Libertarianism - yay or nay?
Pages
| Author | Topic: Libertarianism - yay or nay? |
|---|---|
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 59
|
written Thursday, October 26 2006 13:26
Profile
I thought this forum would be suitable - after all, Jeff has libertarian leanings, whereas many of the forum members are quite critical of this ideology. Hyperintelligent nutcases are also abundant, which is a great advantage for my purposes. :) The basic premise - the right of a peaceful human being to be left alone, "don't initiate force" - is immensely appealing to me. It appeals to me for reasons including: 1. Conciseness. Take it as an axiom of ethics, and much of what I (and many other people) consider morally right follows from it. E.g., "Should women not wearing burkhas be whipped in public? Nope, WTH would you initiate force against them?" 2. Tolerance. People are so diverse in their lifestyles. Can you be tolerant without refraining from aggression? "Sister, I am tolerant towards your choice to put on infidel makeup. However, I'll have to throw acid in your face, sorry about that." Doesn't do it for me. However, there's much in libertarianism I disagree with. For example, the distinction between negative rights and positive rights seems artificial. Don't initiate force? Sounds good, in theory. Who enforces that? Well, police and courts. Doesn't effective crime prevention sometimes require preemptive use of force? Should revenge really be the only purpose of the legal system? If you don't think so, we're already on a slippery slope towards utilitarianism and socialism. So be it. Then there's the private property fetish. I dislike the typical libertarian's fanatical view of property as something sacred, as a part of the owner. Paris Hilton's inheritance is part of her, it follows from her right to her life, it follows from A is A...blah blah. Violating property rights - through taxation, say - is considered comparable to physically violating the owner. Bring out your shotguns! Property is part of our external environment, and in practice it belongs to whoever has the biggest guns. A certain degree of economic democracy (socialism, that is) is fine with me. The right to property is a positive right. :P The libertarian praise for Somali anarchy brings out the absurdity in the dogmatic distinction between private and public. So, the Somali warlords aren't formally a government? Isn't it just the same on a smaller scale - petty dictatorships? Come to think of it, isn't capitalism a collection of petty dictatorships in principle? See a non-libertarian FAQ for more. If we throw in the rabid US nationalism often present, real-world libertarianism is basically about the government's sole purpose being to use violence to protect corporate property rights, especially those of US corporations. Sad, really. Basically, my current stance is that I accept taxation, but I oppose the collectivist prosecution of victimless crimes. Do the politicians know what the elusive "greater good" is? Would they care about it if they knew? Would they have the moral right to use force if they knew? Also, I have come to appreciate direct democracy as opposed to rule by politicians justified with occasional (often corporate-sponsored) elections. Liberal democrat? Social liberal/libertarian? How should I label myself? I'm definitely not conservative - if socialism is "violence for the happiness of the people", conservatism is "violence for the strength of the nation", a much more vicious collectivism where hatred of the different, not compassion, is the motive. Posts: 950 | Registered: Thursday, October 4 2001 07:00 |
|
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
|
written Thursday, October 26 2006 13:41
Profile
Of all the major parties suffering candidates this season in Oregon, I rate them all poorly. Republicans seem to be sucking up to moderates, hoping that they can preserve their reactionary hold on American power for another 4 years. Democrats ... let's just say they have changed their platform's focus twice since I began this post. Constitutionalists still don't grasp the fact that a government has no rights when it comes to the private bodies of citizens. Green Party seem to forget they are preaching to the choir and that we want more out of a candidate than a tree hugging fish lover. Libertarians seem almost comical in their stance, but not because their stance is amusing, or even off base. In fact, a withdrawal from certain government intrusions may be the right approach. But most candidates spend an inordinate amount of time saying what they don't stand for and how Libertarianism is misinterpreted. Fine. Work on your message, broadcast your message, refine your message, and make sure people understand it. Only a conspiracy theorist could embrace a Libertarian candidate with open, unquestioning arms. They appear paranoid and a bit too focused. All that said, once again I'll vote for the Democrat or Republican, since some races are tight enough it will matter. Maybe someday I'll see a viable Libertarian candidate. But I doubt it. :) -------------------- quote: Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 7420
