or not as they determine is in their self interest -and thus Libertarianism is narcissism codified into political philosophy.

It is my contention, and, I think also the central idea of Modern Liberalism, that freedom does not exist in divergent social and economic spheres -and, even if it did, to the extent that the value that men create is created by others, within the context of an eminent social, political and economic order -especially a Western liberal-democratic one- that the obligations we have to one another are determined by legislatures who make laws consistent with moral obligations to one another recognized by the society in which they govern. So, while some may not agree with the individual policies that legislatures create, in that any man lives in a society with an eminent social, economic and political order man is always already obliged to the society in which he lives because he is a member. He is free to leave, but if he stays, he agrees to play by that society's rules -and first among those rules is the recognition of his duty as a citizen. Duty, though, is the other side of liberty.

While liberty and the protection of individual rights are values and principles that both libertarians and Liberals agree are indispensable to any just society, Libertarians shirk duty because duty is inconsistent -and, more often than not at the expense of- with self interest, and it is in the moment that citizens shirk their duty in favor of their individual self interest that society itself looses its foundation because unless taxes are paid, the common defense provided for and the measures to ensure a civilized society are provided for -these are the things of duty- there is no society, there is no order (economic, social, political or otherwise).

Likewise, on the "rights" aspect of "freedom" while Libertarians are more than apt to lambast taxation as "theft" -if taxation is theft because taxation is compulsory, coerced, and therefore unjust. But, if that is the case, then all measures necessary to provide for the common defense, and ensure social, political, legal and economic order (i.e. make civilized society possible) cannot be just -and society itself becomes no more than something that is always already at the expense of individual rights -while, at the same time, libertarians claim that just government exists only when government protects (especially negative) rights. So, government, doing what government is supposed to do is both just and unjust for the same reason. Obviously, that's nonsense... but that's Libertarianism.

Liberals, rather, would agree that while just government is purposed for the protection of individual rights, in order to make possible the protection of rights enjoyed by citizens, citizens must pay in taxes what is necessary to do all the things that the Founding Fathers laid out in our Constitution's preamble. But, what those ideals translate to changes over time -and does so in policy, which is set by a legislature of citizen's choosing. So, if citizens want something, they elect representatives to advocate for what they think ought to be. If citizens are unsatisfied, they may elect new representatives to the same end. But, what the representatives decide -whether it is accepted universally or not- is law within a series of parameters. That is the foundation of American government: the idea that the majority rules, but it may not alienate on the minority's rights. Those "rights" however, are not abstract notions of "freedom from coercion" -but what is recognized by our constitution. Here's a hint: freedom from coercion in any form does not exist in the constitution.

Ideally, having been entrusted with freedom, citizens would of their own volition do their duty to their country -but what of those who do not recognize that their duty ever existed? While libertarians may not philosophically acknowledge the other side of liberty, that does not mean that they are not bound by obligations to their country -but if they have the freedom to shirk that obligation then the very foundation of Western Liberal Democratic government is eroded to the extent that men fail to render unto the People (i.e. Washington) what is the People's (i.e. Washington's).

Likewise, if the people's elected representatives decide that health care ought to be underwritten by the federal government, then it is so. That is how government works, because Washington's decision to use federal money to provide a basis for health care to Americans is literally no more than a tax -and as a tax, something that the the government is entitled to collect on behalf of the people -whether all people agree with that or not.

Some of us have the intellectual capacity to recognize both the moral imperative and the practical utility (the UNIVERSAL practical utility) of universal health care, but others want to make arguments against it that take their basis in individual's rights not to be coerced to provide for others -the irony in that being that being a member of a society like ours means that you submit to a certain political order, and in that you submit de facto, the government's requiring you to pay a tax cannot be an act of coercion because your submission was prior to your being coerced whether you individually choose to recognize that you submitted or not. The only way not to submit is not to be a member of society, meaning not to be a citizen or to reside within an area subject to control by a state.

It should be obvious by now that I am not a libertarian. I'll accept the freedoms that libertarians call "social freedoms" but scoff at the idea freedom of any kind exists without minimally adequate economic means. The two do not, and cannot occupy divergent spheres because in the absence of minimally adequate economic resources there are no social freedoms and in the absence of social freedoms there can no economic liberty. So, real liberty (the thing that both libertarians and liberals both agree is so important) exists if and only if people have both economic and social freedom -and to determine how that is translated into policy is the function of legislatures elected by, of, and for the people whether all submit to an outcome or not. Old guard (All Bush 43 and pre Bush 43) Republicans understand this. Democrats understand this. And that is the reason that Libertarians will never have a meaningful shot at taking the place of either party. The only difference between the RNC and DNC to that end is what constitutes "minimally adequate" and what degree, therefore, the government should be active in facilitating that end.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2013 1:10:57 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/25/2013 4:52:08 PM, InvictusManeo wrote:
I had a slow turning over to libertarianism early last year, after having several heated discussions about it with my online friends. I thought it to be a ridiculous and frankly immoral position to hold at first but my opinions changed when I considered a state of society - and mankind at large - whereby use of force and violence to placate the population was not the norm, and where people could live without this threat looming over their heads.

