Welcome to the Free Talk Live bulletin board system!
This board is closed to new users and new posts.  Thank you to all our great mods and users over the years.  Details here.
185859 Posts in 9829 Topics by 1371 Members
Latest Member: cjt26
Home Help
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Free Talk Live
| |-+  General
| | |-+  Bye, bye to masquerading as a libertarian
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5   Go Down

Author Topic: Bye, bye to masquerading as a libertarian  (Read 18308 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Level 20 Anklebiter

  • Small, but deadly
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2069
    • View Profile
Re: Bye, bye to masquerading as a libertarian
« Reply #15 on: September 18, 2008, 10:43:18 AM »

Whatever I might say in this particular rant Iím pro legalizing marijuana, in fact Iím still pro legalizing prostitution & pro liberalizing the gun & gambling laws. But you donít have to be a libertarian or anarchist to advocate all that.

That may be true, but one cannot make a consistent argument that one's personal freedom to be left alone in certain spheres of life is necessary then exempt that logic from analyzing the other spheres of life (such as taxation and regulation).
 
Quote
This is because Iíve dreaded associating myself with the extremes of libertarians, because if I donít fit in with peopleís concept of libertarianism then I get a ton of grief, because maybe Iím not deep down a libertarian.

Or maybe it's because you don't understand the cluster(s) of libertarian schools of thought?

Quote
On the issues I probably do agree with libertarians to some extent or other but Iím not one whoís for automatic hatred of government not matter what, to me its irrational & bigoted. Oh yeah bigoted is the right correct term because with your average bigot no matter what evidence you show them that homosexuals & blacks arenít bad people theyíll carry on hating. Its just the same with many a libertarian no matter what evidence theyíre shown government can do good theyíll never agree & carry on hating.

How can I hate an idea? Hell, I don't even hate fascism. I hate people that hurt other people, even if it's for something petty like what you see in friendships and other sorts of relationships. And even if I did have a hatred for the idea of the State that does not mean that it's bigoted as the State as an idea has no substance as being a person, thus it cannot suffer bigotry. It can suffer other sorts of irrationality, but not bigotry.


Quote
At this point many a libertarian will disown me & maybe will want to do worse to me just for saying government can do good. ...[G]overnment isnít perfect when it comes to implementation but at least government recognizes that food & shelter as a human right. Libertarians donít consider food & shelter a right yet they believe in the right to life, well in my mind you canít have the right to life unless you have the means to live life. Oh no Ziggy has crossed the threshold into positive liberty & become a hardcore socialist. Worth noting the man who coined the terms positive & negative liberty & warned of the use of positive liberty Isaiah Berlin himself was a social-liberal. Yeah Iím grateful people do pay taxes to fund help for those who are sick & vulnerable. Iím sorry if you donít think you should care in some way about your fellow man then youíre a fucking sociopath. Sociopathic, stroppy are they apt descriptions to describe libertarians, well not all libertarians but good percentage Iíve encountered.

Yet the State uses the majority of its funds to 'detain', torture, abuse, and kill people in the majority of cases? And not wishing to pay for that makes me a sociopath? Wow. Even if the State did none of those things which I accuse it of doing does not negate my moral right not to be extorted by threat of physical violence to fund or morally sanction what the State does. I don't see Richard Branson in the name of Virgin Galactic  or the head of the United Way in the name of their ventures trying to extort me by the barrel of a gun to fund them or morally sanction them. If your ideas are good then why not convince people on them? Habitat for Humanity does this, and so do for-profit ventures. Is it that hard to just leave people well alone or do you feel that you have the moral right to control others when they are not 'contributing?'


Quote
Another apt description would be dogmatic & when Iíve banged on libertarian philosophy itís been fair accusation of me. Problem is if you attempt to deviate from libertarian philosophy then youíll get whole load of crap from libertarians youíre not libertarian, which would be correct Iím nor Iím a born again social liberal & proud of it. However is it not an irony that libertarians who by nature are total individualists yet so dogmatic about it.

And so are many other people who follow different banners/flags in the world. You are not going to get away from that. Most folks come in three general 'forms.' The Zealot (Won't leave well alone and does care what you think about him/her...), the average Joe (not really concerned, just want to live life...), and the Dude (like average Joe just wants to live life, but also doesn't really care what you believe in the extreme...).  If you think that politics doesn't attract zealots regardless of political philosophy then you are quite naive.

