The Free Talk Live BBS
Free Talk Live => The Polling Pit => Topic started by: Brian Wolf on November 21, 2006, 05:28:03 AM
-
Personally, Libertarianism is the lesser of 3 evils.
I don't think that there is a political party that better fills my criteria for a good political party, so I have little problem voting Libertarian.
It seems as if a lot of Libertraians are just as convinced of the wisdom of their party as the republicans or the democrats and I was just wondering if anyone else feels the same way.
I guess if I was going to be oppressed by a group, I would rather be oppressed by capitalists because I wouldn't have as much of a problem shooting them, as I would shooting a cop.
I have met a cop or two who actually try to do good, and think that they are doing the right thing.
If they were just opressing me for a paycheck, then I wouldn't hesitate to off them.
-
Libertarianism is a political theory built on a finite set of principles. That cannot be said about any other movement in politics today, and thus it is the only movement that can ever hope to achieve perfection. No society can ever be "perfectly" socialist, because everyone is in the same boat, and the only way to make sure everyone on that boat is happy is to throw the dissidents overboard. The question is - can we form a vision for a society that is as free as a human society can be, where everyone can choose what to do with his own boat? And - can we implement it in real life, at least on a small scale at first?
Libertarians need to differentiate the Party and the Principle. The Libertarian Party, being human, can never be perfect. It must deal with political realities like electability, and the need to implement our ideas gradually, to give people time to adapt. The Principle, on the other hand -- individual sovereignty through absolute self-ownership, leading to inalienable rights to life, liberty, and property -- is pretty close to perfect. It can be made less perfect by saying, "life, liberty, property, and socially-subsidized pink fuzzy slippers for all!" ... But can it be made more perfect?
Just as there are unsolved problems (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_unsolved_problems) in other disciplines, Libertarianism is still vague or corruptible on a number of issues. In includes specific conflicts of interests on issues like abortion and environmental risk. About 90% of things you hear from environmentalists is crap, but the other 10% contains some serious questions. Who owns the underground water that flows under both our properties? Am I free to juggle nuclear warheads on my property? Etc.
The more we discuss those issues, and the more we experiment with them in real-life situations, the closer to perfection Libertarianism becomes. And that may include doing things outside the political realm, like taking private initiative to make sure the people who want their "pink fuzzy slippers" can get them without government handouts.
-
There are so many divisions with the libertarian end of the spectrum, I am not sure where the "faith in the LP" impression came from. What most everyone does agree on is that the world being created from continual compromise between nanny state and corporate/religious state is a problem. Whether people want a smaller and less intrusive government, a Constitutionally limited government, a Constitutionally motivated government, something even smaller, or nothing at all... is there really a political option other than the LP?
I would rather you have a problem killing anyone, but ask yourself why you feel individuals who are designated military or police are different from individuals who are designated private security guards or random thugs, if their actions are the same. In the answer is a lot of one principle that leads to a libertarian outlook: We are all humans. We are all individuals. We are all equal; not in possessions, or in knowledge, but in morality.
-
Who owns the underground water that flows under both our properties?
that question is answered in NH.
it is all owned in common as an individual equal access opportunity right.
you are free to access and use so long as your use/access does not deny any other individual the equal right to the same.
the role of the government as the public trustee is to protect the integrity of the common asset to pass along to future generation and to insure everyone's equal rights are not infringed upon
-
I would rather you have a problem killing anyone, but ask yourself why you feel individuals who are designated military or police are different from individuals who are designated private security guards or random thugs, if their actions are the same.
I actually do have a problem with killing anyone, but I would not hesitate to defend myself if necessary.
I think the difference between a 'policeman' and a private security guard or random thugs is motivation.
As I said before, I think that there is a chance that a policeman thinks that he is "doing the right thing" or "protecting the innocent" which are feelings I can relate to. To oppress someone for a profit is pure robbery.
That being said, I would still defend myself against the police, as discussed in this thread (http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=6882.45).
-
Who owns the underground water that flows under both our properties?
that question is answered in NH.
it is all owned in common as an individual equal access opportunity right.
you are free to access and use so long as your use/access does not deny any other individual the equal right to the same.
If only this principle could be applied to land, one of my major difficulties with Libertarianism would disappear. But that is already being debated on another thread, (http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=9523.0) so I won't debate it here.
Besides, you can't have everything, which is why I will probably stay with Libertarianism.
-
Perfection cannot be achieved with a political party. Libertarianism is a philosophy; the LP is simply a party that claims to follow that philosophy. Personally, I think anyone with a real desire to achieve true freedom would be anarchist, but I completely understand why not al libertarians are (both practically and philosophically). Do I think libertarianism is perfect? "Perfect" being so subjective a term, it's difficult to say whether anything can be perfect. I don't think "perfection" can be assessed objectively, so I hesitate to use that word.