That is one of the most ridiculous justifications for being a Libertarian I have ever read. At least have the decency to state that government always already exists at the expense of individual freedom, and therefore can only be justified to the extent that it is necessary to
protect individual rights from additional encroachment beyond that which is unavoidable from the protection of rights. I mean really, if you want to call yourself a libertarian, at least UNDERSTAND what libertarianism IS and WHY it IS what it is.

It feels wrong to me to force individuals to provide for others, under the threat of violence. I would prefer to believe that humanity were capable (and willing) to provide for others out of a genuine desire, and of their own volition, rather than doing so out of obligation. That obligation removes much of what I would like to hope for in humans, which is the ability to empathize and act selflessly in order to help others and in turn, to help themselves.

As a member of any society, you are invariably forced to provide for the common good -meaning that it is required of you that you make certain sacrifices for the benefit of others. Moreover, whenever your actions are individually at the expense of the common good, you are subject to violence or the threat of violence because your actions are at the expense of the common good. So, your actions can only be either neutral with regard to the common good or not at the expense of the common good -and the threat of violence is the only measure by which you are incentivized to not act at the expense of the common good. So, whether you "feel" like it's "wrong" to "force individuals to provide for others" you cannot both sustain society and not force individuals to make sacrifices for the common good -i.e. provide for others. But, that is one of those intellectual problems that libertarians don't seem to grasp -least among them, you.

It's like a multi-choice test paper. A government may be democratic in that it offers up a variety of choices for it's citizens on who to elect, but ultimately, you have to pick one option. There is no choice.

Are you really this ignorant or do you not actually realize that you can write candidates in on ballots?

This is not freedom.

Yes, it is, by definition.

And nor is it freedom when the majority dictate what is 'best' for a given population, when time has shown that the majority are often very, very wrong.

I want you to read the post I made in this thread where I talk about majority rule, and what it means to live in a Western Liberal-Democratic society. Don't let those words confuse you, though. They don't mean Harry Reid-Nancy Pelosi-Obama society. They refer to actual forms of political organization.

There is also too much corruption in government and in big business,

And so, your solution is to give them more freedom to exploit workers and consumers? That's tantamount to saying that a person with lung cancer doesn't have enough cancer and offering them a pack of cigarettes.

and we allow this corruption to continue for some greater good, but by allowing it's continuation we are having a net negative impact on the world.

Corruption is the result of individuals acting in their self interest when they are supposed to act to the end of the common good. Libertinism is the solution to corruption in the same way that a bullet in the head is a cure for a brain tumor. Why? Both stop the problem by killing the host.
Tsar of DDO
InvictusManeo
Posts: 384
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2013 1:27:44 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Oh you again. I'll get round to you later, when I'm not on my phone.

I would guess that a part of you wants to like me, and possibly already does, which is why you take the time to jibe at me in a really specific and thoughtful way.

We both like AnDoctieur, after all, so we must have something in common huh.

At 11/28/2013 1:10:57 AM, YYW wrote:
At 11/25/2013 4:52:08 PM, InvictusManeo wrote:
I had a slow turning over to libertarianism early last year, after having several heated discussions about it with my online friends. I thought it to be a ridiculous and frankly immoral position to hold at first but my opinions changed when I considered a state of society - and mankind at large - whereby use of force and violence to placate the population was not the norm, and where people could live without this threat looming over their heads.

That is one of the most ridiculous justifications for being a Libertarian I have ever read. At least have the decency to state that government always already exists at the expense of individual freedom, and therefore can only be justified to the extent that it is necessary to
protect individual rights from additional encroachment beyond that which is unavoidable from the protection of rights. I mean really, if you want to call yourself a libertarian, at least UNDERSTAND what libertarianism IS and WHY it IS what it is.

It feels wrong to me to force individuals to provide for others, under the threat of violence. I would prefer to believe that humanity were capable (and willing) to provide for others out of a genuine desire, and of their own volition, rather than doing so out of obligation. That obligation removes much of what I would like to hope for in humans, which is the ability to empathize and act selflessly in order to help others and in turn, to help themselves.

As a member of any society, you are invariably forced to provide for the common good -meaning that it is required of you that you make certain sacrifices for the benefit of others. Moreover, whenever your actions are individually at the expense of the common good, you are subject to violence or the threat of violence because your actions are at the expense of the common good. So, your actions can only be either neutral with regard to the common good or not at the expense of the common good -and the threat of violence is the only measure by which you are incentivized to not act at the expense of the common good. So, whether you "feel" like it's "wrong" to "force individuals to provide for others" you cannot both sustain society and not force individuals to make sacrifices for the common good -i.e. provide for others. But, that is one of those intellectual problems that libertarians don't seem to grasp -least among them, you.

It's like a multi-choice test paper. A government may be democratic in that it offers up a variety of choices for it's citizens on who to elect, but ultimately, you have to pick one option. There is no choice.

Are you really this ignorant or do you not actually realize that you can write candidates in on ballots?

This is not freedom.

Yes, it is, by definition.

And nor is it freedom when the majority dictate what is 'best' for a given population, when time has shown that the majority are often very, very wrong.

I want you to read the post I made in this thread where I talk about majority rule, and what it means to live in a Western Liberal-Democratic society. Don't let those words confuse you, though. They don't mean Harry Reid-Nancy Pelosi-Obama society. They refer to actual forms of political organization.

