Sure, you're coerced into working. We're all coerced into eating and breathing too, but it's not by anyone, it's through nature. And I don't care who you are or what system you're living under, you're going to have to do something to live, won't you?
Nobody disagrees with that. The difference between libertarians and everybody else is that libertarians recognize only the threat of physical force as coercion. They do not recognize the threats of unemployment, starvation, deprivation, or exploitation as forms of coercion - or, if they do, they give only the most cursory lip service to them.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Nobody disagrees with that. The difference between libertarians and everybody else is that libertarians recognize only the threat of physical force as coercion. They do not recognize the threats of unemployment, starvation, deprivation, or exploitation as forms of coercion - or, if they do, they give only the most cursory lip service to them.
That, and they really only seem to have a problem with coercion when it comes from the government. Unless they honestly believe that in a completely free market businesses/corporations wouldn't be every bit as coercive as the current government, if not more, and for more malicious purposes.
Nobody disagrees with that. The difference between libertarians and everybody else is that libertarians recognize only the threat of physical force as coercion. They do not recognize the threats of unemployment, starvation, deprivation, or exploitation as forms of coercion - or, if they do, they give only the most cursory lip service to them.
That, and they really only seem to have a problem with coercion when it comes from the government. Unless they honestly believe that in a completely free market businesses/corporations wouldn't be every bit as coercive as the current government, if not more, and for more malicious purposes.
If I have to pick one, I'd rather be pushed around by 4 or 5 corporations than one government.
Nobody disagrees with that. The difference between libertarians and everybody else is that libertarians recognize only the threat of physical force as coercion. They do not recognize the threats of unemployment, starvation, deprivation, or exploitation as forms of coercion - or, if they do, they give only the most cursory lip service to them.
That, and they really only seem to have a problem with coercion when it comes from the government. Unless they honestly believe that in a completely free market businesses/corporations wouldn't be every bit as coercive as the current government, if not more, and for more malicious purposes.
If I have to pick one, I'd rather be pushed around by 4 or 5 corporations than one government.
You can vote against a government. You can't vote against a corporation.
If I have to pick one, I'd rather be pushed around by 4 or 5 corporations than one government.
I'd rather economic organizations (including but not limited to corporations, industry PACs, labor unions, etc.) and governments act to check and balance one another.
To me, your statement is as silly as, "I'd rather be pushed around by the executive branch than the judicial branch!" Let them push each other around.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Nobody disagrees with that. The difference between libertarians and everybody else is that libertarians recognize only the threat of physical force as coercion. They do not recognize the threats of unemployment, starvation, deprivation, or exploitation as forms of coercion - or, if they do, they give only the most cursory lip service to them.
That, and they really only seem to have a problem with coercion when it comes from the government. Unless they honestly believe that in a completely free market businesses/corporations wouldn't be every bit as coercive as the current government, if not more, and for more malicious purposes.
If I have to pick one, I'd rather be pushed around by 4 or 5 corporations than one government.
You can vote against a government. You can't vote against a corporation.
Isn't that the inherent problem with our government today? How many decisions in congress are decided by the Lobbyists, long before a vote is even cast? I'm not saying no government is a sane alternative, but I would hope for a better government. I kinda like the idea that was presented in that Man of the Year movie (even though the movie sucked). Our representatives should be treated like a Jury selection, with random people selected every year. At the least, it would provide an accurate cross-section of America, and actually give some power to the average person. For a government that's supposed to be for the people, by the people, money sure seems to be a lot more important than people, these days.
Also, is this the thread where I say that I think we should have boobies on our TVs, and that that would bring about a decrease in sexual deviants and sexual crimes? Give me boobies over violence, any day of the week.
Precisely. A "Libertarian" would argue that natural necessity is innately different from human coercion, but really it's not, especially considering that (in modern society) natural necessity is fulfilled only through participating in the capitalist system, which is structured to ensure as well as possible that those in power remain in power (that the wealthy remain wealthy). The "Libertarian" mentality also forgets that the wealthy are not individually potent-- they rely on the masses as their producers and consumers. If they truly valued individual rights, wouldn't these producers have the same ability to succeed in society? To me it smacks of 1984 in a way... Everyone's free, but some are more free than others.
Sure, you're coerced into working. We're all coerced into eating and breathing too, but it's not by anyone, it's through nature. And I don't care who you are or what system you're living under, you're going to have to do something to live, won't you? And whatever that is, couldn't that be construed as coercion? Please don't start talking about social co-ops and workers this and that... my eyes are already glazing over.
You misunderstood. I acknowledged the supposed "coercion" of eating and breathing with the term "natural necessity," and extrapolated that this is inseparable from human coercion in modern society, unless you live as a hermit or are on top of the heap.
Sure, you're coerced into working. We're all coerced into eating and breathing too, but it's not by anyone, it's through nature. And I don't care who you are or what system you're living under, you're going to have to do something to live, won't you?
Nobody disagrees with that. The difference between libertarians and everybody else is that libertarians recognize only the threat of physical force as coercion. They do not recognize the threats of unemployment, starvation, deprivation, or exploitation as forms of coercion - or, if they do, they give only the most cursory lip service to them.
Sure, unemployment, starvation, deprivation, and explotation are threats.
