How sympathetic are you to libertarianism?

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: TruePaige

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?

1) Who are these men that can't find mates? Even the biggest losers in our society have mates.

2) Let's be honest here, there are few if any polygamous relationships with multiple men involved. And if they're open then why do they need marriage? Should we allow the entire country to marry one another? We could, but it would be silly and render the word meaningless. Just like saying that you are in an open relationship with multiple men and women yet somehow married is meaningless. Marriage means some sort of exclusive relationship.

Anyway, this issue isn't too important to me. I have a hunch in a truly free society very few women would chose to live in a polygamous relationship. Some hippie communes aside, polygamy is usually a consequence of male domination. So I'm not really worried about it.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: MotF Bane

Originally posted by: Dissipate
Libertarianism as it is practiced in the U.S. is a Christian fascist movement consisting of creationist loons who would murder their kids if a voice in their head told them to.

/facepalm

FYI, Dissipate is a hardcore libertarian so this may be tongue in cheek (unless he's like me and he turned away from libertarianism for a more rational worldview recently )

 

[Moonbeam]

I don't know what a Libertarian is. I don't even know really what a Democrat is. I generally can spot a Republican. It's when my phony meter pings.

Everything to me is a matter and a measure of self awareness any particular side of an issue reflects.

Issues are very complex. Take drugs for example. Seems like Rep want them outlawed, Libs want them legal, and Dems are on them.

But it's complicated, to my mind anyway. I don't want the government telling me what to do, but I don't want the government to tell me I can't tell my kid what to do. I don't want to wind up in jail because I told my some hypothetical child of mine she couldn't take heroin.

I believe I have a duty to protect children from their naiveté, and I notice that most people haven't grown up. The line where I am responsible for another and where I become a fascist interfering in their lives is not easy to draw in the real world.

So there are reasons people come down differently on drugs and all have some right and some wrong, in my opinion.

I think in my daily life I jump around from being a total fascist to being a communist.

And most of all, I guess, I hate everybody.

 

[PJABBER]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I don't know what a Libertarian is. I don't even know really what a Democrat is. I generally can spot a Republican. It's when my phony meter pings.

Everything to me is a matter and a measure of self awareness any particular side of an issue reflects.

Issues are very complex. Take drugs for example. Seems like Rep want them outlawed, Libs want them legal, and Dems are on them.

But it's complicated, to my mind anyway. I don't want the government telling me what to do, but I don't want the government to tell me I can't tell my kid what to do. I don't want to wind up in jail because I told my some hypothetical child of mine she couldn't take heroin.

I believe I have a duty to protect children from their naiveté, and I notice that most people haven't grown up. The line where I am responsible for another and where I become a fascist interfering in their lives is not easy to draw in the real world.

So there are reasons people come down differently on drugs and all have some right and some wrong, in my opinion.

I think in my daily life I jump around from being a total fascist to being a communist.

And most of all, I guess, I hate everybody.

Except for the last line... this.

Another great post, Moonbeam!

 

[nageov3t]

I liked Ayn Rand as much as the next idealistic 20-something, but ultimately, I feel like libertarianism has too simplistic a view for the world in which we live.

also, lol @ gold standard.

 

[TruePaige]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: TruePaige

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?

1) Who are these men that can't find mates? Even the biggest losers in our society have mates.

2) Let's be honest here, there are few if any polygamous relationships with multiple men involved. And if they're open then why do they need marriage? Should we allow the entire country to marry one another? We could, but it would be silly and render the word meaningless. Just like saying that you are in an open relationship with multiple men and women yet somehow married is meaningless. Marriage means some sort of exclusive relationship.

Anyway, this issue isn't too important to me. I have a hunch in a truly free society very few women would chose to live in a polygamous relationship. Some hippie communes aside, polygamy is usually a consequence of male domination. So I'm not really worried about it.

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

I think that if the world made it easier (not prosecutable, at least some kind of shared benefits like marriage has) people would jump on it.

Economically it is a sound advantage (4 incomes in a house vs 2 for example, less chores, bigger more economic meals).

Meh..like I said, I am already married to (one) person. I don't have much of an interest other than I think it is strange that it is disallowed, except as a reason to force people to work harder, and share more of less.

In a free environment I think some people would go for it and some wouldn't.

It has downsides, especially if it is a "centered" relationship around one person. But it has upsides, especially for those family orientated.

"Different strokes for different folks"

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: PJABBER

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I don't know what a Libertarian is. I don't even know really what a Democrat is. I generally can spot a Republican. It's when my phony meter pings.

Everything to me is a matter and a measure of self awareness any particular side of an issue reflects.

Issues are very complex. Take drugs for example. Seems like Rep want them outlawed, Libs want them legal, and Dems are on them.

But it's complicated, to my mind anyway. I don't want the government telling me what to do, but I don't want the government to tell me I can't tell my kid what to do. I don't want to wind up in jail because I told my some hypothetical child of mine she couldn't take heroin.

I believe I have a duty to protect children from their naiveté, and I notice that most people haven't grown up. The line where I am responsible for another and where I become a fascist interfering in their lives is not easy to draw in the real world.

So there are reasons people come down differently on drugs and all have some right and some wrong, in my opinion.

I think in my daily life I jump around from being a total fascist to being a communist.

And most of all, I guess, I hate everybody.

Except for the last line... this.

Another great post, Moonbeam!

My Dad always said he was 200% American because he hated everybody and he was my role model.

 

[PJABBER]

My Dad always said he was 200% American because he hated everybody and he was my role model.

This acorn does not fall far from the tree.