Quote
Iíd still say Iím an individualist to a good extent for instance if you have a group of people & thereís one individual who happens to passively not conform as in having dyed pink hair etc, I donít believe that the group have the right to beat up upon them to conform. But how to ensure mob rule, tyranny of the majority etc, well having thought about that dilemma the only way to ensure mob rule or the tyranny of the majority is by the means of governance.

No, it's not. You need to substantiate the need for a Lord figure over our heads before making that proclamation.

Quote
Worth remembering my hero JS Mill though argued in favour individual rights & against the tyranny of the majority. But its also argued that Mill argued in favour of state invention in oneís life if required.

JS Mill was wrong.

Quote
Somebody once said a libertarian views a man down a well as still able to have free move just they need make more effort, a liberal thinks thatís ridiculous & gives the man a helping hand.

And it's the liberal who will tell you what you can and cannot do after you've been helped up.

Quote
Yeah libertarians utopian daydreamers who if you donít agree with their vision then youíre a statist, a fascist or mentally ill.


This is generally true of the whole population of the human species. Please stop being an ass and making the generalization only applicable to one portion of the human population based on political philosophy/affiliation.

Quote
Recently on a libertarian discussion forum I saw a libertarian askedÖ

How Feel About Those Who Disagree With You?

1) Adolf Hitler.
2) Adolf Hitler.
3) Adolf Hitler.

That kind of says it all.

You never really cite if it was on this forum or which forum it was. Nor do you really give us the argument in a proper context. All you did was produce a strawman in another thread or whatever.

Quote
I was never really a libertarian as my website illustrates as libertarians donít generally campaign for betterment of environmentalism nor champion labor rights. I always tried to portray myself as a moderate libertarian but needless to say even as a moderate I was a fundamentalist.

Wanting a clean place to live does not make one moderate.

Quote
Iíve said that isnít it an irony that such an individualistic philosophy is so dogmatic & that dogma breeds fundamentalism & extremism. I wonder if many a libertarian doesnít have some form of autism being as they donít seem to understand that not everybody is a libertarian.

I call bullshit.

Quote
Plus I wonder if they realize that thereís more to the world then solely an individualís own interest, take climate change for instance. Yeah climate change something which libertarians will probably bulk out for being a conspiracy & why is that? Its not because itís a conspiracy its because it means individuals will need to be making sacrifices to save the environment because if we donít then weíll have no fit environment to enjoy any kind of liberty in.

Again, I call bullshit.

Quote
I was a libertarian fundamentalist & wasnít listening to either sense or truth. But its not Iím rejecting libertarians just ceasing to masquerade around as a libertarian. One of the truisms people kept pointing out to me was that being as Iím disabled & considering other problems Iíve suffered in my life if were not for the welfare state then Iíd be dead. Yeah I canít deny that in fact the government does a fairly good job here in Britain in helping disabled people & well itís not perfect as nothing ever is but its better then nothing or no garneted assistance.

And yet you cannot keep doctors in your country, you're getting low-jacked like the rest of the world, and your own currency is tanking much like the US dollar due to its fiat status. So much for so-called working or good job. And if all you can reference is how it treats disabled people rather than the whole of the population then you're quite myopic on that issue or set of issues.


Quote
Iíll admit Iíve said F**K LIBERTARIANISM one before only too go back on the sentiment but this time I really am rejecting libertarianism & waving goodbye too many a libertarians, embracing social-liberalism & liberals.

It's your choice, but if you don't like my values then too bad, because I am not going to change them. And if you really think that in the end folks like me have to be locked up, beaten down, and etc to make your world 'safe', expect me to be there to stop you. Be by sword or pen.
Logged
I hear thunder but there's no rain, this kind of thunder breaks walls and window pane

Kevin Freeheart

  • FTL AMPlifier Gold
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 536
    • View Profile
Re: Bye, bye to masquerading as a libertarian
« Reply #16 on: September 18, 2008, 10:51:24 AM »

From hearing Ziggy call the show all the time, I've always assumed that "libertarian" in the UK simply meant "Moderate Democrat" in Yank. I never felt the need to call him on it just like he doesn't go around telling people that Oreo is a biscuit, not a cookie, and the peace has been kept.