I believe that free market economic systems tend to employ more people than other systems. Check.
I believe that the prosperity capitalism helps against starvation and deprivation. See: Globalization, number of people living on $1 or less, past-present.
I believe that first world people shouldn't use their concepts of exploitation as a lens into the third world too harshly. Yes, corporations and governments can do fucked up things, and some of those things should be stopped by force. Sure, we can all agree that locking workers in factories is unequivocally wrong, but the industrialization of the third world is bringing them up out of poverty. It's not perfect, and not as quick as some would like, but I believe that it is better and quicker than other solutions.
I think the fundamental difference between liberals and us is that they fetishize positive liberty to the expense of negative liberty. So I guess you could say that we can look both ways on that.
Our representatives should be treated like a Jury selection, with random people selected every year. At the least, it would provide an accurate cross-section of America, and actually give some power to the average person. For a government that's supposed to be for the people, by the people, money sure seems to be a lot more important than people, these days.
Could someone please explain to me the benefits of populism?
Our representatives should be treated like a Jury selection, with random people selected every year. At the least, it would provide an accurate cross-section of America, and actually give some power to the average person. For a government that's supposed to be for the people, by the people, money sure seems to be a lot more important than people, these days.
Could someone please explain to me the benefits of populism?
People are made to do what is (err, what elite political thinkers think is) best for them?
Nobody disagrees with that. The difference between libertarians and everybody else is that libertarians recognize only the threat of physical force as coercion. They do not recognize the threats of unemployment, starvation, deprivation, or exploitation as forms of coercion - or, if they do, they give only the most cursory lip service to them.
That, and they really only seem to have a problem with coercion when it comes from the government. Unless they honestly believe that in a completely free market businesses/corporations wouldn't be every bit as coercive as the current government, if not more, and for more malicious purposes.
I once had an argument with a libertarian about the fact that libertarians tend to make the assumption that everything in the world is cut and dry, and there is no complexity or nuance to complicate things. He supported the idea of a privatized police police force which would be cheaper, less corrupt, and even more willing to risks their lives, and I asked how a privatized police for would deal with crimes that weren't so clear, like where the victim was already dead and couldn't be identified (and thus couldn't be billed), where there were no laws regarding how evidence should be handled, where the killer was still on the run and time was of the essense, and where the police needed to investigate a suspect's private property before he had a chance to destroy the evidence. (Libertarians make the argument that a person forfeits their right to property once they commit a crime because they didn't respect the rights of someone else. However, this assumption is based on the idea that he has already been convicted, and thus creates a catch-22. It does not address the issue of people who are only considered suspects.).
The libertarian than posted the following link, which shows what an "ideal," privatized police force might handle a difficult crime. It describes a horrific, nightmarish world, where rape victims are forced to compensate their rapists with $20k of their own money if they can't get a conviction (And keep in mind, a lot of rape victims refuse to come forward because they're afraid no one will believe them, and are often right, especially since none of the other victims are willing to come forward either.). It describes a world where anyone who can't afford police protection (e.g., minors and poor people) is basically open hunting for predators. It describes a world where, if you are even suspected of a crime, yo will essentialy be shunned and forced to starve to death because none of the business people will sell you any food or water, until you "voluntarily" submit yourself to the private police (Of course, this assumes that you can't find anyone to help you, or that you can't destroy the evidence first before "voluntarily" turning yourself in.).
Yet, the libertarian was sincere in his assessment that this type of Orwellian judicial system would be far better than the current one. Why? Because it didn't involve government. And anything that doesn't involve the government must therefore be good.
I don't know. A friend of mine who is from Hong Kong told me that HK used to have a regular police force and it was extremely inefficient and corrupt. Then the mayor decided to form a private police force that was independent and answered only to the mayor (and furthermore, has the authority to investigate the mayor's doings).
Apparently it works far better than the regular police force.
Nobody disagrees with that. The difference between libertarians and everybody else is that libertarians recognize only the threat of physical force as coercion. They do not recognize the threats of unemployment, starvation, deprivation, or exploitation as forms of coercion - or, if they do, they give only the most cursory lip service to them.
That, and they really only seem to have a problem with coercion when it comes from the government. Unless they honestly believe that in a completely free market businesses/corporations wouldn't be every bit as coercive as the current government, if not more, and for more malicious purposes.
I once had an argument with a libertarian about the fact that libertarians tend to make the assumption that everything in the world is cut and dry, and there is no complexity or nuance to complicate things. He supported the idea of a privatized police police force which would be cheaper, less corrupt, and even more willing to risks their lives, and I asked how a privatized police for would deal with crimes that weren't so clear, like where the victim was already dead and couldn't be identified (and thus couldn't be billed), where there were no laws regarding how evidence should be handled, where the killer was still on the run and time was of the essense, and where the police needed to investigate a suspect's private property before he had a chance to destroy the evidence. (Libertarians make the argument that a person forfeits their right to property once they commit a crime because they didn't respect the rights of someone else. However, this assumption is based on the idea that he has already been convicted, and thus creates a catch-22. It does not address the issue of people who are only considered suspects.).