There is also too much corruption in government and in big business,

And so, your solution is to give them more freedom to exploit workers and consumers? That's tantamount to saying that a person with lung cancer doesn't have enough cancer and offering them a pack of cigarettes.

and we allow this corruption to continue for some greater good, but by allowing it's continuation we are having a net negative impact on the world.

Corruption is the result of individuals acting in their self interest when they are supposed to act to the end of the common good. Libertinism is the solution to corruption in the same way that a bullet in the head is a cure for a brain tumor. Why? Both stop the problem by killing the host.
YYW
Posts: 36,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2013 1:32:28 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/28/2013 1:27:44 AM, InvictusManeo wrote:
Oh you again. I'll get round to you later, when I'm not on my phone.

I would guess that a part of you wants to like me, and possibly already does, which is why you take the time to jibe at me in a really specific and thoughtful way.

I do want to like you, but the reason that I wrote what I did is because of the extent to which yours is a common sentiment -not because of any sentiment I personally hold.

We both like AnDoctieur, after all, so we must have something in common huh.

At 11/28/2013 1:10:57 AM, YYW wrote:
At 11/25/2013 4:52:08 PM, InvictusManeo wrote:
I had a slow turning over to libertarianism early last year, after having several heated discussions about it with my online friends. I thought it to be a ridiculous and frankly immoral position to hold at first but my opinions changed when I considered a state of society - and mankind at large - whereby use of force and violence to placate the population was not the norm, and where people could live without this threat looming over their heads.

That is one of the most ridiculous justifications for being a Libertarian I have ever read. At least have the decency to state that government always already exists at the expense of individual freedom, and therefore can only be justified to the extent that it is necessary to
protect individual rights from additional encroachment beyond that which is unavoidable from the protection of rights. I mean really, if you want to call yourself a libertarian, at least UNDERSTAND what libertarianism IS and WHY it IS what it is.

It feels wrong to me to force individuals to provide for others, under the threat of violence. I would prefer to believe that humanity were capable (and willing) to provide for others out of a genuine desire, and of their own volition, rather than doing so out of obligation. That obligation removes much of what I would like to hope for in humans, which is the ability to empathize and act selflessly in order to help others and in turn, to help themselves.

As a member of any society, you are invariably forced to provide for the common good -meaning that it is required of you that you make certain sacrifices for the benefit of others. Moreover, whenever your actions are individually at the expense of the common good, you are subject to violence or the threat of violence because your actions are at the expense of the common good. So, your actions can only be either neutral with regard to the common good or not at the expense of the common good -and the threat of violence is the only measure by which you are incentivized to not act at the expense of the common good. So, whether you "feel" like it's "wrong" to "force individuals to provide for others" you cannot both sustain society and not force individuals to make sacrifices for the common good -i.e. provide for others. But, that is one of those intellectual problems that libertarians don't seem to grasp -least among them, you.

It's like a multi-choice test paper. A government may be democratic in that it offers up a variety of choices for it's citizens on who to elect, but ultimately, you have to pick one option. There is no choice.

Are you really this ignorant or do you not actually realize that you can write candidates in on ballots?

This is not freedom.

Yes, it is, by definition.

And nor is it freedom when the majority dictate what is 'best' for a given population, when time has shown that the majority are often very, very wrong.

I want you to read the post I made in this thread where I talk about majority rule, and what it means to live in a Western Liberal-Democratic society. Don't let those words confuse you, though. They don't mean Harry Reid-Nancy Pelosi-Obama society. They refer to actual forms of political organization.

There is also too much corruption in government and in big business,

And so, your solution is to give them more freedom to exploit workers and consumers? That's tantamount to saying that a person with lung cancer doesn't have enough cancer and offering them a pack of cigarettes.

and we allow this corruption to continue for some greater good, but by allowing it's continuation we are having a net negative impact on the world.

Corruption is the result of individuals acting in their self interest when they are supposed to act to the end of the common good. Libertinism is the solution to corruption in the same way that a bullet in the head is a cure for a brain tumor. Why? Both stop the problem by killing the host.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2013 1:42:27 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/28/2013 12:56:19 AM, YYW wrote:
Libertarianism exists on the premise that economic freedom is prior to social freedom, and that economic freedom and social freedom exist in different spheres. But, given that freedom is the ability to make choices, and the range of choices that any one of us is necessarily limited by both economic and social circumstances -often, circumstances beyond our control- it must then also be the case that insofar as both economic choices and social choices are limited by circumstance, then freedom is constrained to the extent that choices are limited. The point of libertarianism is, at least in theory, to give individuals the freedom to do what they like with their time, money and bodies -a notion which is predicated upon the idea that men are entitled to all and only that which they produce, themselves -and that moral obligations (especially those of solidarity to otherS) go no further than individuals freely submit themselves, of their own volition, to those obligations. So, men are free to be as self interested or not as they determine is in their self interest -and thus Libertarianism is narcissism codified into political philosophy.