|
written Thursday, October 26 2006 14:40
Profile
Homepage
Of all the United States' political parties, Libertarians probably most closely match my own ideology. They tend to be conservative on economic issues and more liberal on social issues. I believe the government should only tax the people enough money to maintain a strong military, after all, as far as I am concerned, protecting the population is the governments only real job. All those socialist programs we have, welfare, medicaid, social security, they are for the weak. They should be scraped, and all that money (most of the government’s budget) should go back into the economy in the form of tax breaks for everyone. Then when it comes to social issues, what right does the government have to rule on morality? Again, the main job is to protect the people, so they can punish basic crimes (murder, assault, theft), and have law enforcement to prevent them. That is as far as they need to when it comes to the lives of private citizens. It is important to note that everything changes in times of war. If the government main job is to protect the people, then in a time of war they will need emergency powers. Wars of aggression do not count, sorry Bush. Private Property: You can pretend to be enlightened all you want, but when it comes down to it, you love private property, it’s what makes America great. What do we live for if not to acquire ‘things?’ When you start taking peoples things away from them for no reason, you not only makes them very disgruntled, but you hurt the economy by diminishing motivation. No on wants to work twelve hours a day only to have all their work go to someone else. In conclusion, when it comes down to American politics: don't vote for a libertarian unless you want to throw your vote away. Third parties are a joke in this country. I always split my ticket based on how economically conservative the candidate is versus how big their secret agenda to rule my private life is. Spectre good, Santorum evil! -------------------- You lose. Posts: 2156 | Registered: Thursday, August 24 2006 07:00 |
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Thursday, October 26 2006 15:05
Profile
quote:Welcome back to the turn of the 20th century, replete with robber barons and child labor! Medicare, medicaid, social security - without these social safety nets, employees at companies which provide vital services to our lives that we almost never pay attention to (think fast food workers, grocery store employees, other store clerks) would either suffer from crushing poverty in old age and chronic health problems, or those shops would have to pass the costs of providing these services for employees on to consumers. This isn't necessarily a good thing, because when such federal programs are run efficiently, they overall can be much more cost-effective than every employer providing individual insurance coverage or a pension or retirement program for their unskilled labor. There is a strong case right now for establishing a national healthcare program in the US. Similar programs established in other nations have proven to be very effective and efficient; by contrast, the private healthcare system, predicated on a model of denying coverage in order to gross the most profits, is quite broken. Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 1934
|
written Thursday, October 26 2006 15:06
Profile
Homepage
Post changed because what I typed before didn't make any sense. Sorry. :Edit: I ditto what Drew said. National healthcare for all! [ Thursday, October 26, 2006 15:10: Message edited by: Andraste ] -------------------- You acquire an item: Radio Free Foil Posts: 1169 | Registered: Monday, September 23 2002 07:00 |
|
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
|
written Thursday, October 26 2006 15:24
Profile
quote:For TM, whether he likes it or not: quote:[/b] -------------------- quote: Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00 |
|
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
|
written Thursday, October 26 2006 15:26
Profile
quote:Most fish would turn up their noses to that kind of bait. -------------------- quote: Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 7420
|
written Thursday, October 26 2006 15:31
Profile
Homepage
The more you tax and give to the poor, the more your going to scare away big buissinesses. Big bussinesses provide jobs, and without them, the economy will suffer. Besides, without cheap labor from the underclass, how do you expect to get cheap products we all love so much?  -------------------- You lose. Posts: 2156 | Registered: Thursday, August 24 2006 07:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 1934
|
written Thursday, October 26 2006 15:33
Profile
Homepage
quote:Ummmm, from China? Where we get everything from now? That picture is so true. Tom Tomorrow is great. [ Thursday, October 26, 2006 15:34: Message edited by: Andraste ] -------------------- You acquire an item: Radio Free Foil Posts: 1169 | Registered: Monday, September 23 2002 07:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 7420
|
written Thursday, October 26 2006 15:40
Profile
Homepage
quote:Exactly, China's underclass. Or are you saying America’s the only country where it’s not okay to take advantage of the poor? -------------------- You lose. Posts: 2156 | Registered: Thursday, August 24 2006 07:00 |
|
Nuke and Pave
Member # 24
|
written Thursday, October 26 2006 15:46
Profile
Homepage
quote: quote:Tullegolar, please stop trolling. These topics give a good opportunity to find out thoughts of different people, but your flamebaits just kill intelligent discussion turning what could be interesting topics into mindless flamewars. This isn't funny and it certainly isn't accomplishing anything besides making everybody angry at each other. [ Thursday, October 26, 2006 15:50: Message edited by: Zeviz ] -------------------- Be careful with a word, as you would with a sword, For it too has the power to kill. However well placed word, unlike a well placed sword, Can also have the power to heal. Posts: 2649 | Registered: Wednesday, October 3 2001 07:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 7420
|
written Thursday, October 26 2006 16:00
Profile
Homepage
Zeviz: I don't troll. Everything I say, I mean. Quote: Spoken by Cao Cao in the novel Three Kingdoms. I highly recommend that novel. Red Object: I collect historical artifacts from all over the world. I do have a Soviet flag, as well as one of those big furry hats that they wore. I'll upload pictures one of these days. Jesus: This actually led to an interesting scholarly discussion if you read the rest of the thread. Private Property: How about instead of just writing me off as a troll you try to dispute what I said? Go ahead, try it. I don’t think you can. [ Thursday, October 26, 2006 16:01: Message edited by: Emperor Tullegolar ] -------------------- You lose. Posts: 2156 | Registered: Thursday, August 24 2006 07:00 |
|
Nuke and Pave
Member # 24
|
written Thursday, October 26 2006 16:06
Profile
Homepage
Sorry about misreading that Soviet flag. I took that, combined with some of the political statements I've seen from you, to be an indication that your real political leanings are far to the left. As for arguing the merits of Liberalism, I'll do that later. [ Thursday, October 26, 2006 16:07: Message edited by: Zeviz ] -------------------- Be careful with a word, as you would with a sword, For it too has the power to kill. However well placed word, unlike a well placed sword, Can also have the power to heal. Posts: 2649 | Registered: Wednesday, October 3 2001 07:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 7420
|
written Thursday, October 26 2006 16:09
Profile
Homepage
Well then, I guess it's a good thing I didn't say cardinal's robes as my red object. Who knows what people would have thought. -------------------- You lose. Posts: 2156 | Registered: Thursday, August 24 2006 07:00 |
|
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
|
written Thursday, October 26 2006 16:20
Profile
quote:So, by your way of thinking, a rabid homophobe posting their personal philosophy on a rainbow website would be perfectly fine? How instructive. -------------------- quote: Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 7420
|
written Thursday, October 26 2006 16:27
Profile
Homepage
What makes you infer that? The website is the property of the person wo created it. That person has the right to allow and disallow whatever he wants on his site. How did you manage to get everything so backwards? -------------------- You lose. Posts: 2156 | Registered: Thursday, August 24 2006 07:00 |
|
Councilor
Member # 6600
|
written Thursday, October 26 2006 17:16
Profile
Homepage
The point is, just because you mean it doesn't mean that you should say it. The rabid homophobe means what they say on the website, but that's not the appropriate place for them to say it. Similarly, just because you mean your political views doesn't mean you have to espouse them at every possible opportunity. Originally by Emperor Tullegolar: quote:Doesn't it bother you that you wish the Crusades or the bomb dropped on Hiroshima had never happened, but you couldn't care less that a huge number of people will suffer or die just because you want abundant, cheap material goods? Dikiyoba. Edit: Expanded explanation. [ Thursday, October 26, 2006 17:25: Message edited by: Dikiyoba ] Posts: 4346 | Registered: Friday, December 23 2005 08:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 7420
|
written Thursday, October 26 2006 17:26
Profile
Homepage
quote:Preposterous. This thread asks for my opinion, so I gave it. Sorry it was not more to your liking. As for my economical opinions, I am doing my best to keep everyone in mind and create the best situation for people based on the long term. Taxing business and giving to the weak will hurt the economy. The weak may benefit in the short run, but the businesses will weaken, and the economy will suffer as a whole. Everyone loses in the long run. If you reduce taxes overall (for everyone, not just the rich) you are putting more wealth into the system. People can buy more goods, businesses can hire more people and afford to pay them more. More will benefit in the long run, including the weak. Edit for Dikiyoba's edit: Are you joking? How is a thread on libertarianism not the appropriate place to discuss libertarian economic policy? [ Thursday, October 26, 2006 17:28: Message edited by: Emperor Tullegolar ] -------------------- You lose. Posts: 2156 | Registered: Thursday, August 24 2006 07:00 |