Quote
On the issues I probably do agree with libertarians to some extent or other but Iím not one whoís for automatic hatred of government not matter what

Oh yes, I know. You were advocating that the European Union was a good thing because it removed certain bureaucracy like crossing the border. It was QUITE clear to me at that point you "didn't get it". Here's the test to see if you're a libertarian. "Do you believe it is acceptable to use force or a substitute for force, like fraud, to attain political or social ends?" If you say "No" then you're a libertarian. Knowing that there is not 100% consent to the government and that government uses violence to stay around, advocating government is advocating violence. Even "small government" minarchist types accept this, they just admit that they think a certain amount of violence is needed to preserve massive scale acts of violence (of course, there's all kinds of cognative dissonance there but the point still stands).

Quote
Its just the same with many a libertarian no matter what evidence theyíre shown government can do good theyíll never agree & carry on hating.

Show me some evidence that me pointing a gun in your face and demanding your money is "doing good". Show me evidence that your mother or sister being raped can "do good". I think you're using heavy handed doublethink to justify that arguement to yourself. Being black is a physical characteristic, being a government thug or bureaucrat is a choice. Saying "government is bad" is a fallacy because government doesn't exist. It's merely people calling themselves government and those people continue to choose to be violent and continue to choose to defraud people. The value judgement, at least on my behalf, is based on a behavior, nothing more. People who choose to harm people are bad.

Quote
Sure government isnít perfect when it comes to implementation but at least government recognizes that food & shelter as a human right.

I didn't know that the UK abolished minimum wage laws! Holy hell! I swear there were minimum wages set in the UK, preventing unskilled workers, typically VERY poor unskilled workers, from providing enough benefit to employers to hire them and give them money to buy food and shelter. Damn.

Additionally, what good is food and shelter if you've now got a theft epidemic? "The poor" in most western nations have greater access to quality food, medicine, technology and shelter than kings did 500 years ago. That whole "steal stuff from one person and give it to someone else" is a slippery slope that will end when there's nothing left to steal because all the people who produce stop because they don't like being robbed. Then you and your benevolent government paradigm can solve the hunger problem by feeding "the rich" to the poor and hungry. It is the natural progression of things. </tongue-in-cheek>

Seriously though, I used to be a "liberal". The "plight of the poor man" rests on my heart greatly. I haven't abandoned those principles in relying on the free market. Indeed, I've found that the free market is the ONLY way to ensure that people are given the ability to produce sustainable wealth for themselves. You can give someone money, but you can't give them job experience, skills, networks and references and ALL of these things CAN be obtained by unskilled workers who are able to work for lower wages or even for free to build those things as stepping stones for better opportunities down the road.

If "the poor" is why you feel that libertarianism is inconsistant, I'd speculate you really didn't understand the concepts well enough. May I suggest Mary Ruwart's "Healing Our World In An Age Of Aggression" and in specific Chapter 3: Destroying Jobs.

Quote
Oh no Ziggy has crossed the threshold into positive liberty & become a hardcore socialist.

I suppose it could have been worse. You could have moved to New Hampshire before making that realization, I suppose.

Quote
I actually know libertarians who think that the expectation to care for their fellow man is socialistic

Actually, I'd question the liberty credentials of anyone who said there IS an obligation. Liberty is about personal responsibility and someone who understand that knows that no person things for another person and since thoughts lead to actions, no person can act for another person. Because of that, no person is responsible for another person unless they agree to be (in say, the case of children). Granted, there's an ethical calling for most people to help out. Nobody likes knowing people are hungry or sick or lacking. There's a HUGE difference between a common moral agreement that a thing is bad and should be eliminated and a MORAL OBLIGATION so great that not meeting it justifies HAVING VIOLENCE ENACTED AGAINST YOU. Big difference.

Quote
Yeah Iím grateful people do pay taxes to fund help for those who are sick & vulnerable. Iím sorry if you donít think you should care in some way about your fellow man then youíre a fucking sociopath.

There's something REALLY REALLY fucked up about your world view if the ONLY way to help the sick and vulnerable is to pay taxes. There's a ton of charities in the USA that have upwards of 85% conversion (that is, of every dollar that goes to that charity, $0.85 go towards the cause the charity exists to assist with) and manage to do amazing things entirely on a voluntary basis. Maybe the UK government is that damn efficient, I don't know. Maybe the charities in the UK just suck ass. I know that the money I contribute to private causes does MUCH more to help the sick and vulnerable than tax dollars do. I know those just go to paying bureaucrats who do far to little and get paid far too much. And that's ignoring the whole "taxes are theft" thing which is a REALLY big thing to ignore.

