Maetryx
Diamond Member
- Jan 18, 2001
- 4,849
- 1
- 81
Moonbeam, there are two parts to the libertarian philosphy (as I see it):
1) Maximum freedom, EXCEPT
2) no freedom to infringe someone else's freedom
I think therein lies your problem. You see capitalism as "might makes right". Libertarians do not believe that someone has the freedom to harm consumers (others), the environment (others), or national security (others). Libertarianism would make the harmer pay amends or make it right. Even under libertarianism the main function of government is justice.
1) Maximum freedom, EXCEPT
2) no freedom to infringe someone else's freedom
I think therein lies your problem. You see capitalism as "might makes right". Libertarians do not believe that someone has the freedom to harm consumers (others), the environment (others), or national security (others). Libertarianism would make the harmer pay amends or make it right. Even under libertarianism the main function of government is justice.
if personal freedom and liberty doesn't make much sense to you, then don't bother, you will never understand, don't even try
read neal boortz's web site , if we are lucky, he will run for president on the libertarian ticket when harry browne gets too old/dies
sounds great, but how big does a government have to be to rein in an Enron or an AOL/Time-Warner?
what's to stop the latter from buying influence as they do now?
Moonbeam/Spamela, libertarians aren't for the absense of law. If you steal my car you've violated my rights and have broken the law. Enron broke laws as well and would pay in the same manner.
Look at Enron under our current system of "equity": it's been 320 days since the scandal broke and only 2 people have been charged. You call that "reined in"?
The purchasing of influence in government is a serious concern and I don't know how to address that one. Llibertarians put individuals above entities so my guess is corruption would not be as severe. Also, since citizens would have elected libertarians they would feel the same way and would hold elected officials accountable for their sell-outs, unlike the apathy we face today.
Look at Enron under our current system of "equity": it's been 320 days since the scandal broke and only 2 people have been charged. You call that "reined in"?
The purchasing of influence in government is a serious concern and I don't know how to address that one. Llibertarians put individuals above entities so my guess is corruption would not be as severe. Also, since citizens would have elected libertarians they would feel the same way and would hold elected officials accountable for their sell-outs, unlike the apathy we face today.
Maetryx
Diamond Member
- Jan 18, 2001
- 4,849
- 1
- 81
Originally posted by: CPA
Moon, after reading this I would have thought the same thing. You are discussing personal freedom and property rights, then all of a sudden you go on a diatribe about consciousness.
FWIW, I totally disagree. Moonbeam is trying to think correctly about a particular issue. To do so, he wants to understand it in it's entirety, and then fit it within his worldview. If the ideas are contradictory, or do not fit correctly in his worldview, then he continues to investigate trying to determine if the idea is a fallacy, or his worldview is flawed. Of course I'm putting words in his mind.
Go for it man! Share your feelings with the group. You only live once but you'll work many times.
Originally posted by: JellyBaby
Go for it man! Share your feelings with the group. You only live once but you'll work many times.
I love you too.
No seriously I can't cause if I start it's gonna be pages and pages of stuff and I won't get anything done. Maybe tomorrow, but I've been meaning to start up a thread like this myself.
Mrburn: Sigh......that's not Liberty that's thuggery.
--------------------------
Again you just assert this. Why are you right. Just because you say so. I don't think so. I'm interested in foundations. What is yours?
---------------
Maetryx: I think therein lies your problem. You see capitalism as "might makes right". Libertarians do not believe that someone has the freedom to harm consumers (others), the environment (others), or national security (others). Libertarianism would make the harmer pay amends or make it right. Even under libertarianism the main function of government is justice.
And as for your next post where you put words in my mind, my world view is that I don't know anything. That's why I find those of you who do to be so fascinating.
-------------------------------
No I think that you see capitalism as might makes right. You believe in private property. Why. How did you come to ownership except by might makes right, and not the might of the individual either.
-----------------------------
FoBot quote: if personal freedom and liberty doesn't make much sense to you, then don't bother, you will never understand, don't even try.
-----------------------
Right, you don't know what your talking about so you blame the other person for a lack of comprehension. Are you like that with all the unexamined assumptions you base your life on and have never even thought about? But if you don't understand, don't ever try. Ahahahaha. See how cleaver I am.