It is my contention, and, I think also the central idea of Modern Liberalism, that freedom does not exist in divergent social and economic spheres -and, even if it did, to the extent that the value that men create is created by others, within the context of an eminent social, political and economic order -especially a Western liberal-democratic one- that the obligations we have to one another are determined by legislatures who make laws consistent with moral obligations to one another recognized by the society in which they govern. So, while some may not agree with the individual policies that legislatures create, in that any man lives in a society with an eminent social, economic and political order man is always already obliged to the society in which he lives because he is a member. He is free to leave, but if he stays, he agrees to play by that society's rules -and first among those rules is the recognition of his duty as a citizen. Duty, though, is the other side of liberty.

While liberty and the protection of individual rights are values and principles that both libertarians and Liberals agree are indispensable to any just society, Libertarians shirk duty because duty is inconsistent -and, more often than not at the expense of- with self interest, and it is in the moment that citizens shirk their duty in favor of their individual self interest that society itself looses its foundation because unless taxes are paid, the common defense provided for and the measures to ensure a civilized society are provided for -these are the things of duty- there is no society, there is no order (economic, social, political or otherwise).

Likewise, on the "rights" aspect of "freedom" while Libertarians are more than apt to lambast taxation as "theft" -if taxation is theft because taxation is compulsory, coerced, and therefore unjust. But, if that is the case, then all measures necessary to provide for the common defense, and ensure social, political, legal and economic order (i.e. make civilized society possible) cannot be just -and society itself becomes no more than something that is always already at the expense of individual rights -while, at the same time, libertarians claim that just government exists only when government protects (especially negative) rights. So, government, doing what government is supposed to do is both just and unjust for the same reason. Obviously, that's nonsense... but that's Libertarianism.

Liberals, rather, would agree that while just government is purposed for the protection of individual rights, in order to make possible the protection of rights enjoyed by citizens, citizens must pay in taxes what is necessary to do all the things that the Founding Fathers laid out in our Constitution's preamble. But, what those ideals translate to changes over time -and does so in policy, which is set by a legislature of citizen's choosing. So, if citizens want something, they elect representatives to advocate for what they think ought to be. If citizens are unsatisfied, they may elect new representatives to the same end. But, what the representatives decide -whether it is accepted universally or not- is law within a series of parameters. That is the foundation of American government: the idea that the majority rules, but it may not alienate on the minority's rights. Those "rights" however, are not abstract notions of "freedom from coercion" -but what is recognized by our constitution. Here's a hint: freedom from coercion in any form does not exist in the constitution.

Ideally, having been entrusted with freedom, citizens would of their own volition do their duty to their country -but what of those who do not recognize that their duty ever existed? While libertarians may not philosophically acknowledge the other side of liberty, that does not mean that they are not bound by obligations to their country -but if they have the freedom to shirk that obligation then the very foundation of Western Liberal Democratic government is eroded to the extent that men fail to render unto the People (i.e. Washington) what is the People's (i.e. Washington's).

Likewise, if the people's elected representatives decide that health care ought to be underwritten by the federal government, then it is so. That is how government works, because Washington's decision to use federal money to provide a basis for health care to Americans is literally no more than a tax -and as a tax, something that the the government is entitled to collect on behalf of the people -whether all people agree with that or not.

Some of us have the intellectual capacity to recognize both the moral imperative and the practical utility (the UNIVERSAL practical utility) of universal health care, but others want to make arguments against it that take their basis in individual's rights not to be coerced to provide for others -the irony in that being that being a member of a society like ours means that you submit to a certain political order, and in that you submit de facto, the government's requiring you to pay a tax cannot be an act of coercion because your submission was prior to your being coerced whether you individually choose to recognize that you submitted or not. The only way not to submit is not to be a member of society, meaning not to be a citizen or to reside within an area subject to control by a state.

It should be obvious by now that I am not a libertarian. I'll accept the freedoms that libertarians call "social freedoms" but scoff at the idea freedom of any kind exists without minimally adequate economic means. The two do not, and cannot occupy divergent spheres because in the absence of minimally adequate economic resources there are no social freedoms and in the absence of social freedoms there can no economic liberty. So, real liberty (the thing that both libertarians and liberals both agree is so important) exists if and only if people have both economic and social freedom -and to determine how that is translated into policy is the function of legislatures elected by, of, and for the people whether all submit to an outcome or not. Old guard (All Bush 43 and pre Bush 43) Republicans understand this. Democrats understand this. And that is the reason that Libertarians will never have a meaningful shot at taking the place of either party. The only difference between the RNC and DNC to that end is what constitutes "minimally adequate" and what degree, therefore, the government should be active in facilitating that end.

Just getting this back into view....
Tsar of DDO
Ayyuba
Posts: 218
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2013 2:15:57 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/28/2013 12:56:19 AM, YYW wrote:
Libertarianism exists on the premise that economic freedom is prior to social freedom, and that economic freedom and social freedom exist in different spheres. But, given that freedom is the ability to make choices, and the range of choices that any one of us is necessarily limited by both economic and social circumstances -often, circumstances beyond our control- it must then also be the case that insofar as both economic choices and social choices are limited by circumstance, then freedom is constrained to the extent that choices are limited. The point of libertarianism is, at least in theory, to give individuals the freedom to do what they like with their time, money and bodies -a notion which is predicated upon the idea that men are entitled to all and only that which they produce, themselves -and that moral obligations (especially those of solidarity to otherS) go no further than individuals freely submit themselves, of their own volition, to those obligations. So, men are free to be as self interested or not as they determine is in their self interest -and thus Libertarianism is narcissism codified into political philosophy.