Quote
Sociopathic, stroppy are they apt descriptions to describe libertarians, well not all libertarians but good percentage Iíve encountered. Another apt description would be dogmatic & when Iíve banged on libertarian philosophy itís been fair accusation of me. Problem is if you attempt to deviate from libertarian philosophy then youíll get whole load of crap from libertarians youíre not libertarian

There is only ONE criteria for being libertarian in my book. You believe that initiating violence and committing fraud against people is ALWAYS wrong. You can't "stray" from that. It's not a platform, it's a core principal. You either believe initiating violence has it's place and are not libertarian, or you believe initiation of violence is wrong, and you are.

Quote
I donít believe that the group have the right to beat up upon them to conform.

Unless that individual disagrees with the idea that he should pay taxes. Then he should be beaten up and threatened with time in a cage, because you've already labeled him a "sociopath". Hrm, I love the logical consistency there.

Quote
But how to ensure mob rule, tyranny of the majority etc, well having thought about that dilemma the only way to ensure mob rule or the tyranny of the majority is by the means of governance.

Ancient statist arguement is ancient. How, good sir, is mob rule avoided by a process in which a majority of people, in most cases quite willing to use violence and hoping to be lost "in the crowd" to escape punishment? I'd say it sounds like you're cutting off your nose to spite your face, but that's even a bit more sane than what you're arguing here. A mob is needed to prevent a mob. Huh.

Quote
Worth remembering my hero JS Mill though argued in favour individual rights & against the tyranny of the majority. But its also argued that Mill argued in favour of state invention in oneís life if required.

I say this constructivly... It REALLY sound to me as if you've got an identity issue. You can't let someone else dictate your ideology. The times you call up to FTL and this post and some others ones, every time you've complained it tends to revolve around the idea of some group rejecting you for having a different ideology. Tough. Fucking. Cookies (as Mark would and has said). Nobody else thinks the same way you do. Nobody will have the same stance on all of the issues that matter to you. If you require the agreement of a group in order to feel sane and rational in your beliefs, you're always going to be an outcase.

John Stewart Mill is not a libertarian. Nicholas Capaldi claimed he was, but he himself was a liberal utilitarian. They're composed of some of the same letters, but they're not the same thing. The phrase "the ends justify the means" alone is enough to raise hackles with principled libertarians since it's usually a precursor to something that violates the NAP.

Quote
Too most libertarians what Iím saying right now is socialistic puke but libertarians misunderstand liberals. Liberals arenít trying to restrain people from succeeding like socialists theyíre trying create an environment so that individuals have the opportunity to succeed.

I used to be liberal. I don't think there's any misunderstanding at all. I STILL want that - I just recognize now that it doesn't happen through violence. Commonplace theft and violence cause neighborhoods to decay. A violent spouse causes the goodwill and safety in a home to vanish. Crime on a wide scale in a city causes the city to get less valuable and less desired. Ironically, the exact same thing is true of national and regional interaction. Going around hurting people, stealing their property and destroying their assets does NOT result in more people having opportunity. ONLY leaving people free to make their own decisions about their bodies, their lives and their money will enable them to succeed. It's not a matter of liberal vs libertarian GOALS, it's a difference of violent vs non-violent MEANS.

Quote
Somebody once said a libertarian views a man down a well as still able to have free move just they need make more effort, a liberal thinks thatís ridiculous & gives the man a helping hand.

I think whomever said that was a moron simply trying to discredit libertarianism. Some people really hate the idea that they are responsible for their actions of lack of it. Some people actually find it easier to encourage everyone else to do for them rather than actually doing it themselves. No wonder that person would rather convince you to pull him up from the well rather than take a few moments of caution and using the well safely and not falling in.

Quote
Typically libertarian would legalize all guns & thatís it where as a liberal in favour of liberalizing gun ownership will probably think its best to have some form of regulation.

Yes, and once you're done with that, you really should begin working on regulating pencils. You know, because pencils misspell words. Pencils aren't tools. They're not in control of the people who own pencils. Without all these unregulated pencils, we'll have tons and tons of misspelled words! Think of the children!

Quote
Liberals are prepared to use the system or adapt the system to achieve their aims but many a libertarian just want to destroy the system & nothing short is a sell out.