The libertarian than posted the following link, which shows what an "ideal," privatized police force might handle a difficult crime. It describes a horrific, nightmarish world, where rape victims are forced to compensate their rapists with $20k of their own money if they can't get a conviction (And keep in mind, a lot of rape victims refuse to come forward because they're afraid no one will believe them, and are often right, especially since none of the other victims are willing to come forward either.). It describes a world where anyone who can't afford police protection (e.g., minors and poor people) is basically open hunting for predators. It describes a world where, if you are even suspected of a crime, yo will essentialy be shunned and forced to starve to death because none of the business people will sell you any food or water, until you "voluntarily" submit yourself to the private police (Of course, this assumes that you can't find anyone to help you, or that you can't destroy the evidence first before "voluntarily" turning yourself in.).
Yet, the libertarian was sincere in his assessment that this type of Orwellian judicial system would be far better than the current one. Why? Because it didn't involve government. And anything that doesn't involve the government must therefore be good.
Really, really horrible shit.
Believing there should be no government at all is anarchy, not libertarianism. I, and most other libertarians I've talked to, and public libertarian figures like Penn Jillette, am not an anarchist. I think the government should be there, just that it's scope should be as limited as it can be. The government should control police and military forces to protect us from other people causing us harm. It should not outlaw things that individuals do that could harm themselves, such as drugs, etc. Yes, I have a strong belief in the free market. For example, I don't believe we should make smoking in public places illegal just because second-hand smoke causes damage. People who are afraid of damage caused by second-hand smoking may refuse to patronize establishments where smoking is allowed, and if an establishment loses business because of this, it will ban smoking, why does the government need to be involved here? The same process of thought can be applied to many situations where the government is trying to take power.
Nobody disagrees with that. The difference between libertarians and everybody else is that libertarians recognize only the threat of physical force as coercion. They do not recognize the threats of unemployment, starvation, deprivation, or exploitation as forms of coercion - or, if they do, they give only the most cursory lip service to them.
That, and they really only seem to have a problem with coercion when it comes from the government. Unless they honestly believe that in a completely free market businesses/corporations wouldn't be every bit as coercive as the current government, if not more, and for more malicious purposes.
If I have to pick one, I'd rather be pushed around by 4 or 5 corporations than one government.
You can vote against a government. You can't vote against a corporation.
Nobody disagrees with that. The difference between libertarians and everybody else is that libertarians recognize only the threat of physical force as coercion. They do not recognize the threats of unemployment, starvation, deprivation, or exploitation as forms of coercion - or, if they do, they give only the most cursory lip service to them.
That, and they really only seem to have a problem with coercion when it comes from the government. Unless they honestly believe that in a completely free market businesses/corporations wouldn't be every bit as coercive as the current government, if not more, and for more malicious purposes.
If I have to pick one, I'd rather be pushed around by 4 or 5 corporations than one government.
You can vote against a government. You can't vote against a corporation.
Vote with your feet dude.
I have been. Look how well it's worked against Wal-Mart.
Nobody disagrees with that. The difference between libertarians and everybody else is that libertarians recognize only the threat of physical force as coercion. They do not recognize the threats of unemployment, starvation, deprivation, or exploitation as forms of coercion - or, if they do, they give only the most cursory lip service to them.
That, and they really only seem to have a problem with coercion when it comes from the government. Unless they honestly believe that in a completely free market businesses/corporations wouldn't be every bit as coercive as the current government, if not more, and for more malicious purposes.
If I have to pick one, I'd rather be pushed around by 4 or 5 corporations than one government.
You can vote against a government. You can't vote against a corporation.
Vote with your feet dude.
The majority of people don't care about what corporations do. If the customers don't care, how are the workers supposed to get fair wages?
The government should control police and military forces to protect us from other people causing us harm. It should not outlaw things that individuals do that could harm themselves, such as drugs, etc. Yes, I have a strong belief in the free market. For example, I don't believe we should make smoking in public places illegal just because second-hand smoke causes damage. People who are afraid of damage caused by second-hand smoking may refuse to patronize establishments where smoking is allowed, and if an establishment loses business because of this, it will ban smoking, why does the government need to be involved here? The same process of thought can be applied to many situations where the government is trying to take power.
So if my smoking causes you harm, why not use the power of the government to stop my smoking?
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
The "you can go elsewhere" argument with smoking doesn't really work when you start to think about the real world. Lone restaurants. Subway cars and trains. Offices.
Æthelred on
pokes: 1505 8032 8399
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
Private establishments should be able to determine their own smoking policy, but I think in 'public' areas (police stations, libraries, airports etc) it should be banned since if you need to go to one it's not like you have an alternative. I'm unsure about outdoors though, don't know if second hand smoking can happen in the open.
Yet, the libertarian was sincere in his assessment that this type of Orwellian judicial system would be far better than the current one. Why? Because it didn't involve government. And anything that doesn't involve the government must therefore be good.
Well, then he's a moron. He doesn't sound much like a libertarian either, if he's supporting an system that limits freedom more than the current one, purely on the basis that privatisation must be universal; he sounds like a dogmatist. Actually, he sounds like a reverse Stalinist.
If you want to base your judgement of libertarians on him, you're welcome, but I hope that - being an equal opportunities kind of fella - you similarly judge all white people based on the Grand Dragon of the KKK, all Asians on Mr. Cho who has been in the news recently, all Christians on David Koresh, etc etc.
Fawkes on
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
So if my smoking causes you harm, why not use the power of the government to stop my smoking?
Because you are, above all, obsessed with freedom. But freedom isn't free, and it isn't always worth it.
(It is also worth noting that it's only a special kind of freedom that libertarians care about. But whatever, I'm willing to use their terms, since it's not like argument from the terms is a valid strategy. Defining something to be freedom doesn't make it good, it just means you're using a particular combination of letters to label it.)
I'm unsure about outdoors though, don't know if second hand smoking can happen in the open.
This is another thread, but there's at least 40 pages of smoking ban material right there in that sentence.
PS Isn't it interesting that once again the libertarian thread has been taken over by people (not libertarians, I might point out) using the most extreme examples they can make up? What would happen if we had, say, an Islam thread where the majority opinion of serious minds was that every Muslim thinks TNT is the in look for the summer?
Yet, the libertarian was sincere in his assessment that this type of Orwellian judicial system would be far better than the current one. Why? Because it didn't involve government. And anything that doesn't involve the government must therefore be good.
Well, then he's a moron. He doesn't sound much like a libertarian either, if he's supporting an system that limits freedom more than the current one, purely on the basis that privatisation must be universal; he sounds like a dogmatist. Actually, he sounds like a reverse Stalinist.
If you want to base your judgement of libertarians on him, you're welcome, but I hope that - being an equal opportunities kind of fella - you similarly judge all white people based on the Grand Dragon of the KKK, all Asians on Mr. Cho who has been in the news recently, all Christians on David Koresh, etc etc.
The difference is that the majority of libertarians in today's society are nut-jobs.
Joseph Stalin on
Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communist revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.
I'm unsure about outdoors though, don't know if second hand smoking can happen in the open.
This is another thread, but there's at least 40 pages of smoking ban material right there in that sentence.
PS Isn't it interesting that once again the libertarian thread has been taken over by people (not libertarians, I might point out) using the most extreme examples they can make up? What would happen if we had, say, an Islam thread where the majority opinion of serious minds was that every Muslim thinks TNT is the in look for the summer?
That's different, because libertarians *are* nutty. Just look at what the communist above me says. Yeah, Joseph Stalin.
God on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
This is another thread, but there's at least 40 pages of smoking ban material right there in that sentence.
PS Isn't it interesting that once again the libertarian thread has been taken over by people (not libertarians, I might point out) using the most extreme examples they can make up? What would happen if we had, say, an Islam thread where the majority opinion of serious minds was that every Muslim thinks TNT is the in look for the summer?
Basically, the set of self-described libertarians don't really have the same distribution of "moderate-to-extremists" that the mainstream affiliations do. Mostly it's because it's a ideology-based marginal third party with absolutely no power, and as such it draws people drawn to idealistic extremes. Greens have the same problem.
I might have bumped into moderate libertarians before, but I wouldn't know because it doesn't come up apparently. Every self-described Libertarian I've run into in "real life" was an extremist who advocated privatizing all public infrastructure, eliminating all social spending, and preserving only those parts of government which are made to protect their stuff and the narrow rights they care about.
The majority of people don't care about what corporations do. If the customers don't care, how are the workers supposed to get fair wages?
Libertarians think that whatever the workers can get is fair, by definition.
I think that that is is the case for libertarians excluding the case of monopsonies, but that is somewhat arcane and most people probably don't know about it.
Recent discussion gets back to a question I asked earlier but was ignored. When we are talking about libertarians, are we talking about just those with a capital L or extremists who desire anarchy, or does it include those more moderate who lean towards less government in both the social and fiscal realms? Because those are two very different sets of people.
The majority of people don't care about what corporations do. If the customers don't care, how are the workers supposed to get fair wages?
Libertarians think that whatever the workers can get is fair, by definition.
I think that that is is the case for libertarians excluding the case of monopsonies, but that is somewhat arcane and most people probably don't know about it.
Recent discussion gets back to a question I asked earlier but was ignored. When we are talking about libertarians, are we talking about just those with a capital L or extremists who desire anarchy, or does it include those more moderate who lean towards less government in both the social and fiscal realms? Because those are two very different sets of people.
We're talking about all of them, just like when we talk about democrats, we mean the trade unionists, minority rights guys, pot smoking hippies, and whoever else is under that big tent.
Our representatives should be treated like a Jury selection, with random people selected every year. At the least, it would provide an accurate cross-section of America, and actually give some power to the average person. For a government that's supposed to be for the people, by the people, money sure seems to be a lot more important than people, these days.
Could someone please explain to me the benefits of populism?
Imagine you cloned Ted Stevens 434 times, and sent all of them to Congress.
So, I guess my answer is "as long as you really like Ted Stevens, it's great!"
I'm unsure about outdoors though, don't know if second hand smoking can happen in the open.
This is another thread, but there's at least 40 pages of smoking ban material right there in that sentence.
PS Isn't it interesting that once again the libertarian thread has been taken over by people (not libertarians, I might point out) using the most extreme examples they can make up? What would happen if we had, say, an Islam thread where the majority opinion of serious minds was that every Muslim thinks TNT is the in look for the summer?