It is my contention, and, I think also the central idea of Modern Liberalism, that freedom does not exist in divergent social and economic spheres -and, even if it did, to the extent that the value that men create is created by others, within the context of an eminent social, political and economic order -especially a Western liberal-democratic one- that the obligations we have to one another are determined by legislatures who make laws consistent with moral obligations to one another recognized by the society in which they govern. So, while some may not agree with the individual policies that legislatures create, in that any man lives in a society with an eminent social, economic and political order man is always already obliged to the society in which he lives because he is a member. He is free to leave, but if he stays, he agrees to play by that society's rules -and first among those rules is the recognition of his duty as a citizen. Duty, though, is the other side of liberty.

While liberty and the protection of individual rights are values and principles that both libertarians and Liberals agree are indispensable to any just society, Libertarians shirk duty because duty is inconsistent -and, more often than not at the expense of- with self interest, and it is in the moment that citizens shirk their duty in favor of their individual self interest that society itself looses its foundation because unless taxes are paid, the common defense provided for and the measures to ensure a civilized society are provided for -these are the things of duty- there is no society, there is no order (economic, social, political or otherwise).

Likewise, on the "rights" aspect of "freedom" while Libertarians are more than apt to lambast taxation as "theft" -if taxation is theft because taxation is compulsory, coerced, and therefore unjust. But, if that is the case, then all measures necessary to provide for the common defense, and ensure social, political, legal and economic order (i.e. make civilized society possible) cannot be just -and society itself becomes no more than something that is always already at the expense of individual rights -while, at the same time, libertarians claim that just government exists only when government protects (especially negative) rights. So, government, doing what government is supposed to do is both just and unjust for the same reason. Obviously, that's nonsense... but that's Libertarianism.

Liberals, rather, would agree that while just government is purposed for the protection of individual rights, in order to make possible the protection of rights enjoyed by citizens, citizens must pay in taxes what is necessary to do all the things that the Founding Fathers laid out in our Constitution's preamble. But, what those ideals translate to changes over time -and does so in policy, which is set by a legislature of citizen's choosing. So, if citizens want something, they elect representatives to advocate for what they think ought to be. If citizens are unsatisfied, they may elect new representatives to the same end. But, what the representatives decide -whether it is accepted universally or not- is law within a series of parameters. That is the foundation of American government: the idea that the majority rules, but it may not alienate on the minority's rights. Those "rights" however, are not abstract notions of "freedom from coercion" -but what is recognized by our constitution. Here's a hint: freedom from coercion in any form does not exist in the constitution.

Ideally, having been entrusted with freedom, citizens would of their own volition do their duty to their country -but what of those who do not recognize that their duty ever existed? While libertarians may not philosophically acknowledge the other side of liberty, that does not mean that they are not bound by obligations to their country -but if they have the freedom to shirk that obligation then the very foundation of Western Liberal Democratic government is eroded to the extent that men fail to render unto the People (i.e. Washington) what is the People's (i.e. Washington's).

Likewise, if the people's elected representatives decide that health care ought to be underwritten by the federal government, then it is so. That is how government works, because Washington's decision to use federal money to provide a basis for health care to Americans is literally no more than a tax -and as a tax, something that the the government is entitled to collect on behalf of the people -whether all people agree with that or not.

Some of us have the intellectual capacity to recognize both the moral imperative and the practical utility (the UNIVERSAL practical utility) of universal health care, but others want to make arguments against it that take their basis in individual's rights not to be coerced to provide for others -the irony in that being that being a member of a society like ours means that you submit to a certain political order, and in that you submit de facto, the government's requiring you to pay a tax cannot be an act of coercion because your submission was prior to your being coerced whether you individually choose to recognize that you submitted or not. The only way not to submit is not to be a member of society, meaning not to be a citizen or to reside within an area subject to control by a state.

It should be obvious by now that I am not a libertarian. I'll accept the freedoms that libertarians call "social freedoms" but scoff at the idea freedom of any kind exists without minimally adequate economic means. The two do not, and cannot occupy divergent spheres because in the absence of minimally adequate economic resources there are no social freedoms and in the absence of social freedoms there can no economic liberty. So, real liberty (the thing that both libertarians and liberals both agree is so important) exists if and only if people have both economic and social freedom -and to determine how that is translated into policy is the function of legislatures elected by, of, and for the people whether all submit to an outcome or not. Old guard (All Bush 43 and pre Bush 43) Republicans understand this. Democrats understand this. And that is the reason that Libertarians will never have a meaningful shot at taking the place of either party. The only difference between the RNC and DNC to that end is what constitutes "minimally adequate" and what degree, therefore, the government should be active in facilitating that end.

Agreed. I do think you may have anarchists confused with libertarians though. I am a minarchist.
So you wanna know all about Sitara, huh? Knowledge is power, and you want knowledge of me? With great power comes great responsibility, so I hope you understand what you're getting yourself into. Don't say I didn't warn you.
http://www.writerscafe.org...
http://www.infowars.com...
http://www.condomdepot.com...
http://www.fundabortionnow.org...
"Anyone who knows anything about the presidency knows that liberalism and conservatism have jack sh*t to do with being president." -Im
Ayyuba
Posts: 218
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2013 2:19:15 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/27/2013 12:16:42 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
It doesn't seem fair that someone can limit the opportunities of a person based solely on their racial heritage.
You're not limiting anything but the use of your own property. They didn't have that opportunity before you came along and then you took it.