-----------------------------------
CPA quote: Moon, after reading this I would have thought the same thing. You are discussing personal freedom and property rights, then all of a sudden you go on a diatribe about consciousness.
-----------------------------------
I know CPA, I just wanted to show that there are two ends to every stick. There's a whole other way to view ownership.
--------------------------
Again you just assert this. Why are you right. Just because you say so. I don't think so. I'm interested in foundations. What is yours?
---------------
Maetryx: I think therein lies your problem. You see capitalism as "might makes right". Libertarians do not believe that someone has the freedom to harm consumers (others), the environment (others), or national security (others). Libertarianism would make the harmer pay amends or make it right. Even under libertarianism the main function of government is justice.
And as for your next post where you put words in my mind, my world view is that I don't know anything. That's why I find those of you who do to be so fascinating.
-------------------------------
No I think that you see capitalism as might makes right. You believe in private property. Why. How did you come to ownership except by might makes right, and not the might of the individual either.
-----------------------------
FoBot quote: if personal freedom and liberty doesn't make much sense to you, then don't bother, you will never understand, don't even try.
-----------------------
Right, you don't know what your talking about so you blame the other person for a lack of comprehension. Are you like that with all the unexamined assumptions you base your life on and have never even thought about? But if you don't understand, don't ever try. Ahahahaha. See how cleaver I am.
-----------------------------------
CPA quote: Moon, after reading this I would have thought the same thing. You are discussing personal freedom and property rights, then all of a sudden you go on a diatribe about consciousness.
-----------------------------------
I know CPA, I just wanted to show that there are two ends to every stick. There's a whole other way to view ownership.
zephyrprime
Diamond Member
- Feb 18, 2001
- 7,512
- 2
- 81
Libertarianism doesn't really say why this is so. I've read Ayn Rand (who called her philosphy Objectivism) and she never says why these should be so other than appealing to natural law. So the principle that "you can't infringe other's rights" in Libertarianism is simply an axiom or postulate without further rigorous development.
That said, I'm not sure I understand your confusion about libertarianism Moonbeam. Here's my uncertain take on what thoughts on libertarianism. Correct me if I'm wrong.
1. Libertarianism says it's all about liberty
2. Actual proponents of Libertarianism that I have spoken with (ie Amused one) say that under Libertarianism, there are property rights.
3. But how can there be property rights if there's absolute liberty? After all, having to have to respect property rights infringes on my theorectical absolute right to do whatever I want doesn't it? And as a practical matter of fact, property rights can only exist if there is some sort of Force to compel property rights and having any such force violates premise 1. doesn't it? So Libertarianism has an internal contradiction!
So is my analysis of your conundrum right or am I off the mark here? It's hard to communicate precisely online.
GoodRevrnd
Diamond Member
- Dec 27, 2001
- 6,801
- 581
- 126
I'm a bit confused on moony's standpoint here...
He details how libertarianism says personal freedom allows you to take what you want, however, most everyone here and your average libertarian recognize personal freedom includes not encroaching on others freedoms. Now perhaps the laissez-faire of some classic libertarianism definitions say free markets can stomp around as they please, 'enslaving' the worker as he put it, but what's the point of a modern institution being defined by classical definitions? Don't define the group by the reactionaries (unfortunately they're the ones that get the attention).
I'd also like to point out that the more government there is, the more there is to bribe. Trim the bureaucratic fat and corruption is easier to trace, and less likely to happen in the first place, thus making a *more* (not strict) laissez-faire approach plausible.
He details how libertarianism says personal freedom allows you to take what you want, however, most everyone here and your average libertarian recognize personal freedom includes not encroaching on others freedoms. Now perhaps the laissez-faire of some classic libertarianism definitions say free markets can stomp around as they please, 'enslaving' the worker as he put it, but what's the point of a modern institution being defined by classical definitions? Don't define the group by the reactionaries (unfortunately they're the ones that get the attention).
I'd also like to point out that the more government there is, the more there is to bribe. Trim the bureaucratic fat and corruption is easier to trace, and less likely to happen in the first place, thus making a *more* (not strict) laissez-faire approach plausible.
GoodRevrnd
Diamond Member
- Dec 27, 2001
- 6,801
- 581
- 126
It would seem that not knowing *anything* makes you less then human. Do you survive on your instincts?
