Total Posts:83|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Libetairian?

Lukas
Posts: 110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2010 3:38:18 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
I have noticed that alot of people on here define themselves as Libertarian. This is not really a movement or ideology that I fully understand as it is not very prevalent in the UK. Of course I understand the concept of liberty, free will and all that good stuff but what does it actually mean to be a 'Libertarian'? I would really appreciate your responses so as to gain a better picture of this. Thanks
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2010 3:45:42 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/17/2010 3:38:18 AM, Lukas wrote:
I have noticed that alot of people on here define themselves as Libertarian. This is not really a movement or ideology that I fully understand as it is not very prevalent in the UK. Of course I understand the concept of liberty, free will and all that good stuff but what does it actually mean to be a 'Libertarian'? I would really appreciate your responses so as to gain a better picture of this. Thanks

an easy way to think about it is: Fiscally conservative + Liberal on personal issues

I suppose you could also think of it as having the Ideal government only get involved in people's lives when they have disputes with one another....

Now I myself am more libertarian than anything else, but my Humanity does demand some limited (basic needs) social safety net.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Lukas
Posts: 110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2010 4:15:38 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/17/2010 3:45:42 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 2/17/2010 3:38:18 AM, Lukas wrote:
I have noticed that alot of people on here define themselves as Libertarian. This is not really a movement or ideology that I fully understand as it is not very prevalent in the UK. Of course I understand the concept of liberty, free will and all that good stuff but what does it actually mean to be a 'Libertarian'? I would really appreciate your responses so as to gain a better picture of this. Thanks

an easy way to think about it is: Fiscally conservative + Liberal on personal issues

I suppose you could also think of it as having the Ideal government only get involved in people's lives when they have disputes with one another....

Now I myself am more libertarian than anything else, but my Humanity does demand some limited (basic needs) social safety net.

Interesting, thanks for the response. So how does a libertarian system address the issue of social and financial inequality? What would its response be to say, inherited wealth? Would it allow a massive gulf between have and have not to arise and then only intervene at times of conflict? Its not a criticism, I'm just interested to know. I very much admire the stand on liberal ideals on personal issues but im just not sure about the rest of it.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2010 4:50:00 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/17/2010 4:15:38 AM, Lukas wrote:

Interesting, thanks for the response. So how does a libertarian system address the issue of
social inequality?
What do you mean?
and financial inequality?
It doesn't.
What would its response be to say, inherited wealth? Would it allow a massive gulf between have and have not to arise and then only intervene at times of conflict?
yes, I'd say Libertarians don't much think it's their business how much money people have, or what they do with their money.
Its not a criticism, I'm just interested to know. I very much admire the stand on liberal ideals on personal issues but im just not sure about the rest of it.

Neither am I, though I think property rights are very important, and think that government control of money is both hugely inefficient and dangerous.

As I said, I'm still for taxing for limited social programs, but not for wealth "redistribution" for it's own sake, or government control of people's money generally.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2010 4:58:31 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
I think Mattrodstrom gave a pretty good synopsis of what libertarian would mean.

Interesting, thanks for the response. So how does a libertarian system address the issue of social and financial inequality? What would its response be to say, inherited wealth? Would it allow a massive gulf between have and have not to arise and then only intervene at times of conflict?

Well as long as the "massive gulf" arises legally, what is the problem? Libertarians strive to maximize personal liberty, therefore limiting wealth through legal measures or government action is against their principles (although I personally and would guess other libertarians see the need for certain regulations such as anti-trust and insider trading laws). But as long as a person's wealth is accumulated legally, neither I or anyone else should have the right to then redistribute that persons wealth.
Lukas
Posts: 110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2010 5:25:51 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/17/2010 4:50:00 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 2/17/2010 4:15:38 AM, Lukas wrote:

social inequality?
What do you mean?
By social inequality I mean the lack of equality brought about by economic/financial inequality such as poor housing and health care.
I'm afraid to say that I think some peoples concept of 'liberty' is more like 'apathy' from some of the comments I have read. I think the problem lies with modern day politics failure to engage with people. The government should be elected by the people and of the people and should be subject to constant scrutiny by the people and ousted by the people when the majority's interests are not met. This is clearly not the case in the world as anyone can see but that doesn't mean we should give up and look after ourselves or collect money and arms to defend ourselves against the government. In order to effect real change we need to get more political not less. In my opinion 'big government' is a good thing, so long as the government is a true representation of the people. I prefer an elected individual who has a responsibility to the people rather than a private individual who has a responsibility to his profits. The more people lose faith in the democratic process, the more tyranny ensues.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2010 6:29:06 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/17/2010 5:25:51 AM, Lukas wrote:
At 2/17/2010 4:50:00 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 2/17/2010 4:15:38 AM, Lukas wrote:

social inequality?
What do you mean?
By social inequality I mean the lack of equality brought about by economic/financial inequality such as poor housing and health care.
So the effects of financial inequality

but I would venture to say that it's not really INequality which most concerns you, but rather the extreme hardship some face b/c of financial insecurity (which may or may not be their own fault).

This concerns me too, and that would be why I would be for limited provision of health care, housing and the like for those in dire need.
(especially children and the like; I think grown men don't need to be provided with housing, they can go make a hobo shelter in the park :)

I'm afraid to say that I think some peoples concept of 'liberty' is more like 'apathy' from some of the comments I have read. I think the problem lies with modern day politics failure to engage with people. The government should be elected by the people and of the people and should be subject to constant scrutiny by the people and ousted by the people when the majority's interests are not met. This is clearly not the case in the world as anyone can see but that doesn't mean we should give up and look after ourselves or collect money and arms to defend ourselves against the government. In order to effect real change we need to get more political not less. In my opinion 'big government' is a good thing, so long as the government is a true representation of the people. I prefer an elected individual who has a responsibility to the people rather than a private individual who has a responsibility to his profits. The more people lose faith in the democratic process, the more tyranny ensues.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2010 7:30:37 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/17/2010 5:25:51 AM, Lukas wrote:

By social inequality I mean the lack of equality brought about by economic/financial inequality such as poor housing and health care.

They don't give a sh-t about it. Libertarians believe in minimal government and minimal taxes (if any). They don't think the government should play a role in anyone's life (so it can't tell them what to do or not to do) and only serve to enforce contracts and ensure that nobody infringes upon another's liberty. They don't believe in government sponsored health care, social security, the FDA or government sponsored programs of any kind. They think wealth inheritance is legit and being born into poor circumstances is unfortunate but irrelevant as far as the government is concerned. They do not feel the government has any responsibility to do anything (because it would mean taking money from perhaps unwilling tax payers which they consider theft). Despite this, many, like Ragnar, support wars overseas even though it would require perhaps unwilling tax payers to fund that too. They don't believe in democracy or using a majority voting system to determine who is elected into office. The ideology is maximum liberty and freedom, including from government. Also, there can obviously be no government intervention in business or private enterprise. They believe everything should be privatized and that the private sector can regulate itself.
President of DDO
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2010 8:01:01 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/17/2010 7:30:37 AM, theLwerd wrote:
They don't believe in democracy or using a majority voting system to determine who is elected into office.

I don't think Libertarianism is necessarily opposed to democracy... I'd just only be in support of a Democracy that respects people's liberty.

I think our Democracy, grounded in "Rights", is the way to go.

I think that Non-Democracy's are generally less stable, and can more easily lead to Tyranny.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2010 8:29:44 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Voting isn't out, though the idea is to have a stable established set of laws anyway which makes voting generally redundant. :P
Lukas
Posts: 110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2010 9:12:24 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/17/2010 8:29:44 AM, Puck wrote:
Voting isn't out, though the idea is to have a stable established set of laws anyway which makes voting generally redundant. :P

Forgive my ignorance but who establishes these laws and how did they come to be in power?
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2010 9:15:16 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/17/2010 8:01:01 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:

I don't think Libertarianism is necessarily opposed to democracy... I'd just only be in support of a Democracy that respects people's liberty.

Please explain what this means. What kind of democracy respects people's liberty and which kind of democracy doesn't?
President of DDO
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2010 9:31:31 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/17/2010 9:15:16 AM, theLwerd wrote:
At 2/17/2010 8:01:01 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:

I don't think Libertarianism is necessarily opposed to democracy... I'd just only be in support of a Democracy that respects people's liberty.

Please explain what this means. What kind of democracy respects people's liberty and which kind of democracy doesn't?

A democracy which is built to be restrained. In the US the Federal Government is a democratic one which, with the 9th and tenth amendments, is required to respect the multitudes of "rights"/liberties of those people whom it governs.

It is not allowed to enforce Anything on anyone, unless the constitution specifically gave it that power.

These rights may ultimately be subject to change (or unjustly be interpreted away by stupid interpretations of the commerce clause) but it is designed to be a government of limited powers, so as to respect the self determining nature of it's people.

A democracy that doesn't have fundamental protections of people's "rights" would be one that need not respect those "rights", and one that can decide to not do so at the whims of a simple tyrannical majority.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2010 9:35:09 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/17/2010 9:12:24 AM, Lukas wrote:
At 2/17/2010 8:29:44 AM, Puck wrote:
Voting isn't out, though the idea is to have a stable established set of laws anyway which makes voting generally redundant. :P
I wouldn't say I speak for Puck's idea of good governance, but in the case of the US...

Forgive my ignorance but who establishes these laws
The "Founding Fathers"

and how did they come to be in power?
They b*tched the English :)
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Lukas
Posts: 110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2010 9:53:50 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Forgive my ignorance but who establishes these laws
The "Founding Fathers"
Right so the whole basis of your mandate is to zealotly abide by the amendments with no space for further amending or modernising measures? Sounds like the Catholic church
and how did they come to be in power?
They b*tched the English :)
I take it you mean British...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2010 9:57:46 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Least matt is honest about his personal inconsistencies :P.

Lwerd has it about right, although I don't support "taxes for wars overseas." I support user fees for wars overseas, and as long as taxes are around I'd rather they go to wars overseas than paying people not to produce anything.
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.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2010 10:13:17 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/17/2010 9:53:50 AM, Lukas wrote:
Forgive my ignorance but who establishes these laws
The "Founding Fathers"
Right so the whole basis of your mandate is to zealotly abide by the amendments with no space for further amending or modernising measures? Sounds like the Catholic church

There's some space, it's just difficult for a democracy to jump through the required hoops to get there.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Lukas
Posts: 110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2010 11:15:53 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/17/2010 10:13:17 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 2/17/2010 9:53:50 AM, Lukas wrote:
Forgive my ignorance but who establishes these laws
The "Founding Fathers"
Right so the whole basis of your mandate is to zealotly abide by the amendments with no space for further amending or modernising measures? Sounds like the Catholic church

There's some space, it's just difficult for a democracy to jump through the required hoops to get there.

So, who's the sheriff of this huge corporate f*** fest?
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2010 11:19:41 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/17/2010 11:15:53 AM, Lukas wrote:
incomprehensible BullS4*t babble.

what are you talking about?
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Lukas
Posts: 110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2010 11:27:27 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/17/2010 11:19:41 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 2/17/2010 11:15:53 AM, Lukas wrote:
incomprehensible BullS4*t babble.

what are you talking about?

lol quite funny actually

Let me rephrase it, In this system of government where private interests are dominant and government is limited, who are the overseers, law makers?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2010 11:32:23 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/17/2010 11:27:27 AM, Lukas wrote:
At 2/17/2010 11:19:41 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 2/17/2010 11:15:53 AM, Lukas wrote:
incomprehensible BullS4*t babble.

what are you talking about?

lol quite funny actually

Let me rephrase it, In this system of government where private interests are dominant and government is limited, who are the overseers, law makers?

The government that is limited? They just get to make laws about less stuff.
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.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2010 11:33:25 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/17/2010 11:27:27 AM, Lukas wrote:
At 2/17/2010 11:19:41 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 2/17/2010 11:15:53 AM, Lukas wrote:
incomprehensible BullS4*t babble.

what are you talking about?

lol quite funny actually

Let me rephrase it, In this system of government where private interests are dominant and government is limited, who are the overseers, law makers?

The only role of the government in a libertarian state (please note that there are many different types of libertarian states that have more specific rules) is to ensure that people are free to do as they wish, so long as it doesn't interfere with other people's liberties. Most all of them still support a legal system and a police system to enforce that people (and corporations) are not infringing on other's rights. Though they try to use as little as possible, since the more the government does, the more money it needs via taxes (or fees) which they view as theft (or at least parasitic).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2010 3:22:55 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/17/2010 9:57:46 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Least matt is honest about his personal inconsistencies :P.

If I am inconsistent, which I am not conceding, I would think it would be inconsistency derived from contrary aspects of Human Nature, and not inconsistency in my reasoning.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2010 3:26:47 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Humans themselves are a contradiction?
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.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2010 3:31:04 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/17/2010 3:26:47 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Humans themselves are a contradiction?

often, how many people have 100% integrity?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2010 3:33:32 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/17/2010 3:31:04 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 2/17/2010 3:26:47 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Humans themselves are a contradiction?

often, how many people have 100% integrity?
I asked if humans were contradictions, not thoughts thought by humans.
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.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2010 3:41:50 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/17/2010 3:26:47 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Humans themselves are a contradiction?

First, decisions to act (and reasoning on how one ought to act) are dependent on having cares, and cares come from feelings.

I'm saying people may have natural feelings which, if considered individually, might lead to different actions. Now depending on the situation, and which feelings it evokes, the reasoning for actions would change with those feelings evoked by the situation at hand (which determines what it is in the situation you care about)
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2010 3:56:40 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/17/2010 3:33:32 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 2/17/2010 3:31:04 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 2/17/2010 3:26:47 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Humans themselves are a contradiction?

often, how many people have 100% integrity?
I asked if humans were contradictions, not thoughts thought by humans.

many humans are.

"In classical logic, a contradiction consists of a logical incompatibility between two or more propositions."

Now it does depend if you meant humans as a species or humans as a bunch of individuals.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"