You're really not helping your case. That "willingness to use the system" is the problem. The system does EVERYTHING it does with violence or the threat of violence. If you're okay doing that, fine. I couldn't and I advocate that people refrain from hurting other people. If "the system" weren't violent, this would be a different issue but it IS inherently violent. If you disagree, explain how you'd fund your welfare programs without violence, threats of violence or fraud. I'd happily support a system that effectively helped people and didn't go around being violent.

Quote
because secondly I believe government can do good

As you said, what does "imagination" have to do with this. You believe government can do good. Good is "not hurting people". Government as exists can't do anything without hurting people. Believe all you want, imagination doesn't make a thing true. Just ask George Lucas.

Quote
Yeah libertarians utopian daydreamers who if you donít agree with their vision then youíre a statist, a fascist or mentally ill.

Statist means "believes the existance of a state is moral or needed and believes that such an entity can solve problems". You're a statist. You're pretty clear about it, you believe a state is needed and you beleive that it can solve problems. It's a statement of fact, not a statment of value. If you like to attach negativity to the term and feel insulted, fine. But you ARE a statist because you advocate a state and think it can solve problems.

Quote
I was never really a libertarian as my website illustrates as libertarians donít generally campaign for betterment of environmentalism nor champion labor rights

When you say "betterment of environmentalism" do you mean "threaten to shoot people if they don't meet the environmental guidelines you think are proper"? Yeah, I'd say that's a pretty unlibertarian thing to do. If by "betterment of environmentalism" you mean spending a TON of money at your company to replace energy inefficient computer equipment, run your systems from renewable solar and wind energy when feasible, avoid funding companies that pollute wantonly, buying products from companies that are working on solutions to REMOVE pollution, advocating technologies like plasmgasification over landfilling, trying to convince others not to litter, removing it from areas when feasible and reducing waste when possible than I think you're wrong. Libertarians on average (and surely I'm generalizing, I'm sure there are some libertarians that would be quite happy in a toxic wasteland) simply want to do these things without being violent. I have to admit though, I do contribute to pollution indirectly. See, my wife files taxes under my name, so I'm actually funding this organization that sends a TON of crap into space, ravages the materials from around the world, uses them to DESTROY buildings, people and nature. But see, now I have a conflict. Do I fund government, which you claim is good and needed or do I preserve the environment by refusing to fund the most BLATANT and DESTRUCTIVE polluter on the planet? Hrm...

By "champion labor rights" do you mean "threaten people doing business with violence if they dont' pay X amount for X units of time"? Last I checked, every time minimum wages went up, so did unemployment. My math might be fuzzy, but I'm pretty sure that "poorly paid" workers make more money that "unemployed persons". Also last time I checked, food and rent and clothing had actual costs. I'd really think that "making a little money" makes people better able to meet their needs than making no money. As noted, minimum wages destroy jobs. I advocate ending licensing regulations that prevent people from using their skills to build wealth voluntarily. I advocate ending mandatory minimum wages so that people who would rather work and get paid less can do so. Not everyone takes a job for money. Unskilled workers in a free market can say "I'll work for free for a month if you give me a chance" in order to make the risk of hiring someone less risky. Without this ability, the unskilled worker will be passed up by someone with minimal skills nearly every time (I mean, if you've GOT to pay them $7 an hour either way, why NOT get the one with more experience?). Minimum wage laws prevent people from building experience, reputations and credentials needed to get HIGHER paying jobs later. The ultimate irony of that? The unskilled worker is more likely the one who absolutely NEEDS those wages to survive. By advocating and end to those institutions you advocating allowing more people to build wealth and provide for themselves peacefully. I do champion labor rights.

Quote
One of the truisms people kept pointing out to me was that being as Iím disabled & considering other problems Iíve suffered in my life if were not for the welfare state then Iíd be dead.

Are the people of Britain so sick and depraved that the ONLY way you can have your needs taken care of it to rob people at the point of a gun? I'm really sorry you live in a place like that. Here, there are all kinds of people and organizations who will call people and ask them to give money to help people in need. In 2006, even with the government people stealing a lot of money, Americans  gave $295.02 billion dollars in charity of their own free will. That doesn't cover the man-hours volunteered at places like Habitat For Humanity or real goods like canned food that go to food banks. Yeah, when people are so selfish and sick that the only way a disabled person can get his needs met is by violence, I don't exactly blame you for thinking violence is a good thing, but my experiences show me otherwise. People are generous, moral, giving and ethical and that doesn't require a threat of jail over here. It blows my mind to think how much good would be done if people had 100% of their income to potentially give to charity.