I am just curious why everyone keeps debating about the extremist Libertarians? No one in government is extremist anymore. Heck, the Republicans and Democrats are very close to the same these days except for a few key issues (military, abortion, welfare, etc...) So they argue about certain issues rather than certain idealogies which is what is supposed to separate the two (more government in biz rather than less, less government in society versus more).
Libertarians basically believe in a hands off approach from the government in both the economy and society in general. That government should be as small as possible to minimize its influence. Sure we need a government to enforce the laws, defend the nation, deal with international relations, etc...
Oh well, most people will only view Libertarians as their most extreme followers being representative of the whole group.
Libertarians basically believe in a hands off approach from the government in both the economy and society in general. That government should be as small as possible to minimize its influence. Sure we need a government to enforce the laws, defend the nation, deal with international relations, etc...
Oh well, most people will only view Libertarians as their most extreme followers being representative of the whole group.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
Moonie, moonie, moonie... why can't you understand basic concepts of individuality and proprietry?
Huxley said, "Do what thou wilt should be the whole of the law, until you violate the rights of another."
If I own something, it is mine, you may not take it without my consent, that would be unlawful theft. It I give it to you, it becomes yours. If I sell (trade, same thing) it to you, then it becomes yours and what you gave me becomes mine. All of these are lawful rights that libertarians support.
In fact, proprietry is the basic foundation of libertarianism. Theft is its most evil crime. If you murder, you have stolen life. If you rape, you have stolen trust and virtue. All rights are based off of consent. If I consent to give you a thing, then no crime can have been committed, even if I later decided that I was swindled. Thus the individual is both protected and empowered.
Politics is the practice of the control of the conditions that influence the emotions of the communal whole. The most important conditions to control are those that lead to emotions that cause unrest and violence. These include oppression, poverty, theft of life and property, and injustice. Your beloved socialism teaches that peace can be acheived only if all people gave up their senses of proprietry and individualism. Unfortunately, that will never happen, emotion forbids it because it is unjust that all receive the same when some work so hard while others work not at all. Libertarianism is the opposite. It teaches that peace can be acheived when all people are given freedom to succeed (or fail) by their own merits under a system of unbiased justice.
American Libertarianism stresses the need for our country to return to the Bill of Rights. Basic rights such as the ability to speak freely and to defend oneself have been under attack for too long. Bureaucratic government, like we have now, is the antithesis of freedom. When an appointed government official can arbitrarily make decisions affecting your life and liberty, we are a long ways away from the freedom our Founding Fathers intended.
Lots of good reading out there, my personal favorite for beginners in this philosphy is Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do : The Absurdity of Consensual Crimes in Our Free Country by the (recently) late Peter McWilliams.
But then again, I may have just posted a long, wordy, in-depth response to one of Moonie's sarcastic posts again. Ah well...
Huxley said, "Do what thou wilt should be the whole of the law, until you violate the rights of another."
If I own something, it is mine, you may not take it without my consent, that would be unlawful theft. It I give it to you, it becomes yours. If I sell (trade, same thing) it to you, then it becomes yours and what you gave me becomes mine. All of these are lawful rights that libertarians support.
In fact, proprietry is the basic foundation of libertarianism. Theft is its most evil crime. If you murder, you have stolen life. If you rape, you have stolen trust and virtue. All rights are based off of consent. If I consent to give you a thing, then no crime can have been committed, even if I later decided that I was swindled. Thus the individual is both protected and empowered.
Politics is the practice of the control of the conditions that influence the emotions of the communal whole. The most important conditions to control are those that lead to emotions that cause unrest and violence. These include oppression, poverty, theft of life and property, and injustice. Your beloved socialism teaches that peace can be acheived only if all people gave up their senses of proprietry and individualism. Unfortunately, that will never happen, emotion forbids it because it is unjust that all receive the same when some work so hard while others work not at all. Libertarianism is the opposite. It teaches that peace can be acheived when all people are given freedom to succeed (or fail) by their own merits under a system of unbiased justice.
American Libertarianism stresses the need for our country to return to the Bill of Rights. Basic rights such as the ability to speak freely and to defend oneself have been under attack for too long. Bureaucratic government, like we have now, is the antithesis of freedom. When an appointed government official can arbitrarily make decisions affecting your life and liberty, we are a long ways away from the freedom our Founding Fathers intended.