|
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
|
written Thursday, October 26 2006 17:43
Profile
quote:Pretty words. Can you cite a real world example where a changed economic policy (regulated business to unregulated) has lead to greater economic freedom and wealth for both rich and poor? -------------------- quote: Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 335
|
written Thursday, October 26 2006 17:53
Profile
Homepage
Stating your opinion on politics on these game boards is preposterous. Since we're doing it, Lego has as much right as the rest of us. I agree that the government's job is to protect people, but I include more than just military and criminal protection. Do you really think everyone would stop working if they had 1% of their income taken as taxes? I doubt it. How about 10%? 20%? 50%? I don't know how much you can take from people before they lose motivation, but I think it's generally quite a lot, especially if you spin it right (don't ever let them have the money!) and give services in return. Taxing business may drive some away, but taxing the people and socializing insurance coverage takes a burden away from companies and draws them in. Believe it or not, trickle down economics don't work. —Alorael, who really doesn't understand your criteria for "weak" except apparently "poor." Throwing around apparently pseudo-Darwinian terms will get you into all kinds of trouble with ambiguity. Say what you mean: the poor deserve nothing they don't earn for themselves. Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 |
|
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
|
written Thursday, October 26 2006 18:02
Profile
I think it is time to return to our roots. We are quote:Well. Some of us anyways, I'm not really all that intelligent.  -------------------- quote: Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 7420
|
written Thursday, October 26 2006 18:09
Profile
Homepage
Salmon: I'll give you a two! You guys like wikipedia, right? Russia: After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Yeltsin's policy of 'shock therapy' to shift Russia from communism to capitalism hurt the economy greatly, as is expected in any period of transition. However, since the early 2000's, Russia economy is back on the rise. Their GDP is higher than ever, and it is predicted that they will soon have one of the strongest economies in the world. Personally, I place them as number two in my list of countries that will one day become superpowers. What's number one? China: Ever since the death of Mao, China has been leaning more and more towards a capitalist economy. Today, they are practically as market based as the United States. Their GDP is constantly rising, espeially since the reforms, and if they can just get their population under control, this will result in higher standards of living for their citizens. quote:People like to say this all the time, but I've actually never seen a convincing argument to support it. Would you please cite one for me? -------------------- You lose. Posts: 2156 | Registered: Thursday, August 24 2006 07:00 |
|
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
|
written Thursday, October 26 2006 18:25
Profile
Your dependence on the future tense in both of your examples fails to impress me. Again, show me an example of where this has happened. Predictions of the future need not apply. -------------------- quote: Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00 |
|
Guardian
Member # 2476
|
written Thursday, October 26 2006 18:26
Profile
The countries that feel best to live in are usually not those that strive for superpower. In your system, Emperor, the art of earning money would have to be valued above any other art, as a person's sense of value and self esteem would be defined wholly by success in that area. Can it not be seen as part of a government's job to strive for a balance of values within a society? Without government funding, indepent research for instance would cease to exist. I shudder to think of the consequences. Social welfare, supporting the needy, also conveys the message that they are valued and not just left to rot. There are many definitions of socalled 'strength' and 'weakness', yours doesn't count for much in my lexicon. -------------------- Polaris Rache's A3 Site reformatted 2/3 done Rache's A3 Site, original version Posts: 1828 | Registered: Saturday, January 11 2003 08:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Thursday, October 26 2006 18:33
Profile
Homepage
Hey, guys, way to let ET set the terms of the debate. Stop replying to patent nonsense, people. You're only giving it credibility. [ Thursday, October 26, 2006 18:33: Message edited by: Thuryl ] -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |