The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
The Libertarianism Thread
AngelHedgie
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
Ah, libertarianism, the most misunderstood of the political ideologies (well, at least according to its adherents.)
One problem with defining libertarianism is that, well, ask two libertarians what "libertarianism" is, and you'll get three answers. Under the large umbrella that is "libertarianism", you'll find competing ideologies such as geolibertarianism, minarchism, various flavors of anarchism, Objectivism, and many others. And, well...they tend to not get along with each other. (Yes, this does indeed make discussing libertarianism fertile ground for the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.)
That said, we can extract some core beliefs that most strains agree with in some form or another:
So, if you're a libertarian, or just think they're nuts, voice yourself here!
This thread was approved by the mod staff. If you want to talk Libertarianism, do it here. If you want to talk Ron Paul, do it here. If you want to talk anything else, find another thread.
One problem with defining libertarianism is that, well, ask two libertarians what "libertarianism" is, and you'll get three answers. Under the large umbrella that is "libertarianism", you'll find competing ideologies such as geolibertarianism, minarchism, various flavors of anarchism, Objectivism, and many others. And, well...they tend to not get along with each other. (Yes, this does indeed make discussing libertarianism fertile ground for the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.)
That said, we can extract some core beliefs that most strains agree with in some form or another:
- The sovereignty of the individual is paramount - People are responsible for themselves, and should not be constrained except when they come in contest with another person.
- Government is at best a necessary evil - The government seeks to constrain individuals, so it should be viewed at best as a wary ally. Some branches limit it, others oppose it.
- Capitalism is the most efficient means of distributing goods - The free market is most efficient at allocating goods, especially ones that are scarce.
So, if you're a libertarian, or just think they're nuts, voice yourself here!
This thread was approved by the mod staff. If you want to talk Libertarianism, do it here. If you want to talk Ron Paul, do it here. If you want to talk anything else, find another thread.
XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
AngelHedgie on
0
Posts
That's why I like Libertarianism in general. No matter how kooky someone is, they won't impose their kookiness on me.
Kook on, kids.
/card carryin' L since '91.
What level was he?
Did he have an animal companion?
So why the fuck should the Jesus-take-the-wheel approach work for our nation's economy? Especially considering that we know a lot more about the laws of physics than the "laws" of economic systems.
EDIT: And actually I'll give you some credit here. Your description was accurate.
No animal was pictured but he did have a heavy beard and wearing what appeared to be a cloak.
Well if I wanted the government to take control of my car I'd have to compose a letter (sorry we don't accept emails), fill out a 13 page form, send the letter, and wait another 6 weeks for a response. This is of course assuming I don't go over a cliff in the meantime.
That is a poor comparison, really.
The argument that capitalism is the most efficient means of distributing goods is based on the theory that companies, by their nature, will seek to maximize profitability. There are two methods to do this - reducing costs of manufacturing and distributing goods, and increasing prices. However, if we are to assume a competitive market, prices will be driven down to the point that the market will bear. However, this assumes that a) there are not exhorbant costs to get into an industry (which in many, if not most, cases there are) and that b) there is no collusion amongst a majority of the market players (be it one company or a number of market players in the form of a cartel) to fix the price of a needed good at an artificially inflated price.
As for my personal stance, I think it reflects more on what the purpose of government is more than any real economic factors. Once upon a time, governments were designed to (essentially) provide protection to a group of people from neighboring, potentially hostile, groups of people. These groups of people are called 'countries.' At that time, businesses were small, local entities which typically suffered if the government stepped in to overregulate. However, in the modern, global era, there are new groups of people known as "corporations" which reach across multiple countries and continents, and represent the interests of a much smaller group of people. These interests do not always coincide with the interests of the population of the groups represented by governments, and the individuals in those groups are not powerful enough, by themselves, to stand up to these corporations. Therefore, it is the government's responsibility to regulate the corporations to ensure they do not gain undue power to threaten the well-being of the individuals they represent.
Yeah, I remember this bloke running for President a few years back, said he believed in a mystical melding of three deific essences into one cosmological being whose speech coagulated into material essence and predetermined all universal and human history from the beginning of time.
Nutjobs, eh.
That is a utilitarian free market view. There are some libertarians who think that individuals have inalienable rights.
― Marcus Aurelius
Path of Exile: themightypuck
We could also differentiate between a libertarian (the description at the top of the thread) and a Libertarian (members of a 3rd party in the United States that have no chance of getting elected).
Well, JFK believed that on Sundays when he ate crackers they turned into human flesh.
― Marcus Aurelius
Path of Exile: themightypuck
Question: why is it that libertarians are willing to totally sell out all of their allegedly socially liberal values in favor of tax cuts?
Question: Why is the only "libertarian" candidate to make a significant impact in a presidential election in recent memory pro-life, anti-gay-marriage, and against the separation of church and state?
Obviously, whenever anyone gained too much money or power, everyone in the area would gang up on them and kill them and/or take all of their property. Government influence only serves to interfere with this natural economic process, which is why our economy is so screwed up and monopolies are allowed to form.
That's what Go To Jail and Chance cards are for. They're like checks and balances.
There are plenty of big "L" libertarians in office. Just because none have yet made it to high offices doesn't mean they're unelectable.
But don't you want to go to jail after you've established a whole bunch of monopolies?
But seriously: Libertarianism relies on the idea that everyone, if free to do so, will behave in their own long-term interest. The problem is that people can only be counted on to behave that way if the choices are very simple. It turns out that if you have just a little more power than everyone else - in the form of money, information, and communication - it's pretty easy to get people to behave in ways that are in your long-term interest but counter to their own.
Or Socialism.
But that's speaking in more worldly terms as opposed to US terms, I'm kinda neutral on whether we should be leaning more towards Laissez Faire or State Capitalism for what we should use to help the average citizen the most.
Finland would also like to say 'sup.
No nation on Earth, right now, has a 100% "ism" environment - whether communism, socialism, capitalism, or anything else. Most nations have a blend of each, to varying degrees. America leans heavily in the direction of capitalism with some socialistic practices. Sweden is more in the direction of socialism with some capitalist features as well. I find it hard to believe that any system would be able to totally account for the broader problems that arise in real-world scenarios.
On the topic of communism, it does work well, on a small-scale basis. Once you get past the size of a small group of people (lol commune), it is necessary to have one or multiple people whose roles are nothing more than moving the goods around to the various groups of people via a supply chain of some sort. This concentrates the power within the system, and the system falls apart.
Communism's main fault is the inevitable rise of the 'leader class' in an otherwise classless-based system which creates instability and causes it to fail.
And by bust I mean social and/or economic collapse or general hell of one sort or another.
Someone called for a token Swede?
Yeah really.
I actually agree with the first two tentants that were listed, but I definately do not agree with laissez-faire capitalism being the best possible economic model.
I mean, seriously guys? Remember pollution? That stuff that gets spewed into the air and water? Remember how its corporations that tend to make it, and governments that tend to stop them and force them to clean it up? That sort of capitalism is far too destructive, which I suppose isn't surprising for an ideal that has greed as its prime motivator.
My beliefs would be something much closer to anarchism, but I recognize that governemnt of some sort is needed. Now I dont think that government has to resemble in any way government that we have now, quite the contrary. But I do think a system of people need to have some authority over others, in some way at least.
I say government should be like a customer service booth. They should only exist to make my life, and the life of everyone else, easier and better. Better in what way? It should be up to me. And as V says "People should not be afraid of their government, the government should be afraid of its people".
It's more that the centralized system has no way of giving incentives for people to work hard, and stuffs the lines of communication with plenty of opportunities for corruption.
And it's not communism's main fault, it's the extreme socialism that's required to prepare the world for communism.
I only scored a 72/155. According to this guy I'm a moderate ;-).
I'd be interested to see how other people score if anyone would care to post their results.
20.
Will you go out with me?
Conservatives, probably, are people who value the independence of traditional civil society - family, the church, and traditional institutions like the military. They don't believe that gov't trying to do a better job by taking on new roles or improving the character of mankind is going to be successful. They would support laws enforcing traditional notions of morality and decency. Libertarians, theoretically, don't have very many moral hangups. But most Americans that I have met (at institutions of higher education) who describe themselves as libertarians fit one of two categories.
1: Friedman market liberals who just want little economic regulation but would capitulate on social issues (see the republican party). 2: or a) have money, b) want to use drugs and c) have some brand loyalty issue that prevents themselves from taking up the mantle of democrat.
I thought you'd never ask!