For the most part, people are born into being muslims. In fact, I would venture to say that most people are born into being democrats or republicans (or are raisedin environments conductive to those ideals.). But why do people become libertarians? Well, a lot of it comes from the fact that they're inherently more radical and extreme to begin with, which is why they don't want to work within a major party. And the fact that since they don't "officially" hold any power, it's impossible for them to hold elected officials accountable to their ideals, or test to see how way those ideals play out in reality. Hence, it encourages a constant state of playing "let's imagine how much better the world would be if we were in charge," and not, "Well, now that we're in charge, how can we use our newfound power responsibly?" This complete insulation from reality tends to make them come accross as a lot more crazy than most groups.
If libertarians were ever elected into power, I could imagine a betting poll for how long until they completely self-destructed.
The vast majority of libertarians are just folks in the republican party that don't agree with other factions (like the religious right) but support the party because of their pragmatism.
See: xenophobic union truckers, the democratic party, immigration debate.
I might have bumped into moderate libertarians before, but I wouldn't know because it doesn't come up apparently. Every self-described Libertarian I've run into in "real life" was an extremist who advocated privatizing all public infrastructure, eliminating all social spending, and preserving only those parts of government which are made to protect their stuff and the narrow rights they care about.
But why do people become libertarians? Well, a lot of it comes from the fact that they're inherently more radical and extreme to begin with, which is why they don't want to work within a major party. And the fact that since they don't "officially" hold any power, it's impossible for them to hold elected officials accountable to their ideals, or test to see how way those ideals play out in reality.
Is it just me, or did there used to be rules in D&D about, y'know, anecdotal evidence, giving proof, wild speculation? There is absolutely nothing in the above page of posts which isn't pure unsubstantiated opinion.
I'd be very interested in having an argument about the 'L' vs 'l' ibertarian thing, but I just don't think it's possible here, because even with mad Christian fundies, Islamists, Cho Chi Minh, and Jack Thompson to vent their spleen against, all of Penny Arcade inexplicably seems to reserve their most blinkered, unswerving ire for people who think civil liberties + fiscal conservatism is a good idea.
I might have bumped into moderate libertarians before, but I wouldn't know because it doesn't come up apparently. Every self-described Libertarian I've run into in "real life" was an extremist who advocated privatizing all public infrastructure, eliminating all social spending, and preserving only those parts of government which are made to protect their stuff and the narrow rights they care about.
But why do people become libertarians? Well, a lot of it comes from the fact that they're inherently more radical and extreme to begin with, which is why they don't want to work within a major party. And the fact that since they don't "officially" hold any power, it's impossible for them to hold elected officials accountable to their ideals, or test to see how way those ideals play out in reality.
Is it just me, or did there used to be rules in D&D about, y'know, anecdotal evidence, giving proof, wild speculation? There is absolutely nothing in the above page of posts which isn't pure unsubstantiated opinion.
I'd be very interested in having an argument about the 'L' vs 'l' ibertarian thing, but I just don't think it's possible here, because even with mad Christian fundies, Islamists, Cho Chi Minh, and Jack Thompson to vent their spleen against, all of Penny Arcade inexplicably seems to reserve their most blinkered, unswerving ire for people who think civil liberties + fiscal conservatism is a good idea.
Since there are no studies conducting determining if libertarians are crazy or not, I feel we are forced to use anecdotal evidence and personal experience. Oh, and look at party leaders such as Ron Paul.
Joseph Stalin on
Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communist revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.
Since there are no studies conducting determining if libertarians are crazy or not, I feel we are forced to use anecdotal evidence and personal experience. Oh, and look at party leaders such as Ron Paul.
I think there have been studies determining that you aren't to be trusted.
I think we should do a thread about people who believe that the moon landing was staged.
But let's not rely on anecdotal information about the most crazy people who believe that the moon landing was staged. Let's only focus on the "normal" people who believe that the moon landing was staged.
The real issue of this thread is what we're trying to discuss, because libertarianism hasn't been properly defined, and there hasn't been any real established scope for this discussion. You can't have a non-anecdotal discussion of libertarians unless you have a clear standard for what libertarianism is.
The problem is that "moderate" libertarians don't really stand for anything that's really conductive to discussion. You can't start a libertarian thread with the subject line, "What's your thought on gay marriage and tax cuts? Because I like them both!" because those are actually two separate discissions. How you feel about gay marriage has little to do with how you would feel about tax cuts, and vice verse. If a moderator saw that, he/she would probably split it up into two different threads, one for discussing gay marriage, and one for discussing tax cuts. Once you split the topic up, it is no longer scene as a libertarian issue.
Now, you could try to argue that both of these things are actually the same topic, because at heart is the common ideology for liberty, and would therefore lend to a discussion of whether or not we need less government intervention accross the board. The problem is, again, this does not really lend itself to a discussion. If you try to get too specific on areas where the government should and shouldn't intervene, then it becomes a left/right issue, and no longer has anything to do with libertarianism. OTOH, if you try going the opposite end of the spectrum and get to broad, then the question is, "To what extent?" Unfortunately, there aren't any clear limits here. If someone says that the power of the state should be reduced accross the board, then why can't I bring up people who think it should be dissolved entirely? It's a simple reductio ad absurdian (which, contrary to popular belief, is not a fallacy when used correctly.).
The fact is, there are very few issues that can be seen as uniquely libertarian, and which are specific enough to hold a semi-intelligent conversation. The return to the gold standard is one. The dissolution of public schools and public roads is another. So is the promotion of anarcho-capialism. There simply isn't much to discuss in a thread on libertarianism other than the most extreme platforms, and therefore, the people who support them.
Since there are no studies conducting determining if libertarians are crazy or not, I feel we are forced to use anecdotal evidence and personal experience. Oh, and look at party leaders such as Ron Paul.
I think there have been studies determining that you aren't to be trusted.
Oh, and stop killing kulaks!
Does JSTAL actually support communism or is it a joke about how much the system fails and supports the lowest common denominator?
Katholic on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
Since there are no studies conducting determining if libertarians are crazy or not, I feel we are forced to use anecdotal evidence and personal experience. Oh, and look at party leaders such as Ron Paul.
I think there have been studies determining that you aren't to be trusted.
Oh, and stop killing kulaks!
Does JSTAL actually support communism or is it a joke about how much the system fails and supports the lowest common denominator?
What? His sig? That's from The Communist Manifesto.
The founding tennants of libertarianism, that all externalities can be corrected in the free market have been disproven time and time again. Furthermore, the ideology relies on two mutualy exclusive situations being true at the same time. The first is that private property rights are absolute, and the second is that public property rights will not be violated by private property rights. This only works in a system where public property doesnt exist, and it is impossible to comoditize the air we breathe and water we drink without descending to tyranny.
That is why there are no sane/rational/reasonable libertarians. The entire ideology is based upon false premises.
It is similar to the communist problem. Lots of crazy people think that communism is viable, though most realize that in order for communism to be viable you need to live in an idealized system. For communism relies on two mutually exclusive situations being true at the same time. the first is that public property rights are absolute, and the second is that private property rights will not be violated by public property rights. This only works in a system where private property doesnt exist, and it is impossible to make personal effects public without descending to tyranny.
Once you start realizing that in order to not have tyranny, there needs to be a balance between the public interest and the private interest then you can start to join the rational debate, the question of which is "what is the balance that achieves the best results for the most people". About which we have plenty of irrational arguements already, so we dont really need the crazies to crazy it up even more.
If libertarians were ever elected into power, I could imagine a betting poll for how long until they completely self-destructed.
That comic gets posted in every libertarian thread. Its fucking ironic how off-mark it is. I know that the author of that comic and anyone posting it never read Atlas Shrugged. If for no other reason than there actually was a main character in the book whose job it was to make fucking sandwiches in the little Utopia. And they were tilling the soil, too. Like I said, its ignorance achieves irony. Please, stop posting it.
And more relevant to the thread, it is an absurd idea. What are you saying? Libertarians are all rich industrialists who can't make food for themselves? I'll likely never understand this world view.
Posts
Nobody disagrees with that. The difference between libertarians and everybody else is that libertarians recognize only the threat of physical force as coercion. They do not recognize the threats of unemployment, starvation, deprivation, or exploitation as forms of coercion - or, if they do, they give only the most cursory lip service to them.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
That, and they really only seem to have a problem with coercion when it comes from the government. Unless they honestly believe that in a completely free market businesses/corporations wouldn't be every bit as coercive as the current government, if not more, and for more malicious purposes.
If I have to pick one, I'd rather be pushed around by 4 or 5 corporations than one government.
You can vote against a government. You can't vote against a corporation.
I'd rather economic organizations (including but not limited to corporations, industry PACs, labor unions, etc.) and governments act to check and balance one another.
To me, your statement is as silly as, "I'd rather be pushed around by the executive branch than the judicial branch!" Let them push each other around.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Isn't that the inherent problem with our government today? How many decisions in congress are decided by the Lobbyists, long before a vote is even cast? I'm not saying no government is a sane alternative, but I would hope for a better government. I kinda like the idea that was presented in that Man of the Year movie (even though the movie sucked). Our representatives should be treated like a Jury selection, with random people selected every year. At the least, it would provide an accurate cross-section of America, and actually give some power to the average person. For a government that's supposed to be for the people, by the people, money sure seems to be a lot more important than people, these days.
Also, is this the thread where I say that I think we should have boobies on our TVs, and that that would bring about a decrease in sexual deviants and sexual crimes? Give me boobies over violence, any day of the week.
Sure, unemployment, starvation, deprivation, and explotation are threats.
I believe that free market economic systems tend to employ more people than other systems. Check.
I believe that the prosperity capitalism helps against starvation and deprivation. See: Globalization, number of people living on $1 or less, past-present.
I believe that first world people shouldn't use their concepts of exploitation as a lens into the third world too harshly. Yes, corporations and governments can do fucked up things, and some of those things should be stopped by force. Sure, we can all agree that locking workers in factories is unequivocally wrong, but the industrialization of the third world is bringing them up out of poverty. It's not perfect, and not as quick as some would like, but I believe that it is better and quicker than other solutions.
I think the fundamental difference between liberals and us is that they fetishize positive liberty to the expense of negative liberty. So I guess you could say that we can look both ways on that.
Could someone please explain to me the benefits of populism?
People are made to do what is (err, what elite political thinkers think is) best for them?
I once had an argument with a libertarian about the fact that libertarians tend to make the assumption that everything in the world is cut and dry, and there is no complexity or nuance to complicate things. He supported the idea of a privatized police police force which would be cheaper, less corrupt, and even more willing to risks their lives, and I asked how a privatized police for would deal with crimes that weren't so clear, like where the victim was already dead and couldn't be identified (and thus couldn't be billed), where there were no laws regarding how evidence should be handled, where the killer was still on the run and time was of the essense, and where the police needed to investigate a suspect's private property before he had a chance to destroy the evidence. (Libertarians make the argument that a person forfeits their right to property once they commit a crime because they didn't respect the rights of someone else. However, this assumption is based on the idea that he has already been convicted, and thus creates a catch-22. It does not address the issue of people who are only considered suspects.).
The libertarian than posted the following link, which shows what an "ideal," privatized police force might handle a difficult crime. It describes a horrific, nightmarish world, where rape victims are forced to compensate their rapists with $20k of their own money if they can't get a conviction (And keep in mind, a lot of rape victims refuse to come forward because they're afraid no one will believe them, and are often right, especially since none of the other victims are willing to come forward either.). It describes a world where anyone who can't afford police protection (e.g., minors and poor people) is basically open hunting for predators. It describes a world where, if you are even suspected of a crime, yo will essentialy be shunned and forced to starve to death because none of the business people will sell you any food or water, until you "voluntarily" submit yourself to the private police (Of course, this assumes that you can't find anyone to help you, or that you can't destroy the evidence first before "voluntarily" turning yourself in.).
http://www.lewrockwell.com/molyneux/molyneux19.html
Yet, the libertarian was sincere in his assessment that this type of Orwellian judicial system would be far better than the current one. Why? Because it didn't involve government. And anything that doesn't involve the government must therefore be good.
Really, really horrible shit.
I don't know. A friend of mine who is from Hong Kong told me that HK used to have a regular police force and it was extremely inefficient and corrupt. Then the mayor decided to form a private police force that was independent and answered only to the mayor (and furthermore, has the authority to investigate the mayor's doings).
Apparently it works far better than the regular police force.
Believing there should be no government at all is anarchy, not libertarianism. I, and most other libertarians I've talked to, and public libertarian figures like Penn Jillette, am not an anarchist. I think the government should be there, just that it's scope should be as limited as it can be. The government should control police and military forces to protect us from other people causing us harm. It should not outlaw things that individuals do that could harm themselves, such as drugs, etc. Yes, I have a strong belief in the free market. For example, I don't believe we should make smoking in public places illegal just because second-hand smoke causes damage. People who are afraid of damage caused by second-hand smoking may refuse to patronize establishments where smoking is allowed, and if an establishment loses business because of this, it will ban smoking, why does the government need to be involved here? The same process of thought can be applied to many situations where the government is trying to take power.
Vote with your feet dude.
I have been. Look how well it's worked against Wal-Mart.
The majority of people don't care about what corporations do. If the customers don't care, how are the workers supposed to get fair wages?
So if my smoking causes you harm, why not use the power of the government to stop my smoking?
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Libertarians think that whatever the workers can get is fair, by definition.
Well, then he's a moron. He doesn't sound much like a libertarian either, if he's supporting an system that limits freedom more than the current one, purely on the basis that privatisation must be universal; he sounds like a dogmatist. Actually, he sounds like a reverse Stalinist.
If you want to base your judgement of libertarians on him, you're welcome, but I hope that - being an equal opportunities kind of fella - you similarly judge all white people based on the Grand Dragon of the KKK, all Asians on Mr. Cho who has been in the news recently, all Christians on David Koresh, etc etc.
Because you are, above all, obsessed with freedom. But freedom isn't free, and it isn't always worth it.
(It is also worth noting that it's only a special kind of freedom that libertarians care about. But whatever, I'm willing to use their terms, since it's not like argument from the terms is a valid strategy. Defining something to be freedom doesn't make it good, it just means you're using a particular combination of letters to label it.)
This is another thread, but there's at least 40 pages of smoking ban material right there in that sentence.
PS Isn't it interesting that once again the libertarian thread has been taken over by people (not libertarians, I might point out) using the most extreme examples they can make up? What would happen if we had, say, an Islam thread where the majority opinion of serious minds was that every Muslim thinks TNT is the in look for the summer?
The difference is that the majority of libertarians in today's society are nut-jobs.
Workingmen of all countries, unite!
That's different, because libertarians *are* nutty. Just look at what the communist above me says. Yeah, Joseph Stalin.
I might have bumped into moderate libertarians before, but I wouldn't know because it doesn't come up apparently. Every self-described Libertarian I've run into in "real life" was an extremist who advocated privatizing all public infrastructure, eliminating all social spending, and preserving only those parts of government which are made to protect their stuff and the narrow rights they care about.
I think that that is is the case for libertarians excluding the case of monopsonies, but that is somewhat arcane and most people probably don't know about it.
