How sympathetic are you to libertarianism?

[cubeless]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
At least on my understanding of what the principles of Libertarianism are, its simply a governmental system that has never even been tried in the history of the world.

Such a governmental system might be suitable for a tribe of hunter and gathers, but such tribal structures build no infrastructure. Nor is it easily possible to get loosely bonded individuals to contribute to the common good.

Yet when we get to the advanced agricultural or industrial societies of today, all the advances and infrastructures required to build such societies required a structured government that caused infrastructure to be build over some people's opposition, a common culture, high taxes for the common good, have in fact been what has advanced us beyond the hunter and gather stage

Now along comes the new Modern Libertarians who promise us better government through the freedom to not contribute to society if we do not want to. Which means no one will, we may enjoy some of our current infrastructure while it lasts, which is why even pie-eyed idealists who look ahead can see all the ideological flaws of libertarianism and have hence have not tried it.

But there are always stupid pie-eyed idealist who lack the foresight to think beyond the end of their nose, and Ron Paul is one of them.

Both communism and Libertarianism assume men and women will act in their basic best self interests. We already know that flawed assumption did not work for communism, why should it work better for Libertaranism?

eeewwww... i almost agree with ll... and phokus sounds amazingly lucid in here, too... this is interesting in that, when everyone is picking on someone besides each other the rhetoric seems less twisted...

i don't pick on rp, he's a prophet... someone's got to be a purist for the cause... how the heck did he ever get elected to office is my question...

it all boils down to the 'it all goes to shit when you add people' rule... on paper you can love all political and religious systems... there's just too many people to not have a bunch of 'restrictive' rules...

if you want more freedom you can move you and your like minds to some small town, take it over politically, and get closer to any utopia you want... hell take over a whole small state!!! and i think that washington lets you do your barnyard friends already, so that's one down and nnn to go for utopia... with the way that the scotus should be moving you can probably take over nd; pass whatever local laws you want; get arrested by the feds; go to scotus and win in a 'states rights' case in the near future...

 

[Elfear]

Originally posted by: NaughtyGeek

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: TruePaige


I think this is a big problem with this country in that others are always trying to push their beliefs and morals on others.

That's generally true but everyone has a line somewhere, for example not allowing sex with animals.

Your example is a perfect example of what TruePaige pointed out. Why is "sex with animals" the line? Is it freaking disgusting, yes, IMO, and it's the IMO that is relevant. If you want to go out back and screw a goat, who the hell am I to object? I'm not going to help you do it cause I find it repulsive but it still doesn't give me the right to legislate it. The US has conveniently dropped the Republic in favor of Democracy which is nothing more than mob rule. 51% of people think it's gross you want to screw the goat so you can't screw the goat any more. Why? Because we said so, that's why. It isn't referred to as "the nanny state" for no reason.

I think that some things should be legislated against. By your thinking we shouldn't legislate against beastiality or anything that doesn't "affect us". Well what if Farmer Joe, who live next door to you, decides that hiding in the barn with Bessy is getting old. Why not live a little and go outside in the drive way. Technically it's not hurting you but do you not think that would infringe on your ability to enjoy coming home each day? What about your kids? Do you think that would be healthy for their little minds to assimilate?

Originally posted by: TruePaige

Well the only exposure to polygamy many people have is the Mormom religion, and more over the extremists among them.

Just to clear up your post, the Mormon religion does not practice polygamy. The religions most people hear about and associate with polygamy are off-shoots of the Mormon religion from 150+ yrs ago.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: senseamp
Can someone point me to a Libertarianism based society in history that didn't become subjugated or fall apart?

U.S.A.

L.O.L.

How am I not correct?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I think most "isms" lack by virtue that they are indeed "isms". I often see intelligent people compelled to defend a foolish argument, because that's what an "ist" must do.

My personal belief is that government is a necessity, however like all political organisms it tends to acquire control to protect itself and extend it's influence. Therefore the minimum amount of government to ensure a generally harmonious society is the most desirable. The concept of the "general welfare" is something which is valid, however what that is varies at times and so does the role of government.

In no case should the people become the servants of it, the reverse must always be true.

It may seem a vague philosophy, however it's not an unreasonable metric. Sometimes one philosophy may be preferable and at times another. I don't want to be locked in mentally in advance.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Insomniator
Keep the corrupt, poorly run and poor executed government out of my damn life.

Disagree. And I disagree with this aspect of libertarianism, namely the claim to a right to privacy.

The government may be corrupt, poorly run, and whatever else. But we created it. And like it or not, there are some aspects of it that you would have a hard time living without. Like general security.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: TruePaige

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: TruePaige

Originally posted by: Infohawk
I don't think people should be allowed to be polygamous.

For discussions sake...


If, for example, 4 adults of their own will and desire, wish to spend their lives together why shouldn't they be able to?

How does it affect you negatively?

I think this is a big problem with this country in that others are always trying to push their beliefs and morals on others.

It affects society negatively by skewing potential mating options. I don't like the idea of a society with 20% of the men unable to find a mate and becoming violent and restless.

As a more general issue, I just don't sympathize with the extreme libertarian view that every man is an island. We are social animals. We have a culture. Let's be reasonable about what that culture and our values are, but we to a large extent we are in this together. That's also why I'm against the extreme libertarian view that there should be no public education. I want all my countrymen to have basic education and not some crazy home-schooled/religious nonsense. The strength of our democracy relies in at least some basic level of homogeneity in experience and culture.

I think this is a big problem with this country in that others are always trying to push their beliefs and morals on others.

That's generally true but everyone has a line somewhere, for example not allowing sex with animals.

If a two person relationship is more attractive than a multiple partner relationship, then people will choose it.

I don't know why you assume people will become violent if there is polygamy.

You could use the same argument and say we shouldn't allow multi-generational households because it will destroy the economy by reducing demand for housing and utilities.

In fact, many people in societies these days are in at least open relationships, if not living together.

Also you say that a portion of men would be unable to find a mate but let me present these arguments.

1) Already some men can't find mates, is it the governments job to try and make it easier for them too?

2) Why can't the relationship have 2 men and 2 women living together, working, and loving each other?

I want to take this a step further.

Why do we allow others' beliefs and morals to constrain us to mate outside of our family? Why can two consenting 14 year olds not get married?

Regarding polygamy: My instincts tell me that it's a pandora's box. I think legalizing it would cause horrible inequality in marriage. I seriously doubt you'd see groups of 3 men and 3 women getting married, but more often 1 man and 5 women, or worse, and I think that's because of the nature of the sexes. I don't honestly think women would seek multiple mates in general, whereas men would. Women don't have the drive to spread their genes, whereas men do. This is where nature and decency collide, and decency should prevail. Women don't deserve to be thus subordinated, simply because of their nature.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: senseamp
Can someone point me to a Libertarianism based society in history that didn't become subjugated or fall apart?

U.S.A.

L.O.L.

How am I not correct?

In every way you can imagine, and some you can't.
We aren't a Libertarian society, period.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: senseamp


In every way you can imagine, and some you can't.
We aren't a Libertarian society, period.

That wasn't your question, why are you back peddling? I know you love the subjugation aspect.

Your question "Can someone point me to a Libertarianism based society in history that didn't become subjugated or fall apart? "

The USA is such a society at it's founding. The only thing you have me on is the recent subjugation which you so love, but you didn't mention that. So basically you used a big word and didn't know what it meant otherwise you would have owned me on that.

Your question can be easily answer with USA and the interpretation of libertarianism swings all over the place but the core of all definitions would fit the USA. Well until recently they would.

 

[TruePaige]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: TruePaige

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: TruePaige

Originally posted by: Infohawk
I don't think people should be allowed to be polygamous.

For discussions sake...


If, for example, 4 adults of their own will and desire, wish to spend their lives together why shouldn't they be able to?

How does it affect you negatively?

I think this is a big problem with this country in that others are always trying to push their beliefs and morals on others.

It affects society negatively by skewing potential mating options. I don't like the idea of a society with 20% of the men unable to find a mate and becoming violent and restless.

As a more general issue, I just don't sympathize with the extreme libertarian view that every man is an island. We are social animals. We have a culture. Let's be reasonable about what that culture and our values are, but we to a large extent we are in this together. That's also why I'm against the extreme libertarian view that there should be no public education. I want all my countrymen to have basic education and not some crazy home-schooled/religious nonsense. The strength of our democracy relies in at least some basic level of homogeneity in experience and culture.

I think this is a big problem with this country in that others are always trying to push their beliefs and morals on others.

That's generally true but everyone has a line somewhere, for example not allowing sex with animals.

If a two person relationship is more attractive than a multiple partner relationship, then people will choose it.

I don't know why you assume people will become violent if there is polygamy.

You could use the same argument and say we shouldn't allow multi-generational households because it will destroy the economy by reducing demand for housing and utilities.

In fact, many people in societies these days are in at least open relationships, if not living together.

Also you say that a portion of men would be unable to find a mate but let me present these arguments.

1) Already some men can't find mates, is it the governments job to try and make it easier for them too?

2) Why can't the relationship have 2 men and 2 women living together, working, and loving each other?

I want to take this a step further.

Why do we allow others' beliefs and morals to constrain us to mate outside of our family? Why can two consenting 14 year olds not get married?

Regarding polygamy: My instincts tell me that it's a pandora's box. I think legalizing it would cause horrible inequality in marriage. I seriously doubt you'd see groups of 3 men and 3 women getting married, but more often 1 man and 5 women, or worse, and I think that's because of the nature of the sexes. I don't honestly think women would seek multiple mates in general, whereas men would. Women don't have the drive to spread their genes, whereas men do. This is where nature and decency collide, and decency should prevail. Women don't deserve to be thus subordinated, simply because of their nature.

I think you are really underestimating women if you think that large enough groups of many women a piece would crowd around guys and let themselves be put down.

If anyone is dumb enough to live a life they aren't happy to live that is on them.

But if someone meets two women, or if two couples meet and like each others spouses and want to be together, etc etc.. it could be a very beneficial situation..and possibly a very loving one too.

I don't see why it is the governments job to legislate something like this, or why all the examples you give are lowest common denominator where some guy puts his wives down and forces them to keep having babies for him.

edit: Not you in particular, but just people who are against it keep acting like women will flock to marry some asshole who will make their lives hell.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: NaughtyGeek
Your example is a perfect example of what TruePaige pointed out. Why is "sex with animals" the line? Is it freaking disgusting, yes, IMO, and it's the IMO that is relevant. If you want to go out back and screw a goat, who the hell am I to object? I'm not going to help you do it cause I find it repulsive but it still doesn't give me the right to legislate it. The US has conveniently dropped the Republic in favor of Democracy which is nothing more than mob rule. 51% of people think it's gross you want to screw the goat so you can't screw the goat any more. Why? Because we said so, that's why. It isn't referred to as "the nanny state" for no reason.

I'm not sure I care enough to debate bestiality, but it is noteworthy that you are defending the right to engage in it. Even if you're right, I don't think it helps the libertarian cause (if that's something you're interested in.) A perfect example of why I'm sympathetic but I feel libertarians go too far.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: senseamp


In every way you can imagine, and some you can't.
We aren't a Libertarian society, period.

That wasn't your question, why are you back peddling? I know you love the subjugation aspect.

Your question "Can someone point me to a Libertarianism based society in history that didn't become subjugated or fall apart? "

The USA is such a society at it's founding. The only thing you have me on is the recent subjugation which you so love, but you didn't mention that. So basically you used a big word and didn't know what it meant otherwise you would have owned me on that.

Your question can be easily answer with USA and the interpretation of libertarianism swings all over the place but the core of all definitions would fit the USA. Well until recently they would.

That is a fair point, the question should have allowed for possibility of a society evolving away from libertarianism.
But the point it was making still stands, societies based on libertarianism don't successfully stay libertarian for long, historically speaking.

 

[Cheesetogo]

WOW @ the poll.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: senseamp

That is a fair point, the question should have allowed for possibility of a society evolving away from libertarianism.
But the point it was making still stands, societies based on libertarianism don't successfully stay libertarian for long, historically speaking.

I think this is where be both score points debate wise and we're all better for it.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Cheesetogo
WOW @ the poll.

Yeah. The Libertarians on here are relatively quiet compared to the government interventionists.

 

[cubeless]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: Cheesetogo
WOW @ the poll.

Yeah. The Libertarians on here are relatively quiet compared to the government interventionists.

real libertarians don't do polls...

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: senseamp
Can someone point me to a Libertarianism based society in history that didn't become subjugated or fall apart?

U.S.A.

L.O.L.

How am I not correct?

You're absolutely correct except for the fact that you're about as libertarian as Hitler or Stalin was.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Vic

You're absolutely correct except for the fact that you're about as libertarian as Hitler or Stalin was.

So you concede the point then?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Vic

You're absolutely correct except for the fact that you're about as libertarian as Hitler or Stalin was.

So you concede the point then?

Why would I need to concede a point I have never argued against?

Technically speaking though, the founding fathers were not libertarians but classical liberals. That's splitting hairs though as most people today wouldn't know or understand the difference.

 

[Xonoahbin]

Gosh, this thread really degenerated very quickly. One point that was brought up which I almost agree with is the idea that Libertarianism is almost purely ideological. I think that's almost essentially the problem; Libertarians cling to the ideals which they hold dearest yet do not bother to cross-apply them to the world in which we live. What many Libertarians would find is that their ideological beliefs are smashed by the real world. In essence, it is not possible to use Libertarianism in all scenarios and get anywhere. A reasonable Libertarian would recognize this--just as a reasonable Republican or Democrat would recognize that their ideologies cannot be applied in every scenario when considering the world around us.

That being said, the basic premises of Libertarianism are to what I ascribe; I believe in a free market as much as applicable and liberty under law (you have liberty to do whatever you please as long as you're not harming others.) I think people lose sight of the fact that liberty is different from freedom. With liberty, we also carry responsibilities. It's too bad that so many people are near-sighted.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: Xonoahbin
Gosh, this thread really degenerated very quickly. One point that was brought up which I almost agree with is the idea that Libertarianism is almost purely ideological. I think that's almost essentially the problem; Libertarians cling to the ideals which they hold dearest yet do not bother to cross-apply them to the world in which we live. What many Libertarians would find is that their ideological beliefs are smashed by the real world. In essence, it is not possible to use Libertarianism in all scenarios and get anywhere. A reasonable Libertarian would recognize this--just as a reasonable Republican or Democrat would recognize that their ideologies cannot be applied in every scenario when considering the world around us.

That being said, the basic premises of Libertarianism are to what I ascribe; I believe in a free market as much as applicable and liberty under law (you have liberty to do whatever you please as long as you're not harming others.) I think people lose sight of the fact that liberty is different from freedom. With liberty, we also carry responsibilities. It's too bad that so many people are near-sighted.

This is very well said. Libertarianism is great on paper, in terms of what they espouse in their online platform statements. It looks great. But their actual candidates are pretty poor and don't actually hold those platform beliefs, being almost exclusively hard-right, and far too state-ist to get anywhere. Classical conundrum with Libertarians that will keep them in the 2% fringe range is that they don't understand that Americans want everything; lower (or stable) tax rates, gov't services they don't consider waste, and free but fair markets. Libertarians want low to non-existent taxes (see the strong nutter element that believes income tax is unconstitutional and/or it just shouldn't exist), want little to no gov't (anarchy element exists but doesn't pervade the party), and mostly free markets (lots of hard-right free marketers that don't know anything about economics all over the party, most especially Ron Paul, who is Republican only in name).

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Evan
Classical conundrum with Libertarians that will keep them in the 2% fringe range is that they don't understand that Americans want everything; lower (or stable) tax rates, gov't services they don't consider waste, and free but fair markets.

Aside from the fact that the Libertarian party is one of the most extreme contradictions, and that Libertarian Party candidates are frauds just like any other politician from any other party, did you ever consider the idea that what Americans want is irrational and can never be achieved?

 

[miketheidiot]

moderate libertarianism is fine, unfortunately the libertarian movement, as evidenced on this forum, has turned mainly into a a delusional and conspiratorial movement.

voted 'ron paul is an idiot'