Quote
I really am rejecting libertarianism & waving goodbye too many a libertarians, embracing social-liberalism & liberals.

Best of luck to you on that! Please turn the lights off if you're the last to leave.
« Last Edit: September 18, 2008, 10:59:32 AM by Kevin Dean »
Logged
Quote from: John Shaw
Libman was setting you up. You see, he's a resident troll, which means that while I hate him passionately and wish him great harm, he's ONE OF OURS. You are a pathetic interloper who will fade away in a few weeks at most.

Shara

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 386
    • View Profile
Re: Bye, bye to masquerading as a libertarian
« Reply #17 on: September 18, 2008, 10:57:33 AM »

United Way, they do a GOOD thing. Now, I've worked in a non profit before and have seen the ills of such information based institutions such as the American Cancer Society (sorry, we have the internet for information now, don't need their phone people, and all of the money donated to the people that operate the telephones could be put to a better use, such as ACTUALLY HELPING THE CANCER PATIENTS?!)
However, United Way is totally voluntary, 2 jobs that I have worked in the last 12 years have asked me if I want to volunteer, and I did both times. Recently, when I started a short term job, the lady was actually shocked, which surprises me

I support a variety of charitable institutions quite often. Every time someone askes me at the register if I want to give a dollar to a local homeless shelter, or any other noteable cause, I say YES. What does another dollar hurt me? It could HELP them? But at least the government isn't taking their 75 cents out first and then giving the shelter 23 cents, like they would if it was a large hulking massive program like social security, welfare, etc...

So yeah, after all of the rambling, my point is just that voliuntarism REALLY works. We just get sick of seeing the money pocketed by already wealthy goverment officals before they help the ones in need... Oh yeah, and the fact that they hold a gun to our head, and if we can't contribute, they make us, or send us to jail, or shoot us.
Logged
Not much to say when you're high above the mucky-muck... yeah...

Level 20 Anklebiter

  • Small, but deadly
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2069
    • View Profile
Re: Bye, bye to masquerading as a libertarian
« Reply #18 on: September 18, 2008, 11:01:39 AM »

So yeah, after all of the rambling, my point is just that voliuntarism REALLY works. We just get sick of seeing the money pocketed by already wealthy goverment officals before they help the ones in need... Oh yeah, and the fact that they hold a gun to our head, and if we can't contribute, they make us, or send us to jail, or shoot us.

I never stated that volunteering was bad, but that neither for-profit nor not-for-profit organizations in the private sphere ever use the threat of violence against me if I do not sanction nor partake in them.
Logged
I hear thunder but there's no rain, this kind of thunder breaks walls and window pane

Shara

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 386
    • View Profile
Re: Bye, bye to masquerading as a libertarian
« Reply #19 on: September 18, 2008, 11:05:29 AM »

So yeah, after all of the rambling, my point is just that voliuntarism REALLY works. We just get sick of seeing the money pocketed by already wealthy goverment officals before they help the ones in need... Oh yeah, and the fact that they hold a gun to our head, and if we can't contribute, they make us, or send us to jail, or shoot us.

I never stated that volunteering was bad, but that neither for-profit nor not-for-profit organizations in the private sphere ever use the threat of violence against me if I do not sanction nor partake in them.

I don't see how you have a different view than mine, but my only point is that it's better to give voluntarily, rather through force like our current system in the USA.
Logged
Not much to say when you're high above the mucky-muck... yeah...

Alex Libman

  • Guest
Re: Bye, bye to masquerading as a libertarian
« Reply #20 on: September 18, 2008, 11:08:55 AM »

See, that's why I don't like pot-heads...
Logged

trollfreezone

  • Guest
Re: Bye, bye to masquerading as a libertarian
« Reply #21 on: September 18, 2008, 01:06:35 PM »

I guess you won't read this, because you've chosen to run away instead of confront your inner conflict, but I'll post it anyway.

Ziggy, that was quite a mantra, and I almost finished reading it.  I even took a bunch of notes, until I realized what the difference between you and libertarians really is.

In short, you seem to think the gun in the room, monopoly government force, is good as long as the results are good.  There are two problems with this.

First, monopoly force is always wrong.  No one gets to decide what's best for everyone and punish those who will not follow along, or at least pay for it.

Second, monopoly force always has negative consequences, and those consequences are always worse (if not in the short run, then the long run) than leaving it be or attempting a non-coercive solution.  All of the things you would like government to do have negative consequences.  Why not try to do those things without government monopoly force?