That is racist. That person did not take anything. It is racist to blame all white people for what happened to the Indians. I will not apologize for being white, I will not apologize for what my anscesters did and you know why? It is not my fault. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
So you wanna know all about Sitara, huh? Knowledge is power, and you want knowledge of me? With great power comes great responsibility, so I hope you understand what you're getting yourself into. Don't say I didn't warn you.
http://www.writerscafe.org...
http://www.infowars.com...
http://www.condomdepot.com...
http://www.fundabortionnow.org...
"Anyone who knows anything about the presidency knows that liberalism and conservatism have jack sh*t to do with being president." -Im
Ayyuba
Posts: 218
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2013 2:34:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/25/2013 6:20:10 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
At 11/25/2013 6:06:40 PM, thett3 wrote:
Since when are you libertarian?

Since she decided, without much apparent reason, to change many of her core views and call herself a libertarian.

Judge not lest you be judged. You don't know me. You don't know how long I was thinking about changing. It is really not your place to make value judgements on me because you are not God and you never will be. And how dare you say I had no reason. I had plenty of reason. It is really none of your business what i believe and why, but since you won't shut up and you think you are God: I was realizing more and more how many of the beliefs that I already had were not consistant with the progressive left. My belief that mentally stable people should have no limits on gun ownership is one example. I still have liberal beliefs. Oh, and when you become God, let me know. Then you will have the right to judge other people. Oh, and over taxation. A major problem with the progressive left. Both sides though are about big government, and I bet this democrat versus Republican thing is complete crap and they are buddy buddy behind the scenes. One of the techniques of dominating a country is to keep the people misinformed and divided. I was never in full agreement with the progressive left on another issue: progressive taxation. That is complete crap. The government has no right to dictate how much money people can make as long as there is no fraud. I was cyber jumped by several Dems for promoting flat taxation. This whole crap game of group think mentality is stupid. I will believe as a wish, and people who do not like it are free to kiss my bottom. I also never saw Dems criticising the Fed. That is mostly libertarians and some conservatives. I also support someone's right to light up a joint once and a will as long as their habit does not harm anyone else. I oppose National ID laws. I support voter ID laws. In reality I was some sort of hybrid between a progressive lib and a libertarian. I am now a minarchist libertarian. Basically, my motto on the government: The role of the government is by the people and for the people, and should be restricted to preserving life and safety only. Otherwise, the gov can f**k off. So you are quite innaccurate in saying that I had no reason to change. If I belief does not work for me, I ditch it or modify it. I will believe what is right for me, and the world is free to kiss my bottom if that is a problem. Oh, and go Ron Paul.
So you wanna know all about Sitara, huh? Knowledge is power, and you want knowledge of me? With great power comes great responsibility, so I hope you understand what you're getting yourself into. Don't say I didn't warn you.
http://www.writerscafe.org...
http://www.infowars.com...
http://www.condomdepot.com...
http://www.fundabortionnow.org...
"Anyone who knows anything about the presidency knows that liberalism and conservatism have jack sh*t to do with being president." -Im
YYW
Posts: 36,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2013 3:06:45 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/28/2013 2:15:57 AM, Ayyuba wrote:
At 11/28/2013 12:56:19 AM, YYW wrote:
Libertarianism exists on the premise that economic freedom is prior to social freedom, and that economic freedom and social freedom exist in different spheres. But, given that freedom is the ability to make choices, and the range of choices that any one of us is necessarily limited by both economic and social circumstances -often, circumstances beyond our control- it must then also be the case that insofar as both economic choices and social choices are limited by circumstance, then freedom is constrained to the extent that choices are limited. The point of libertarianism is, at least in theory, to give individuals the freedom to do what they like with their time, money and bodies -a notion which is predicated upon the idea that men are entitled to all and only that which they produce, themselves -and that moral obligations (especially those of solidarity to otherS) go no further than individuals freely submit themselves, of their own volition, to those obligations. So, men are free to be as self interested or not as they determine is in their self interest -and thus Libertarianism is narcissism codified into political philosophy.

It is my contention, and, I think also the central idea of Modern Liberalism, that freedom does not exist in divergent social and economic spheres -and, even if it did, to the extent that the value that men create is created by others, within the context of an eminent social, political and economic order -especially a Western liberal-democratic one- that the obligations we have to one another are determined by legislatures who make laws consistent with moral obligations to one another recognized by the society in which they govern. So, while some may not agree with the individual policies that legislatures create, in that any man lives in a society with an eminent social, economic and political order man is always already obliged to the society in which he lives because he is a member. He is free to leave, but if he stays, he agrees to play by that society's rules -and first among those rules is the recognition of his duty as a citizen. Duty, though, is the other side of liberty.