:thumbsup:

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: MotF Bane

Originally posted by: Dissipate
Libertarianism as it is practiced in the U.S. is a Christian fascist movement consisting of creationist loons who would murder their kids if a voice in their head told them to.

/facepalm

FYI, Dissipate is a hardcore libertarian so this may be tongue in cheek (unless he's like me and he turned away from libertarianism for a more rational worldview recently )

Like a lot of words 'libertarian' and 'libertarianism' have been associated with a conceptual cesspool. This cesspool of thought includes Christianity, and faith in the Constitution. I reject all faith based ideas, and therefore want nothing to do with libertarianism (as it is practiced).

I am actually considered to be a 'pluralist anarchist.' Pluralist anarchism is the idea that all desired forms of human interaction should take place with the pre-condition of 0 or very near 0 externalized costs.

 

[n yusef]

There is "polygamy" as practiced by the FLDS and others around the world, with one man and multiple women who are oppressed. But there is also "polyamory," which can come in many configurations of genders.

As I see it, polyamory, including FLDS-style polygamy, should be legal, but the abuse and sexism associated with one-man-multiple-women relationships is and should be outlawed and discouraged by society. This position is easier to understand when one realizes that there are millions of "traditional" one-man-one-woman marriages just as oppressive as FLDS' plural marriages.

Sorry for the digression, and back on topic:

I'm socially progressive, and when it is claimed that I, too, want to legislate morality, I agree. And I think that an honest person, regardless of her politics, must agree with that statement. Even the State's Rights position that values the structure of the state and one's interpretation of the Constitution above the issue at hand, is a moral position to me. 150 years ago, the conflict was over the state's right to legislate slavery and the human right not to be enslaved. Now, we fight over the state's right to legislate heterosexism and the human right to be treated fairly by one's state.

The State's Rights position on social issues held by many libertarians is an admirable attempt at tolerance that demonstrates the low value at which many libertarians place social issues. Unlike social conservatives, libertarians recognize that many issues, such as same-sex marriage, do not affect them. Naturally, one devalues issues that don't affect her, which is why libertarians mostly vote on economic issues.

 

[bamacre]

Ayn Rand was an Atheist.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: bamacre
Ayn Rand was an Atheist.

Ayn Rand didn't call herself a libertarian and rejected the word.

 

[lokiju]

On paper, yes. But in practice, not so much.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
Personally, I am sympathetic but I think they go too far fiscally and socially. I don't think it's a moral obligation that we outlaw income tax or anything like that and I don't think people should be allowed to be polygamous. But I think the free market is generally a good thing and that people should be able to drug themselves into a coma if they want to.

What about you?

Same as you, sympathetic, but goes too far.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Topic Title: How sympathetic are you to libertarianism?

< 0

 

[First]

They seem really great until you do a lot of research and find out it's all idealistic. Virtually none of it is practical, and most of their supporters are, unfortunately, right-wing nutters.

 

[her209]

Do Libertarians believe in Bankruptcy Law? Companies Law?

 

[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 tend to like the libertarian ideals for exactly this reason. What I do that doesn't involve you is my business and the government has no place to interfere in that. If people want to screw others over in the market, the market will weed them out. Big friggen guns lining our borders to defend what's ours and partnerships with other countries avoiding "alliances."

Than again, I like the idea of every 50 years everyone has to start over too so, whatever.



Nice link related to the OP IMO.

 

[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?

 

[theeedude]

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

 

[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.

 

[SammyJr]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
Personally, I am sympathetic but I think they go too far fiscally and socially. I don't think it's a moral obligation that we outlaw income tax or anything like that and I don't think people should be allowed to be polygamous. But I think the free market is generally a good thing and that people should be able to drug themselves into a coma if they want to.

What about you?

Socially, I'm 100% with libertarians. The private lives and habits of consenting adults are not my concern, nor it is a place for Government to be involved. I support legalized drugs, gay marriage, polygamous marriage, etc.

Fiscally and on the business side of things, I'm 100% against the libertarians. Government needs to be able to regulate business so that it is a better citizen of the community. Corporations should be able to profit, but not at the expense of the Middle Class, the Environment, or the Country nor should they be exploiting 3rd world nations with lax laws.

 

[theeedude]

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.

 

[NaughtyGeek]

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?

I started to respond to your inflammatory response in kind but thought better of it.

Your idealism is no better or worse than that which you proclaim to be stupid. Society hasn't gotten to this point because the government collected the appropriate taxes and thoughtfully spent them. The bottom line is, the industrialists who needed bigger better roads and such convinced their bought and paid for politicians to legislate that investment into the taxpayers hands. Business needed the interstate highway system, not citizens. Oh noes NaughtyGeek, product prices will have to rise to cover the cost of those roads if the businesses have to actually pay for them. Ah, but see, now I as the average citizen have the right to not pay the higher price by not purchasing the product. And there's the rub in ideology, I will choose to contribute to my local economy what I feel is appropriate for me and mine, not the local economy dictates what it needs from me to advance. Ask your local Amish community how much government socialism has helped them. I'm sure that they're overjoyed having to pay taxes for services they don't want, need or use. But now they're forced to go beyond their community and find ways to make money to appease your desire to enforce what you want on them. Just because something is a benefit for a large number of people doesn't mean it's the governments job to provide it. If enough people need it, someone will find a way to make it financially viable to provide it. Meh, this discussion needs alot more but I don't have the time to continue. It rolls back into what was stated earlier and quoted again by me

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

 

[Phokus]

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.

AHAHAHAHAAHA :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

spidey strikes again