Beyond that, you make certain other assumptions that aren't true, such as the idea that libertarians don't campaign for the environment or labor rights.  The fact is, most of us do care deeply about issues such as those, and that's why we'd rather see problems tackled by something more effective than government--human kindness and respect for real, not bogus rights.  Your seeming assertion that a libertarian would find someone at the bottom of a well, and consider him "free," and thus, not help him, is a fallacy.  I don't know anyone who would not personally help an individual out of a well, or find someone who would help.  The difference, again, is the force.  People who use government to "help" others aren't lending a helping hand.  They're telling government to help with one hand and hold a machine gun to pillage and rape with the other hand.  The one hand cannot be separated from the body that has the other hand.  The problem is, they don't see the gun.

As for the right to life versus the right to food and shelter, the difference is the implicit wording that's not included.  People don't have a right to be given these things.  They have a right not to have them taken from them.  The reason, again, is force.  People who are against monopoly government force are not "bigoted."  They are against institutional violence, which is no more a form of "bigotry" than being against theft, rape or murder.

Finally, to address your opening comment about not having to be a libertarian to support the things you're for, you'll find that the libertarians are by far the closest to addressing your collage of interests.  There is no political party which so completely addresses the interests of both left and right.  You simply need to stop accepting the gun in the room as a necessary component of the solutions to problems.

Edit: collage interests  --> collage of interests
« Last Edit: September 18, 2008, 01:24:08 PM by What's the frequency, Kenneth? »
Logged

blackie

  • Guest
Re: Bye, bye to masquerading as a libertarian
« Reply #22 on: September 18, 2008, 01:10:41 PM »

I've never made the mistake of calling myself a libertopian. Bunch of douches.
Logged

trollfreezone

  • Guest
Re: Bye, bye to masquerading as a libertarian
« Reply #23 on: September 18, 2008, 01:20:26 PM »

See, that's why I don't like pot-heads...

You aren't helping.
Logged

burnthebeautiful

  • Guest
Re: Bye, bye to masquerading as a libertarian
« Reply #24 on: September 18, 2008, 01:40:16 PM »

You guys should look into Switzerland a little more before calling it socialist. Switzerland is one of the most libertarian countries in the world. It has the second free-est/most capitalist economy in the entire world after Hong Kong, and also has one of the lowest tax burdens in the world. The marijuana laws are among the least restrictive in the world - there are legal weed stores in most states. The gun laws are also amongst the least restrictive in the world. Switzerland also has one of, if not the most, de-centralized forms of government in the world. It is my understanding that many of the highways in the country are privately owned. I know that saying "the best kind of democracy" is kind of like saying "the best kind of cancer", but Switzerland has a pretty neat direct-democracy system where all you need to bring about a national vote is to get 50,000 people to sign your law proposal.

Yes, there is government funded health-care and welfare programs for poor people. But the country is far from socialist.
Logged

Shara

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 386
    • View Profile
Re: Bye, bye to masquerading as a libertarian
« Reply #25 on: September 18, 2008, 01:50:36 PM »

You guys should look into Switzerland a little more before calling it socialist. Switzerland is one of the most libertarian countries in the world. It has the second free-est/most capitalist economy in the entire world after Hong Kong, and also has one of the lowest tax burdens in the world. The marijuana laws are among the least restrictive in the world - there are legal weed stores in most states. The gun laws are also amongst the least restrictive in the world. Switzerland also has one of, if not the most, de-centralized forms of government in the world. It is my understanding that many of the highways in the country are privately owned. I know that saying "the best kind of democracy" is kind of like saying "the best kind of cancer", but Switzerland has a pretty neat direct-democracy system where all you need to bring about a national vote is to get 50,000 people to sign your law proposal.

Yes, there is government funded health-care and welfare programs for poor people. But the country is far from socialist.

GAH. I was just advocating Switzerlands Socialist program, because, like you said, it's citizens are usually rated as the happiest against other countries,but you say that it's the most CAPITALIST? Are it's citizens taxed on a voluntary basis? I mean, they're socially free, but from what I've heard, very NOT free economically. But, their tax burden isn't too bad compared to what their getting, so overall, it's not a bad deal for them.
I'm just saying, they DO have restrictions on starting up a business at the spur of the moment that say Chinaman will not (I mean, as long as he's in China and not spitting on the sidewalk or smoking pot).



