Libertarians

[zzyzxroad]

[

I pretty closely identify with libertarian.

I don't live by the stupid statement "taxes are theft". It's a necessary evil for certain things in life. The libertarian aspect (IMHO) is to minimize taxes because government (as seen with TONS of industries in the past) run things horribly.

It's just simply a fact that when the free-market is able to compete, they do it more efficiently than the government ever will because they have something to fight for. They have a market to compete in. They have a reason to develop further and R&D more.

Libertarian also means no exemptions (or exceptions) for shit like religion. I don't care if you worship a flying spaghetti monster or some random dude that supposedly existed thousands of years ago, pay taxes just like everyone else.


Used to love what folks like Ron Paul stood for - but then his stupid son Rand had to fuck things up and look dumb on many issues.

I don't run into many libertarian. What are you thoughts on drug prohibition.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

[

I don't run into many libertarian. What are you thoughts on drug prohibition.

Tough call but I would say legalize. Pretty clearly the whole policing thing isn't working. I also believe everyone has some kind of vice in life - for some people it's drinking or smoking... for some it's other drugs (such as hallucinogens or prescription). Who am I to dictate what is acceptable and what is not?

For addressing the problem itself, I also think we need to ramp up treatment centers - though I would have to see some numbers on the cost and how effective it would be. Ideally it would be a payoff situation where it treats people, thus they become more useful to society - and thus they pay more taxes instead of being a burden.

 

[pmv]

That's the common anti-libertarian copout bullshit. EVERYTHING we have now is a consensus that's been arrived at through years, decades, centuries of trade-offs, changes, tweaks, compromises and blind guesses. Nobody sat down and drew up a perfect set of laws and tax plans from scratch. Libertarianism would be no different. You start from the basic principle that the government is there to provide basic services, not run peoples lives and that everyone needs to take responsibility for their own actions and you go from there. Everything is then tested, adjusted and re-worked as necessary and eventually you arrive at a compromise that is not 100% perfect and is not ideal for any one person, but that is fair and reasonable for all. It takes work just like our current system took work.

You think what we have now is a 'concensus'? And that it was arrived at through 'trade-offs, compromises, etc'? Er, no.

What we have now is hugely, and frequently violently, contested and generally maintained by force. It was arrived at through theft, murder, war, and plunder.

It's a very fragile, and contingent, truce.

People put up with it, as long as it at least serves their minimum needs and as long as the costs of trying to destroy it appear too high.

Libertarianism is about breaking that truce in the interests of those who currently hold wealth and power. Others want to break that truce in other ways. Fair and reasonable doesn't really come into it.

 

[Jhhnn]

You think what we have now is a 'concensus'? And that it was arrived at through 'trade-offs, compromises, etc'? Er, no.

What we have now is hugely, and frequently violently, contested and generally maintained by force. It was arrived at through theft, murder, war, and plunder.

It's a very fragile, and contingent, truce.

People put up with it, as long as it at least serves their minimum needs and as long as the costs of trying to destroy it appear too high.

Libertarianism is about breaking that truce in the interests of those who currently hold wealth and power. Others want to break that truce in other ways. Fair and reasonable doesn't really come into it.

There is no truce & never has been as far as the purveyors of Libertopian claptrap are concerned. They've been winning at top down class warfare for nearly 40 years.

 

[zzyzxroad]

Tough call but I would say legalize. Pretty clearly the whole policing thing isn't working. I also believe everyone has some kind of vice in life - for some people it's drinking or smoking... for some it's other drugs (such as hallucinogens or prescription). Who am I to dictate what is acceptable and what is not?

For addressing the problem itself, I also think we need to ramp up treatment centers - though I would have to see some numbers on the cost and how effective it would be. Ideally it would be a payoff situation where it treats people, thus they become more useful to society - and thus they pay more taxes instead of being a burden.

Thanks and I agree. Helping people get over their issues and become productive members of society is good for everyone. That's not to say everyone can but that's a whole other complicated issue.