What I will say is that libertarianism is the inevitable future of political thought. Libertarians today are like 18th century abolitionists; they have morality on their side, but not popular support. Give it a century or so and libertarian theory will be as obvious to the masses as abolition of slavery.
-
Who owns the underground water that flows under both our properties?
that question is answered in NH.
it is all owned in common as an individual equal access opportunity right.
you are free to access and use so long as your use/access does not deny any other individual the equal right to the same.
If only this principle could be applied to land, one of my major difficulties with Libertarianism would disappear.
it is in NH but needs to tweaked a bit...
shift taxes off of buildings and onto land values only
return the collected economic rent to everyone equally and directly within the community
-
I believe what he's trying to say here is that Libertarianism isn't perfect but Mutualist Green Distributive Tribal Georgism is flawed only so far as it is only understood by 12 people in the entire world and only 6 of them agree with it. Of those only 4 can say it with a straight face while only 2 of them dare to advocate it. It's a long road for the Mutualist Green Distributive Tribal Georgists but at least they have right on their side and a large database of copy and paste ready material sure to provide context appropriate information with I Ching accuracy.
-
(http://www.soulawakenings.com/underground/forum/Smileys/classic/lurk.gif)
-
I believe what he's trying to say here is that Libertarianism isn't perfect but Mutualist Green Distributive Tribal Georgism is flawed only so far as it is only understood by 12 people in the entire world and only 6 of them agree with it. Of those only 4 can say it with a straight face while only 2 of them dare to advocate it. It's a long road for the Mutualist Green Distributive Tribal Georgists but at least they have right on their side and a large database of copy and paste ready material sure to provide context appropriate information with I Ching accuracy.
:lol:
(http://troll.hobi.ru/trolls/Dtroll.jpg)
Edit: Just so no one is confused, I said exactly what I meant, regardless of what ignorant, smug, white-bread, know-it-all internet trolls think I mean.
-
Libertarianism to me is a perfect political philosophy. "Don't use government force to achieve your personal goals", "Don't allow the government to do a task you wouldn't let your neighbor", etc, are all pretty much my personal "perfect" governing philosophy.
At the same time though, politics is made up of humans. And we make mistakes, don't adhere perfectly to our philosophies and so on. So in that respect, it's not perfect because fallible people are implementing it. And often times it can be difficult to turn the philosophy of libertarianism into laws and rules; as someone before me mentioned there are still some things that Libertarians have a hard time agreeing with and the "correct" solution isn't known.
But on an abstract level, I do think libertarianism is the perfect political philosophy for anyone who believes in liberty.
-
Personally, Libertarianism is the lesser of 3 evils.
I don't think that there is a political party that better fills my criteria for a good political party, so I have little problem voting Libertarian.
It seems as if a lot of Libertraians are just as convinced of the wisdom of their party as the republicans or the democrats and I was just wondering if anyone else feels the same way.
I guess if I was going to be oppressed by a group, I would rather be oppressed by capitalists because I wouldn't have as much of a problem shooting them, as I would shooting a cop.
I have met a cop or two who actually try to do good, and think that they are doing the right thing.
If they were just opressing me for a paycheck, then I wouldn't hesitate to off them.
As I see it Liberrtarianism is as close as you can get to perfection without actually being perfect.
The problem I have with it is that if I don't accept the elected Libertarian ruler, I still end up getting shot.
dominick
-
Edit: Just so no one is confused, I said exactly what I meant, regardless of what ignorant, smug, white-bread, know-it-all internet trolls think I mean.
holy crap do we have communication issues. That was totally funny if you're not so sensitive. Also, I wasn't referring to you but to BillG aka Ben Tucker aka Frank Chodorov.
And furthermore, I'm one of those Mutual Georgist etc. etc. I don't remember the rests that I was talking about. Did I fuck your woman?
edit: I suppose I'm not really a mutual geo........... Bill's the only one I know that has at one point or another claimed ALL those titles (except tribalist... I threw that in for sheer syllable quantity).
-
Nothing's perfect, and anytime I hear the fevered rantings of someone who claims to promote a 'perfect' system,
red flags go up. Some are more entertaining than others. Sorry, Ben. You aren't one of 'em... rather more like a
would-be cult leader trying to drum up support for a welfare state.
-
Personally, Libertarianism is the lesser of 3 evils.
I don't think that there is a political party that better fills my criteria for a good political party, so I have little problem voting Libertarian.
Exactly!!!
I can't say I'm libertarian, though I almost always vote libertarian.
I recall reading somewhere years ago either in the party documents or on their website that if you don't adhere to ALL the principals of the party - then you're not libertarian.
That always struck me as odd. Dems and Repubs dont' have the same "rule".
Jonathan
-
Edit: Just so no one is confused, I said exactly what I meant, regardless of what ignorant, smug, white-bread, know-it-all internet trolls think I mean.
holy crap do we have communication issues. That was totally funny if you're not so sensitive.
Also, I wasn't referring to you but to BillG aka Ben Tucker aka Frank Chodorov.
And furthermore, I'm one of those Mutual Georgist etc. etc. I don't remember the rests that I was talking about. Did I fuck your woman?
edit: I suppose I'm not really a mutual geo........... Bill's the only one I know that has at one point or another claimed ALL those titles (except tribalist... I threw that in for sheer syllable quantity).
I ain't mad at you.
-
the only one I know that has at one point or another claimed ALL those titles
I am also a catholic distributist and a southern agrarian too...
see Richard Weaver: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_M._Weaver
excerpt:
Weavers Ideas Have Consequences largely influenced scholars of the postwar intellectual Right (Nash 87). Stemming from a tradition of "cultural pessimism" (Nash 92), Weavers sometimes shocking criticism of nominalism gave conservatives a new literary direction. Conservative intellectuals such as Russell Kirk, William F. Buckley Jr., and Wilmoore Kendall, to name a few, praised the book for its critical insights (Young 179). Publisher Henry Regnery claims that the book gave the modern conservative movement a strong intellectual foundation (Nash 82). Weaver gained such respect in the academic world that in 1964, a graduate fellowship program [2] was named after him at the Intercollegiate Society of Individualists (Nash 82) after his death. Even the key libertarian theorist of the 1960s -- and former Communist Party official -- Frank S. Meyer, publicly thanked Weaver for inspiring him to join the Right (Nash 88). Weavers writings struck a cord with conservative intellectuals with his refutation of what Russell Kirk termed, ritualistic liberalism (Nash 87). In other words, much of Weavers writing attacked the growing number of modern Americans denying conservative structure and moral uprightness by replacing them with naive relativism. Weaver has been accredited with precisely defining Americas plight, and inspiring conservatives to find the relationship between faith and reason for an age that does not know the meaning of faith (Toledano 259). In the 1980s, the emerging paleoconservatives [3] adapted Weavers theories regarding the Old South. These conservatives adopted Weavers dialogue to express the ideas of antimodernism (Nash 109). For relativistic liberals, Weaver was a misguided propagandist of authoritarianism. For conservatives, Weaver was a champion of tradition and liberty, with the emphasis on traditionalism. For Southerners, Weaver was a refreshing defender of the antimodern South (Nash 108).
Wendell Berry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wendell_Berry
excerpt:
His nonfiction serves as a long defense of the life in which he finds value. According to Berry, this good life includes: sustainable agriculture, appropriate technologies, healthy rural communities, the Gospels, connection to place, the pleasures of good food, stewardship of Creation, husbandry, good work, local economics, the miracle of life, fidelity, frugality, reverence, peacemaking and the interconnectedness of life. The threats Berry finds to this good life include: industrial farming and the industrialization of life, ignorance, hubris, greed, violence against others and against the natural world, the declining topsoil in the United States, global economics, environmental destruction.
Wendell Berry is often cited as a defender of agrarian ideals and frequently voices his appreciation for the Amish. His appreciation for the traditional farming techniques such as those of the Amish grew in the 1970s, due in part to exchanges with Draft Hourse Journal publisher Maurice Telleen. Berry has long been a friend of, and supporter of the work of, scientist Wes Jackson, whose agricultural research at The Land Institute Berry feels lives out the promise of "solving for pattern" and using "nature as model."
E.F. Schumacher http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._F._Schumacher
excerpt:
Schumacher's rejection of materialist, capitalist, agnostic modernity was paralleled by a growing fascination with religion. His interest in Buddhism has been noted. However, from the late 1950s on, Catholicism heavily influenced his thought. He noted the similarities between his own economic views and the teaching of papal encyclicals on socio-economic issues, from Leo XIII's "Rerum Novarum" to John XXIII's "Mater et Magistra", as well as with the distributivism supported by the Catholic thinkers G.K. Chesterton, Hilaire Belloc and Vincent McNabb. Philosophically, he absorbed much of Thomism, which provided an objective system in contrast to what he saw as the self-cented subjectivism and relativism of modern philosophy and society. He also was greatly interested in the tradition of Christian mysticism, reading deeply such writers as St. Teresa of Avila and Thomas Merton. In 1971, he converted to Catholicism.
-
Damnit Ben.... That throws my numbers all off. And for the life of me I can't figure out how to arrange all those words in a manner that is pleasing to both the eye and the ear. I'm going to reccoment you adopt tribalism because I can pass tribal off as an adjective but you should also lose one other ism if you're going to add agrarian into the mix. One more thing, you might not want to wear your religion on your sleeve so as not to alienate anyone. If you can do all that and give me some leeway on suffixes I think I can come up with something both sexy and simple consisting of no more than 78 syllables but if you don't stop reading right now I'm afraid the result will be unsalvageable.
-
It's neither perfect nor simply the 'lesser of x-many evils'. It's the best system as it doesn't exert force on others, or at least minimalises the force used. There will still be problems, but they're not 'political problems' anymore.
Yep.
-
No human system is perfect.
But libertarianism draws upon human nature because all people want to be free to live their lives and make choices. Other ideologies, like socialism or conservatism, aren't so in tune with human nature.
-
No human system is perfect.
But libertarianism draws upon human nature because all people want to be free to live their lives and make choices. Other ideologies, like socialism or conservatism, aren't so in tune with human nature.
word to your mother
-
Is capitalism perfect?
Hell no. It's messy and mean and often unfair and sloppy and random and nasty and darwinistic.
But no one has come up with a better system. No other system comes close when it comes to getting the maximum amount of freedom and prosperity to the maximum number of people.
And it works so well for two primary reasons - it's self correcting, and it works with human nature, not against it.
The same can be said of Libertarianism. It can't be perfect. But it can be a damn site better than anything else.
-
The closer we can come to a LACK of a system, the better. Eventually, we may once again learn to deal with each other
without a bunch of armed thugs looking over our shoulders.
-
I have a minor rant that I saved to a document that would fit in here nicely... The other day when the board wasn't accepting posts, I kept it cause it was mercifully short and it made sense for a change.
I know, thats damn near a miracle for me.
So, I am placing this little message here as a bookmark. I'm elsewhere.
PS- Libertarianism makes sense... but I have to agree with the lesser of the three evils choice. Not that I could come up with a better solution.
-
nothing or nobody is perfect
I am nobody therefore I am perfect
-
I think I have more in common with Libertarianism than anything but I can't answer this question because I find the philosophy or the party at least, not maleable enough for consistently real participation in the country's direction. This mostly has to do with my support for the current war. I think wartime and peacetime are decidedly different with respect to execution of the Constitution and I think that the Constitution itself has accounted for this, but people do not read it as such. But then during peacetime people the other side doesn't read the Constitution right either and they want to gift money away, so nothing's perfect.
-
I recall reading somewhere years ago either in the party documents or on their website that if you don't adhere to ALL the principals of the party - then you're not libertarian.
This is a huge problem. A lot of Big Ls insist that if you're not 100% pure, you're not a principled libertarian. (Ian is guilty of this.) Someone can agree with 98% of the platform, but that remaining 2% makes them an evil statist.
The libs need to outgrow this attitude unless they want to keep failing miserably everywhere.
-
Libertarianism is perfect. No matter whether you are a minarchist or a total anarcho-capitalist, as long as you adhere to the the libertarian principle everyone's peaceful and happy.
:D
-
Libertarianism is perfect. No matter whether you are a minarchist or a total anarcho-capitalist, as long as you adhere to the the libertarian principle everyone's peaceful and happy.
:D
That's what most Socialists think too.
-
Libertarianism is perfect. No matter whether you are a minarchist or a total anarcho-capitalist, as long as you adhere to the the libertarian principle everyone's peaceful and happy.
:D
That's what most Socialists think too.
I think this is the first time I've ever been compared to a socialist. But at least they have a firm belief system.
-
Libertarianism is perfect. No matter whether you are a minarchist or a total anarcho-capitalist, as long as you adhere to the the libertarian principle everyone's peaceful and happy.
:D
That's what most Socialists think too.
I think this is the first time I've ever been compared to a socialist. But at least they have a firm belief system.
I'm just saying that everyone (sane people) that thinks the way they do has the belief that in the end it will ultimately help their civilization for the better.
-
everyone thinks they have the answer, but in the end no one really does.
-
Libertarianism is perfect. No matter whether you are a minarchist or a total anarcho-capitalist, as long as you adhere to the the libertarian principle everyone's peaceful and happy.
what "libertarian principle" are you referring to?
-
The one that says "people should be free to do whatever they will so long as they neither harm nor abridge the freedom of another."
-
The one that says "people should be free to do whatever they will so long as they neither harm nor abridge the freedom of another."
That makes it the best, and perhaps simplest, but as long as humans are living in it, it won't be perfect.
That's fine with me, though. If everything were perfect, life would be quite dull.
-
conversations would go so wonderfully then, wouldn't they?
how are you today?
perfect. and you?
perfect.
and that's about it.
-
Its flawless
I hesitated initially to vote for this because of the inherent irony in the statement. :P