Logged
Not much to say when you're high above the mucky-muck... yeah...

trollfreezone

  • Guest
Re: Bye, bye to masquerading as a libertarian
« Reply #26 on: September 18, 2008, 02:14:02 PM »

I personally have nothing more against Switzerland than any other state, and you make some good points.  I think the issue is that to advocate Switzerland is to imply that it's ideal.  There is no state which is ideal--especially if it (and they almost all do) robs some to give to others, which is, of course, socialism.
Logged

SamR

  • Guest
Re: Bye, bye to masquerading as a libertarian
« Reply #27 on: September 18, 2008, 02:16:45 PM »

I read somewhere that Switzerland, New Zealand, Japan and America are all basically up at the same high level for economic freedom. So they all have their problems but they're better than France and Spain etc.
Logged

Cyro

  • FTL Creative Team
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5491
    • View Profile
Re: Bye, bye to masquerading as a libertarian
« Reply #28 on: September 18, 2008, 02:19:22 PM »

You guys should look into Switzerland a little more before calling it socialist. Switzerland is one of the most libertarian countries in the world. It has the second free-est/most capitalist economy in the entire world after Hong Kong, and also has one of the lowest tax burdens in the world. The marijuana laws are among the least restrictive in the world - there are legal weed stores in most states. The gun laws are also amongst the least restrictive in the world. Switzerland also has one of, if not the most, de-centralized forms of government in the world. It is my understanding that many of the highways in the country are privately owned. I know that saying "the best kind of democracy" is kind of like saying "the best kind of cancer", but Switzerland has a pretty neat direct-democracy system where all you need to bring about a national vote is to get 50,000 people to sign your law proposal.

Yes, there is government funded health-care and welfare programs for poor people. But the country is far from socialist.

GAH. I was just advocating Switzerlands Socialist program, because, like you said, it's citizens are usually rated as the happiest against other countries,but you say that it's the most CAPITALIST? Are it's citizens taxed on a voluntary basis? I mean, they're socially free, but from what I've heard, very NOT free economically. But, their tax burden isn't too bad compared to what their getting, so overall, it's not a bad deal for them.
I'm just saying, they DO have restrictions on starting up a business at the spur of the moment that say Chinaman will not (I mean, as long as he's in China and not spitting on the sidewalk or smoking pot).

I think he means it has one of the least restrictive economies and social policies of it's citizens. It's socialism-lite in a sense, welfare statism done well, but socialist it is. Then again I'd label almost every government on the planet socialist, so I may be biased in this judgement.
Logged

trollfreezone

  • Guest
Re: Bye, bye to masquerading as a libertarian
« Reply #29 on: September 18, 2008, 02:22:07 PM »

You guys should look into Switzerland a little more before calling it socialist. Switzerland is one of the most libertarian countries in the world. It has the second free-est/most capitalist economy in the entire world after Hong Kong, and also has one of the lowest tax burdens in the world. The marijuana laws are among the least restrictive in the world - there are legal weed stores in most states. The gun laws are also amongst the least restrictive in the world. Switzerland also has one of, if not the most, de-centralized forms of government in the world. It is my understanding that many of the highways in the country are privately owned. I know that saying "the best kind of democracy" is kind of like saying "the best kind of cancer", but Switzerland has a pretty neat direct-democracy system where all you need to bring about a national vote is to get 50,000 people to sign your law proposal.

Yes, there is government funded health-care and welfare programs for poor people. But the country is far from socialist.

GAH. I was just advocating Switzerlands Socialist program, because, like you said, it's citizens are usually rated as the happiest against other countries,but you say that it's the most CAPITALIST? Are it's citizens taxed on a voluntary basis? I mean, they're socially free, but from what I've heard, very NOT free economically. But, their tax burden isn't too bad compared to what their getting, so overall, it's not a bad deal for them.
I'm just saying, they DO have restrictions on starting up a business at the spur of the moment that say Chinaman will not (I mean, as long as he's in China and not spitting on the sidewalk or smoking pot).

I think he means it has one of the least restrictive economies and social policies of it's citizens. It's socialism-lite in a sense, welfare statism done well, but socialist it is. Then again I'd label almost every government on the planet socialist, so I may be biased in this judgement.

[emphasis mine]

You may be biased, but still, it is what it is.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5   Go Up
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Free Talk Live
| |-+  General
| | |-+  Bye, bye to masquerading as a libertarian

// ]]>

Page created in 0.031 seconds with 46 queries.