 

[Jhhnn]

Tough call but I would say legalize. Pretty clearly the whole policing thing isn't working. I also believe everyone has some kind of vice in life - for some people it's drinking or smoking... for some it's other drugs (such as hallucinogens or prescription). Who am I to dictate what is acceptable and what is not?

For addressing the problem itself, I also think we need to ramp up treatment centers - though I would have to see some numbers on the cost and how effective it would be. Ideally it would be a payoff situation where it treats people, thus they become more useful to society - and thus they pay more taxes instead of being a burden.

Tax cuts for the rich are more important than any do-gooder treatment centers. Let the sacred Free Market take care of it. Fuck them Losers.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Tax cuts for the rich are more important than any do-gooder treatment centers. Let the sacred Free Market take care of it. Fuck them Losers.

And... like I indicated earlier - this is another case where the free market doesn't have a place.

What incentive does the free market have to get people to sober up? Well, a lot if they can afford to pay for it - but the simple fact is that the majority of people addicted to drugs and such are broke (having spent it on their addiction). Thus, the free market has no reason to help those people out.

The government, on the other hand - has plenty of incentive. The people that are addicted will become a burden to society. Utilizing police officer time, medical professionals time, etc.. etc... On top of that, they are likely not paying taxes (and if anything are a negative). Thus the government has an incentive to turn those people around and have them start contributing taxes.

 

[dank69]

Easy. Did the person report a rape or accuse someone before finding out she was pregnant?

Err, so fertile women are not allowed to ever have sex unless they are willing to incubate any resulting pregnancy? Sniff, sniff...mmmm...smells like liberty. Would you like to try again?

 

[dank69]

Tough call but I would say legalize. Pretty clearly the whole policing thing isn't working. I also believe everyone has some kind of vice in life - for some people it's drinking or smoking... for some it's other drugs (such as hallucinogens or prescription). Who am I to dictate what is acceptable and what is not?

For addressing the problem itself, I also think we need to ramp up treatment centers - though I would have to see some numbers on the cost and how effective it would be. Ideally it would be a payoff situation where it treats people, thus they become more useful to society - and thus they pay more taxes instead of being a burden.

Tough call, lol...

 

[Jhhnn]

And... like I indicated earlier - this is another case where the free market doesn't have a place.

What incentive does the free market have to get people to sober up? Well, a lot if they can afford to pay for it - but the simple fact is that the majority of people addicted to drugs and such are broke (having spent it on their addiction). Thus, the free market has no reason to help those people out.

The government, on the other hand - has plenty of incentive. The people that are addicted will become a burden to society. Utilizing police officer time, medical professionals time, etc.. etc... On top of that, they are likely not paying taxes (and if anything are a negative). Thus the government has an incentive to turn those people around and have them start contributing taxes.

Treatment centers are for socialist shitholes. Junkies have bootstraps just like the rest of us. It's the same for homelessness, hunger & medical care & also all those do-gooder agencies like the FDA. If God didn't intend for all those people to get fucked he wouldn't have made it so easy for the Rich to do it.

 

[balloonshark]

Easy. Did the person report a rape or accuse someone before finding out she was pregnant?

Being forced to do something against your will would have to be one of the worst things imaginable. The trauma would be horrific. I suspect some might try and blame themselves or just feel shame. Some wouldn't want to be around anyone to so they can feel safe. Others block out the trauma until it years later. In other words some wouldn't be of sound mind or even report the event until they come to grips with what happened.

Definition of empathy

1. The action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another of either the past or present without having the feelings, thoughts, and experience fully communicated in an objectively explicit manner

also: the capacity for this

 

[Pipeline 1010]

I used to be more libertarian, but I grew up and realized humans by nature seem to be pretty shitty to each other. To me that is where government steps in to control people from taking advantage of other people. especially from a business aspect. Taxes are a necessary burden civilized society has to come to grips with.

now I’m more progressive and have realized thinking and doing things the old ways just won’t cut it going into the future. I’m a forward thinker now.

Nothing that you said necessarily contradicts libertarianism. Libertarianism by nature already assumes people are pretty shitty to each other and realizes that giving these shitty people power over our lives has tradeoffs in cost/benefit. Libertarianism as a philosophy recognizes the need for taxes and recognizes the role of government is to protect the individual from other individuals, groups, and governments. None of what you said is part of some woke adult perspective that libertarians have just overlooked due to not being adults.

 

[Moonbeam]

Libertarians generally believe in greater personal responsibility and less government responsibility.

Yes, but what I described is what I believe is the motivation for that belief, that when we view the responsibilities owed us by others they fall short of what we see our selves as owing others.

 

[Pipeline 1010]

I’ve never met a libertarian who was actually a libertarian. In fact the only person I know of who was consistent in their beliefs and who could articulate libertarian values was Ron Paul. I wouldn’t even consider his son to be a libertarian.

Yup.

Most people I’ve met who say they are libertarian fall into two camps; they are basically anarchists or they are republicans who support homosexuality and weed.

Yuuuuup.

 

[Pipeline 1010]

I don't run into many libertarian. What are you thoughts on drug prohibition.

I know you didn't ask me, but I'd like to opine, because I most identify as being a libertarian. FYI: I believe that you shouldn't do drugs and that they are bad (except maybe the marijuanas).

My take is that it is none of the government's business what I do to myself. Drugs should be decriminalized similarly to alcohol. No, you can't walk down the street with your big gulp filled with heroin or drive with a garbage back of cocaine, and you can't give the drugs to children.

Drug prohibition does not work. It leads to a more violent, more taxed, more incarcerated, more hopeless, more ruined society. I advocate a Portugal style approach to drugs, which has had tremendous success in reducing drug addiction rates. It is fucking sad that we view the success of treating addiction rather than punishing it as paradoxical.

I believe that the focus should be on private charities that provide medical and psychological help to addicts. I am more than willing to compromise by providing public funding to aid in this if private charitable funding doesn't cut it. At least until society could begin to recognize the benefits and charitable contributions could catch up.

As a side note many experts estimate that upwards of 2/3 of our gun murders are directly caused by the war on drugs and the gun murder rate would fall steeply if drug prohibition was ended. It's win-win-win all the way around.

 

[zzyzxroad]

I know you didn't ask me, but I'd like to opine, because I most identify as being a libertarian. FYI: I believe that you shouldn't do drugs and that they are bad (except maybe the marijuanas).

My take is that it is none of the government's business what I do to myself. Drugs should be decriminalized similarly to alcohol. No, you can't walk down the street with your big gulp filled with heroin or drive with a garbage back of cocaine, and you can't give the drugs to children.

Drug prohibition does not work. It leads to a more violent, more taxed, more incarcerated, more hopeless, more ruined society. I advocate a Portugal style approach to drugs, which has had tremendous success in reducing drug addiction rates. It is fucking sad that we view the success of treating addiction rather than punishing it as paradoxical.

I believe that the focus should be on private charities that provide medical and psychological help to addicts. I am more than willing to compromise by providing public funding to aid in this if private charitable funding doesn't cut it. At least until society could begin to recognize the benefits and charitable contributions could catch up.

As a side note many experts estimate that upwards of 2/3 of our gun murders are directly caused by the war on drugs and the gun murder rate would fall steeply if drug prohibition was ended. It's win-win-win all the way around.

Thanks. I am sure alcohol prohibition turbocharged organized crime and drug prohibition keep the cash injection going.

 

[darkswordsman17]

Yup.



Yuuuuup.

because I most identify as being a libertarian.

Interesting...so which one are you?

 

[darkswordsman17]

Treatment centers are for socialist shitholes. Junkies have bootstraps just like the rest of us. It's the same for homelessness, hunger & medical care & also all those do-gooder agencies like the FDA. If God didn't intend for all those people to get fucked he wouldn't have made it so easy for the Rich to do it.

Duh, you can just quit if you really want to. No need for namby pamby help. Also, your kids can totally fend for themselves, although you should probably let the church steal them. Also, no way should you be allowed to have an abortion. Then once that gets banned we can ban all birth control. Including the pull out method. That's right, we'll have Priests ready to watch and make sure that you didn't enjoy any sex without it being expressly for creating an eventual baby.

 

[crashtech]

All I see are binary views, as if one having libertarian tendencies necessarily means that they think any and all government is bad. Since we are dealing in caricatures, who here will admit to being authoritarian? You know, the more government, the better. If some individual rights get trampled on, who cares, it's for the greater good! Such well-meaning folks tend to think that government, in the right hands, can bring forth the better society that exists in their imaginations.

Yet, in all my life experience, the less government has been directly involved in my life, the better off I have been. So authoritarianism is a hard sell to me. Small "l" libertarianism is to be a watchdog against creeping authoritarianism. And they've done a piss poor job of it. Police still act as highway robbers via "civil forfeiture," and the government can still steal your property because private companies want to build real estate on it (Kelo v. City of New London.) Libertarians doesn't necessarily hate government for government's sake, it means that they believe government should hold individual rights as its highest priority.

Is that what's being opposed here?

 

[ivwshane]

All I see are binary views, as if one having libertarian tendencies necessarily means that they think any and all government is bad. Since we are dealing in caricatures, who here will admit to being authoritarian? You know, the more government, the better. If some individual rights get trampled on, who cares, it's for the greater good! Such well-meaning folks tend to think that government, in the right hands, can bring forth the better society that exists in their imaginations.

Yet, in all my life experience, the less government has been directly involved in my life, the better off I have been. So authoritarianism is a hard sell to me. Small "l" libertarianism is to be a watchdog against creeping authoritarianism. And they've done a piss poor job of it. Police still act as highway robbers via "civil forfeiture," and the government can still steal your property because private companies want to build real estate on it (Kelo v. City of New London.) Libertarians doesn't necessarily hate government for government's sake, it means that they believe government should hold individual rights as its highest priority.

Is that what's being opposed here?

That’s quite the straw man you have there. Since you are having trouble following the thread I’ll explain to you what’s going on; people are relating what supposed libertarians have said their beliefs are. No one has even spoken to validity of libertarian ideals let alone voice opposition to them.

 

[crashtech]

...No one has even spoken to validity of libertarian ideals let alone voice opposition to them.

What an utter waste of time, then.

 

[Pipeline 1010]

Thanks. I am sure alcohol prohibition turbocharged organized crime and drug prohibition keep the cash injection going.

True, and it is my understanding that this isn't even controversial. As a side note, some theorize that the violence in central and south American countries would be substantially reduced if we were to eliminate the violent black market created by the American war on drugs. Not only do we win, but millions of people internationally win too. The only people who would lose are the prison guards, cops, judges, bail bondsmen, and attorneys who make lots of money on this shit. Those fucks are all agreed that we should shit on the world so they can get a paycheck. The ultimate FYGM.

 

[dank69]

What an utter waste of time, then.

Wait, so you were pissed when you thought we were condemning libertarian ideals and now you're upset that we weren't?

 

[crashtech]

Wait, so you were pissed when you thought we were condemning libertarian ideals and now you're upset that we weren't?

I'm not pissed, I'm just discouraged. Are you the spokesperson for the collective now? If not, I do love the royal we.

 

[Paladin3]

The kind of "libertarians" the OP is describing are just the chaotic neutral sovereign citizens of the world. They want to enjoy the many benefits of living in a peaceful, well-ordered society without any responsibility to contribute to it or follow its laws. If they got a true taste of the lawlessness they claim to endorse they would quickly find themselves victimized by it. At which point they would cry about the injustice and scream for help.

Nobody wants to live in a survival of the fittest world, which is exactly what we would have without at least some societal protections.