While liberty and the protection of individual rights are values and principles that both libertarians and Liberals agree are indispensable to any just society, Libertarians shirk duty because duty is inconsistent -and, more often than not at the expense of- with self interest, and it is in the moment that citizens shirk their duty in favor of their individual self interest that society itself looses its foundation because unless taxes are paid, the common defense provided for and the measures to ensure a civilized society are provided for -these are the things of duty- there is no society, there is no order (economic, social, political or otherwise).

Likewise, on the "rights" aspect of "freedom" while Libertarians are more than apt to lambast taxation as "theft" -if taxation is theft because taxation is compulsory, coerced, and therefore unjust. But, if that is the case, then all measures necessary to provide for the common defense, and ensure social, political, legal and economic order (i.e. make civilized society possible) cannot be just -and society itself becomes no more than something that is always already at the expense of individual rights -while, at the same time, libertarians claim that just government exists only when government protects (especially negative) rights. So, government, doing what government is supposed to do is both just and unjust for the same reason. Obviously, that's nonsense... but that's Libertarianism.

Liberals, rather, would agree that while just government is purposed for the protection of individual rights, in order to make possible the protection of rights enjoyed by citizens, citizens must pay in taxes what is necessary to do all the things that the Founding Fathers laid out in our Constitution's preamble. But, what those ideals translate to changes over time -and does so in policy, which is set by a legislature of citizen's choosing. So, if citizens want something, they elect representatives to advocate for what they think ought to be. If citizens are unsatisfied, they may elect new representatives to the same end. But, what the representatives decide -whether it is accepted universally or not- is law within a series of parameters. That is the foundation of American government: the idea that the majority rules, but it may not alienate on the minority's rights. Those "rights" however, are not abstract notions of "freedom from coercion" -but what is recognized by our constitution. Here's a hint: freedom from coercion in any form does not exist in the constitution.

Ideally, having been entrusted with freedom, citizens would of their own volition do their duty to their country -but what of those who do not recognize that their duty ever existed? While libertarians may not philosophically acknowledge the other side of liberty, that does not mean that they are not bound by obligations to their country -but if they have the freedom to shirk that obligation then the very foundation of Western Liberal Democratic government is eroded to the extent that men fail to render unto the People (i.e. Washington) what is the People's (i.e. Washington's).

Likewise, if the people's elected representatives decide that health care ought to be underwritten by the federal government, then it is so. That is how government works, because Washington's decision to use federal money to provide a basis for health care to Americans is literally no more than a tax -and as a tax, something that the the government is entitled to collect on behalf of the people -whether all people agree with that or not.

Some of us have the intellectual capacity to recognize both the moral imperative and the practical utility (the UNIVERSAL practical utility) of universal health care, but others want to make arguments against it that take their basis in individual's rights not to be coerced to provide for others -the irony in that being that being a member of a society like ours means that you submit to a certain political order, and in that you submit de facto, the government's requiring you to pay a tax cannot be an act of coercion because your submission was prior to your being coerced whether you individually choose to recognize that you submitted or not. The only way not to submit is not to be a member of society, meaning not to be a citizen or to reside within an area subject to control by a state.

It should be obvious by now that I am not a libertarian. I'll accept the freedoms that libertarians call "social freedoms" but scoff at the idea freedom of any kind exists without minimally adequate economic means. The two do not, and cannot occupy divergent spheres because in the absence of minimally adequate economic resources there are no social freedoms and in the absence of social freedoms there can no economic liberty. So, real liberty (the thing that both libertarians and liberals both agree is so important) exists if and only if people have both economic and social freedom -and to determine how that is translated into policy is the function of legislatures elected by, of, and for the people whether all submit to an outcome or not. Old guard (All Bush 43 and pre Bush 43) Republicans understand this. Democrats understand this. And that is the reason that Libertarians will never have a meaningful shot at taking the place of either party. The only difference between the RNC and DNC to that end is what constitutes "minimally adequate" and what degree, therefore, the government should be active in facilitating that end.

Agreed. I do think you may have anarchists confused with libertarians though.

Not at all.

I am a minarchist.

lol, alright then
Tsar of DDO
Sam_Hannagan
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2013 6:20:03 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Libertarian I guess is probably where I fit, but I have always considered myself an Independent. Personally I hate political parties, their interests are served long before that of the American People.

That said I also was not born nor have I ever lived in the US, I had the misfortune of being born in New Zealand, but I consider myself an American in my heart and soul.

I made a gradual shift, if you can count those internet quiz's then 10 years ago apparently I was a fascist, but I think I just wanted everything my own. I drifted around not really fitting anywhere on the political spectrum.

My first leanings coming doing some research on the New Zealand Constitution, an article opened my eyes a bit and I carried a great passion for Constitutional Law which I still carry to this day. This puts me at odds with our Government though as I have not seen a shred of evidence that our Constitution is valid. Unlike the US which has a written constitution, New Zealands came from Britain whilst we were still a colony and then somehow magically kept it's authority in spite of International Law.

In 08 I admit I supported Obama. Not so much for his platform but for his message. "Hope" & "Change", well we all know what a sham that was. Over the next four years one of my Republican friend introduced (not literally, though I wish it was) to Dr Ron Paul. I listened to what he said, I read what I could, and he blew my mind. Ron Paul was the smartest politician I have ever seen, ever heard. I don't agree with everything he says. But I know he stands for what is most important... I feel everything else is secondary to Liberty.

I wish he would run in 2016, I feel like anyone else, would be a major step down.
"Any society whose first option is to legislate away it's problems, is a failure of a society" - Me
InvictusManeo
Posts: 384
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2013 7:26:46 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/28/2013 1:10:57 AM, YYW wrote:
That is one of the most ridiculous justifications for being a Libertarian I have ever read. At least have the decency to state that government always already exists at the expense of individual freedom, and therefore can only be justified to the extent that it is necessary to protect individual rights from additional encroachment beyond that which is unavoidable from the protection of rights. I mean really, if you want to call yourself a libertarian, at least UNDERSTAND what libertarianism IS and WHY it IS what it is.

You don't need governments to uphold the rights of others, though. Governments as they exist today aren't for protecting rights. Protecting individual freedoms is so low on their agenda, that it's not even funny.

If you think my reasons for being libertarian are ridiculous, then you must not have heard of the NAP, surely.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

What reasons for being libertarian have you heard before? "They dun take my money, de government dun took er jerbs, I want ma guns!"?

As a member of any society, you are invariably forced to provide for the common good -meaning that it is required of you that you make certain sacrifices for the benefit of others.

No, that is not a requirement of belonging in a society. It is the ideal, but in a free society, one might live entirely selfishly if that is their wish. The fact that a free society would allow this to happen, does not mean I encourage that behaviour personally, however.

Moreover, whenever your actions are individually at the expense of the common good, you are subject to violence or the threat of violence because your actions are at the expense of the common good. So, your actions can only be either neutral with regard to the common good or not at the expense of the common good -and the threat of violence is the only measure by which you are incentivized to not act at the expense of the common good. So, whether you "feel" like it's "wrong" to "force individuals to provide for others" you cannot both sustain society and not force individuals to make sacrifices for the common good -i.e. provide for others. But, that is one of those intellectual problems that libertarians don't seem to grasp -least among them, you.

Violence as an incentive to do good? Huh, here I was thinking that people would just do good for others because, well, they want to. Because it's the right thing to do, and everyone benefits from helping their fellow man. Your rationale is not so dissimilar from theists who believe in God out of a deep fear for eternal damnation in hell.

Humans don't need a Big Brother to want to do well by others, even though we might think we do.

If your logic on this matter were correct, and that violence was an effective deterrent for those who'd do wrong for the 'greater good', then states where capitol punishment were legal would have no murders, right? Oh wait, yeah, it doesn't work like that.

There's punishing those who violate the rights of others, and then there's punishing innocent people who don't want to pay taxes or enlist in the army.

Are you really this ignorant or do you not actually realize that you can write candidates in on ballots?

lol, lrn2similes. My point still stands. In every kind of democratic election, majority parties always win. When's the last time a standalone candidate won a presidential election by landslide?

Yes, it is, by definition.

Your definition of freedom is lame.

I want you to read the post I made in this thread where I talk about majority rule, and what it means to live in a Western Liberal-Democratic society. Don't let those words confuse you, though. They don't mean Harry Reid-Nancy Pelosi-Obama society. They refer to actual forms of political organization.

Oh great, another comedian.

And so, your solution is to give them more freedom to exploit workers and consumers? That's tantamount to saying that a person with lung cancer doesn't have enough cancer and offering them a pack of cigarettes.

Yeah, and I'm the one who doesn't know what I am talking about. Governments and big business are bed-fellows. Big business/big pharma/big anything has only ever grown so large due to government intervention and regulation. De-regulation doesn't translate to greater propensity for exploitation. Look at Sweden, would you kindly.

Corruption is the result of individuals acting in their self interest when they are supposed to act to the end of the common good. Libertinism is the solution to corruption in the same way that a bullet in the head is a cure for a brain tumor. Why? Both stop the problem by killing the host.

And what I'm saying is, governments do not act for the common good. We don't need governments to sustain a society, and in fact governments make the problem of corruption a whole lot worse. Just look into it, dude. Research how many big businesses are so pro-government. They have a lecherous relationship whereby big businesses lobby to governments for tighter regulation, which crushes smaller business and levels the competitive market in their favour. Libertarianism isn't some utopian ideal; it doesn't promise to solve all the words problems. All it would do is remove the current problem we have.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2013 7:59:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
The state will always reform. It's happened right through history, powerful nations turning anarchistic and being overrun by less powerful but more organised nations, only ever setting things back. It is insensible to apply the NAP to competition. The two are not compatible, it's but a pipe dream to think them so. Remember the city of Qarth in GoT, Invictus? That's what you're dealing with.

Morality will grow with the people of a country - or the world - coming together. Social security, welfare, etc. are all moral and the taxes that sustain these things are no more a crime than private property. I mean, think about it: to lock someone out isn't really differentiable from locking someone in, neither "out" nor "in" to detail circumstance. That's what you're dealing with.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2013 8:28:36 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
When government and big business are bed-fellows it makes very little sense to chastise but the one side. To abolish government is to abolish the side which provides protection for the needy, and it's done in thinking that the other side, a side equally guilty, will take over this burden. It is insensible. Be anti-war or anti-corruption or whatever, but to throw the welfare of needy people to the wind is just insensible, emotional rather than rational.