Recent discussion gets back to a question I asked earlier but was ignored. When we are talking about libertarians, are we talking about just those with a capital L or extremists who desire anarchy, or does it include those more moderate who lean towards less government in both the social and fiscal realms? Because those are two very different sets of people.
We're talking about all of them, just like when we talk about democrats, we mean the trade unionists, minority rights guys, pot smoking hippies, and whoever else is under that big tent.
So, I guess my answer is "as long as you really like Ted Stevens, it's great!"
For the most part, people are born into being muslims. In fact, I would venture to say that most people are born into being democrats or republicans (or are raisedin environments conductive to those ideals.). But why do people become libertarians? Well, a lot of it comes from the fact that they're inherently more radical and extreme to begin with, which is why they don't want to work within a major party. And the fact that since they don't "officially" hold any power, it's impossible for them to hold elected officials accountable to their ideals, or test to see how way those ideals play out in reality. Hence, it encourages a constant state of playing "let's imagine how much better the world would be if we were in charge," and not, "Well, now that we're in charge, how can we use our newfound power responsibly?" This complete insulation from reality tends to make them come accross as a lot more crazy than most groups.
If libertarians were ever elected into power, I could imagine a betting poll for how long until they completely self-destructed.
The vast majority of libertarians are just folks in the republican party that don't agree with other factions (like the religious right) but support the party because of their pragmatism.
See: xenophobic union truckers, the democratic party, immigration debate.
Is it just me, or did there used to be rules in D&D about, y'know, anecdotal evidence, giving proof, wild speculation? There is absolutely nothing in the above page of posts which isn't pure unsubstantiated opinion.
I'd be very interested in having an argument about the 'L' vs 'l' ibertarian thing, but I just don't think it's possible here, because even with mad Christian fundies, Islamists, Cho Chi Minh, and Jack Thompson to vent their spleen against, all of Penny Arcade inexplicably seems to reserve their most blinkered, unswerving ire for people who think civil liberties + fiscal conservatism is a good idea.
Since there are no studies conducting determining if libertarians are crazy or not, I feel we are forced to use anecdotal evidence and personal experience. Oh, and look at party leaders such as Ron Paul.
Workingmen of all countries, unite!
I think there have been studies determining that you aren't to be trusted.
Oh, and stop killing kulaks!
But let's not rely on anecdotal information about the most crazy people who believe that the moon landing was staged. Let's only focus on the "normal" people who believe that the moon landing was staged.
The real issue of this thread is what we're trying to discuss, because libertarianism hasn't been properly defined, and there hasn't been any real established scope for this discussion. You can't have a non-anecdotal discussion of libertarians unless you have a clear standard for what libertarianism is.
The problem is that "moderate" libertarians don't really stand for anything that's really conductive to discussion. You can't start a libertarian thread with the subject line, "What's your thought on gay marriage and tax cuts? Because I like them both!" because those are actually two separate discissions. How you feel about gay marriage has little to do with how you would feel about tax cuts, and vice verse. If a moderator saw that, he/she would probably split it up into two different threads, one for discussing gay marriage, and one for discussing tax cuts. Once you split the topic up, it is no longer scene as a libertarian issue.
Now, you could try to argue that both of these things are actually the same topic, because at heart is the common ideology for liberty, and would therefore lend to a discussion of whether or not we need less government intervention accross the board. The problem is, again, this does not really lend itself to a discussion. If you try to get too specific on areas where the government should and shouldn't intervene, then it becomes a left/right issue, and no longer has anything to do with libertarianism. OTOH, if you try going the opposite end of the spectrum and get to broad, then the question is, "To what extent?" Unfortunately, there aren't any clear limits here. If someone says that the power of the state should be reduced accross the board, then why can't I bring up people who think it should be dissolved entirely? It's a simple reductio ad absurdian (which, contrary to popular belief, is not a fallacy when used correctly.).
The fact is, there are very few issues that can be seen as uniquely libertarian, and which are specific enough to hold a semi-intelligent conversation. The return to the gold standard is one. The dissolution of public schools and public roads is another. So is the promotion of anarcho-capialism. There simply isn't much to discuss in a thread on libertarianism other than the most extreme platforms, and therefore, the people who support them.
Does JSTAL actually support communism or is it a joke about how much the system fails and supports the lowest common denominator?
What? His sig? That's from The Communist Manifesto.
That is why there are no sane/rational/reasonable libertarians. The entire ideology is based upon false premises.
It is similar to the communist problem. Lots of crazy people think that communism is viable, though most realize that in order for communism to be viable you need to live in an idealized system. For communism relies on two mutually exclusive situations being true at the same time. the first is that public property rights are absolute, and the second is that private property rights will not be violated by public property rights. This only works in a system where private property doesnt exist, and it is impossible to make personal effects public without descending to tyranny.
Once you start realizing that in order to not have tyranny, there needs to be a balance between the public interest and the private interest then you can start to join the rational debate, the question of which is "what is the balance that achieves the best results for the most people". About which we have plenty of irrational arguements already, so we dont really need the crazies to crazy it up even more.
And more relevant to the thread, it is an absurd idea. What are you saying? Libertarians are all rich industrialists who can't make food for themselves? I'll likely never understand this world view.
I think libertarians know a little bit more about economies than economists.