Lots of good reading out there, my personal favorite for beginners in this philosphy is Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do : The Absurdity of Consensual Crimes in Our Free Country by the (recently) late Peter McWilliams.
But then again, I may have just posted a long, wordy, in-depth response to one of Moonie's sarcastic posts again. Ah well...
Well since I don't really understand Libertarianism very well it's kind of hard to state my objections. zephyrprime may have come the closest to answering my question though with this: "Libertarianism doesn't really say why this is so. I've read Ayn Rand (who called her philosophy Objectivism) and she never says why these should be so other than appealing to natural law. So the principle that "you can't infringe other's rights" in Libertarianism is simply an axiom or postulate without further rigorous development."
That it is axiomatic would not surprise me in the least since Amused abandoned his cause the minute he had to defend that point and he normally has all the answers. Until zephyr, everybody has pretty much said there is something wrong with me because I can't take for granted what everybody takes for granted, or they have just repeated it as an absolute. "Individuals have a right to private property", really?
What I mean by 'not knowing' is realizing that all the suppositions people make about the way things are, when analyzed, and here we just did Libertarianism as an example, lead to the conclusion that while people build big castles on the basis of these philosophies, an analysis of their foundation reveals nothing but sand. What is the point of being a Libertarian, of arguing for it, of pretending it's some kind of absolute, or its principles are if it rests on assumptions you can't defend and even want to pretend are different than the truth.
Libertarians make big noises about individual rights. They don't want to be told to take care of their mothers, or their neighbors mothers. They don't like anybody else living on the fruits of their labor. That's what I seem to be hearing. Maybe I'm wrong. Private property is sacrosanct. It's the individual this and the individual that. The group can't do this to me and the group can't do that. It's all about personal initiative this and individual effort that.
So I took that and ran. OK the individual is supreme. Then I take what I want. Oh no, you can't do that. I can't do that? Why? Well my rights end where another's begins. OK your dollar ends where my welfare needs begin. Oh no, you can't take my money. No, well you can?t keep property if I can take it.
Libertarianism is just moving greed back to a vanishing point where most don't question. Everybody has a right to personal property. But we've been around for a million years before we had personal property. We don't really own anything, never have and never will. It's all a fiction created by group force. Your right to personal property is nothing more than a communistic, socialistic agreement among the weak to prevent the strong from taking what they want. Amused complained that Liberals of somebody hates the businessman. Libertarians hate the naturally strong. They want a society where the puny cunning who dedicate themselves to the selfish acquisition of material wealth is the highest good. They weaken the genes of man. The Vikings understood Natural Law far better than Rand. They were free.
There is an alternative argument, one open I suppose to liberals and conservatives alike. That is that our rights spring from a Supreme law connected to a Creator of some kind, i.e. that our rights are inalienable. I get the sense that the ego of libertarianism is loathe to admit the existence of God.
When I spoke of not knowing, again, I refer to the belief in unexamined assumptions. Imagine taking a time machine back a few years and listening to people discussing the world in terms that told you they thought it was flat. Your life would be based, on could argue, on the knowledge that it was round, or on the basis of believing in one less assumption, that it may not be flat. We don't necessarily need to know the truth to analyze an argument for the assumptions on which it rests and hold those up to the light. Looking into Libertarianism reveals that it rests on the power of a group to use it's force to enforce and maintain certain agreed upon assumptions or it places its faith in God. This is not what I expected from the lofty claims I read on ATOT here.
That it is axiomatic would not surprise me in the least since Amused abandoned his cause the minute he had to defend that point and he normally has all the answers. Until zephyr, everybody has pretty much said there is something wrong with me because I can't take for granted what everybody takes for granted, or they have just repeated it as an absolute. "Individuals have a right to private property", really?
What I mean by 'not knowing' is realizing that all the suppositions people make about the way things are, when analyzed, and here we just did Libertarianism as an example, lead to the conclusion that while people build big castles on the basis of these philosophies, an analysis of their foundation reveals nothing but sand. What is the point of being a Libertarian, of arguing for it, of pretending it's some kind of absolute, or its principles are if it rests on assumptions you can't defend and even want to pretend are different than the truth.
Libertarians make big noises about individual rights. They don't want to be told to take care of their mothers, or their neighbors mothers. They don't like anybody else living on the fruits of their labor. That's what I seem to be hearing. Maybe I'm wrong. Private property is sacrosanct. It's the individual this and the individual that. The group can't do this to me and the group can't do that. It's all about personal initiative this and individual effort that.
So I took that and ran. OK the individual is supreme. Then I take what I want. Oh no, you can't do that. I can't do that? Why? Well my rights end where another's begins. OK your dollar ends where my welfare needs begin. Oh no, you can't take my money. No, well you can?t keep property if I can take it.
Libertarianism is just moving greed back to a vanishing point where most don't question. Everybody has a right to personal property. But we've been around for a million years before we had personal property. We don't really own anything, never have and never will. It's all a fiction created by group force. Your right to personal property is nothing more than a communistic, socialistic agreement among the weak to prevent the strong from taking what they want. Amused complained that Liberals of somebody hates the businessman. Libertarians hate the naturally strong. They want a society where the puny cunning who dedicate themselves to the selfish acquisition of material wealth is the highest good. They weaken the genes of man. The Vikings understood Natural Law far better than Rand. They were free.
There is an alternative argument, one open I suppose to liberals and conservatives alike. That is that our rights spring from a Supreme law connected to a Creator of some kind, i.e. that our rights are inalienable. I get the sense that the ego of libertarianism is loathe to admit the existence of God.
When I spoke of not knowing, again, I refer to the belief in unexamined assumptions. Imagine taking a time machine back a few years and listening to people discussing the world in terms that told you they thought it was flat. Your life would be based, on could argue, on the knowledge that it was round, or on the basis of believing in one less assumption, that it may not be flat. We don't necessarily need to know the truth to analyze an argument for the assumptions on which it rests and hold those up to the light. Looking into Libertarianism reveals that it rests on the power of a group to use it's force to enforce and maintain certain agreed upon assumptions or it places its faith in God. This is not what I expected from the lofty claims I read on ATOT here.
Moonbeam, are you refering to Libertarianism as a philosophical belief or as a government inclination? It looks like a philosophical belief to me.
PSY, I'm not being sarcastic, I'm being difficult, very difficult apparently. I'm asking for an explanation of the truth of the foundation of Libertarianism and that must be a really difficult idea because only one person has even gotten close and he just admitted he didn't know. Everybody else is just accepting things of faith and calling me a stupid party pooper, or else repeating the same old line over and over as if it contained its own proof. And don't call me a socialist either please. We didn't look at what socialism rests on. It's probably bunk too.
nord, I'm looking at it as a political philosophy and trying to figure out what it's built on. Seems to me it's trying to hide its real roots.
We didn't look at what socialism rests on. It's probably bunk too. nord, I'm looking at it as a political philosophy and trying to figure out what it's built on. Seems to me it's trying to hide its real roots.
Moonbeam, I am afraid that you are stuck on definitions written in the dictionary. I doubt there is one true meaning as to what libertarianism is. As with any political party its definition changes as its members ideas change. Unlike a house, or a castle built on sand as you put it any worthwile american political party is not stuck on any one foundation or belief, but is pragmatic. A person joining the libertarian party against government control of automobile fuel economy adds a new block in the foundation as would a member with distincly different views.
EDIT: Abraham Lincoln and his Republican parties foundation was "No Slavery in the west." What bearing that holds on the modern GOP is probably non existant.
EDIT: Abraham Lincoln and his Republican parties foundation was "No Slavery in the west." What bearing that holds on the modern GOP is probably non existant.
Well that's interesting, Grminalac, but I wonder how I got stuck on definitions, when I'm trying to look beneath them to see if there's any substance to them. Everybody so far seems to agree that personal property is pretty central to libertarianism, as well as the individual, free markets etc. Your point seems right, but not germane, at least to my problem as I see it.
I odn't have much faith in Libertarians....
While I agree with them on personal freedom, I can't agree with their economic policy. No one has yet convinced me that the economy would function well without any government control (things like the SEC, FCC, FTC etc).
While I agree with them on personal freedom, I can't agree with their economic policy. No one has yet convinced me that the economy would function well without any government control (things like the SEC, FCC, FTC etc).
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter