The Libertarian Thread

[ChrisBaleBatman]

So...basically, Libertarians want to see the world turn into that of The Road Warrior?

that's...kinda cool.

 

[dnno1]

Libertarianism is not the Absence of Government, that would be Anarchy.

Anarchy is a state of lawlessness as a result of a failure of government. It doesn't mean that there is no government. Case in point, Somalia actually has a government, but yet it is in a state of what would be preceived to be anarchy. The general definition of Libertarianism is the philosophy that individual liberties should be increased while the role of goverment is minimized or abolished. When goverment is weakened, you approach the situation that you have in Somalia, Afganistan, and other parts of the world. You even open yourself up for military coups and dictatorships. Heck, this previous administration arguably weakend goverment and look where we are now? If this is not what Libertarians mean then they are not being very clear in the definition of their stance (which I doubt is the case). Like I said before if it is that hard to understan Libertarianism, then I don't think I want to join that party.

 

[marcofthebeast]

Your definition of Anarchy is incorrect. Anarchy purely means no government, "Not a state of lawlessness". That is one of the Libertarian beliefs law exist without government because of the Classical Liberal belief of natural rights. The right to Life, Liberty, and Property (changed to the pursuit of happiness)
If someone violates your right of life its murder, If someone violates your liberty its slavery or tyranny, is someone violates your property its theft. A libertarian believes that these rules exist outside of government because these rights exist in man and are unalienable meaning you cannot separate yourself from those rights.

And a place like Somali is not a Libertarian Paradise because although there government is weak they do not respect a human's natural rights.

Lawlessness does not equal Anarchy.
Lawlessness does not equal Libertarianism.

 

[Scarlet spidey]

And if I have to think that hard to understand what Libertarianism is, I don't want to be one.

"Thinking makes my head hurt. I think I'll join the Democratic or Republican Party."

-Dnno1

 

[dnno1]

Your definition of Anarchy is incorrect. Anarchy purely means no government, "Not a state of lawlessness". That is one of the Libertarian beliefs law exist without government because of the Classical Liberal belief of natural rights. The right to Life, Liberty, and Property (changed to the pursuit of happiness)
If someone violates your right of life its murder, If someone violates your liberty its slavery or tyranny, is someone violates your property its theft. A libertarian believes that these rules exist outside of government because these rights exist in man and are unalienable meaning you cannot separate yourself from those rights.

And a place like Somali is not a Libertarian Paradise because although there government is weak they do not respect a human's natural rights.

Lawlessness does not equal Anarchy.
Lawlessness does not equal Libertarianism.

You can still have a governmen and yet have anarchy. It is when the government fails to govern, that there is this state of lawlessness that serves as a condition for anarchy ("no rule", which is what anarchy literally translates to from Greek). I never said that Lawlessness equates to anarchy, but it is a necessary condition for it to exist. The Libertarian premise that there should be less government and more liberties to the people as well as the false notion that the law exists without government due to natural rights is what will lead you to anarchy pretty fast. It was James Madison who wrote in the Federalist #51 the following:

If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.

Certainy men are not angels, so they should be governed lest we would live a society no better than those of the Wild Wild West, or the barbaric tribes of Medevil Europe. People don't do things because it is either a natural reaction or right or law, they do so because they either want to or need to without any restrictions. The only thing keeping most people from killing is the fact that there is a law with some enforcement behind it, and that enforcement comes from a government of some type. Having less of that would only lead to anarchy, which is where Somalia is at right now.

 

[StorminNorman]

You can still have a governmen and yet have anarchy. It is when the government fails to govern, that there is this state of lawlessness that serves as a condition for anarchy ("no rule", which is what anarchy literally translates to from Greek). I never said that Lawlessness equates to anarchy, but it is a necessary condition for it to exist. The Libertarian premise that there should be less government and more liberties to the people as well as the false notion that the law exists without government due to natural rights is what will lead you to anarchy pretty fast. It was James Madison who wrote in the Federalist #51 the following:



Certainy men are not angels, so they should be governed lest we would live a society no better than those of the Wild Wild West, or the barbaric tribes of Medevil Europe. People don't do things because it is either a natural reaction or right or law, they do so because they either want to or need to without any restrictions. The only thing keeping most people from killing is the fact that there is a law with some enforcement behind it, and that enforcement comes from a government of some type. Having less of that would only lead to anarchy, which is where Somalia is at right now.

There is nothing that Madison said that counters Libertarian philosophy.

 

[dnno1]

"Thinking makes my head hurt. I think I'll join the Democratic or Republican Party."

-[edit]an incorrect paraphrase by Scarlet Spidey[edit]

I won't take credit for that quote since those aren't my exact words. I really meant what I originally said since on the surface the Libertarian stance means one thing, but yet those of you who support it seem to be saying it doesn't, and then your explanations sound rediculous. I am not buying this at all.

 

[dnno1]

There is nothing that Madison said that counters Libertarian philosophy.

How so? According to marcofthebeast, the Libertarian belief is that law exists without goverment because of the natural rights of men. I don't see how that could be if there was no one (namely a government) there to enforce it, but if it were, then men would have to be angels, right? Of course, that is not true since history has proven that there is lawlessness without govenment rule. Hence, what has been proposed thus far is contrary to the philosopy of Madison and your statement is false.

 

[marcofthebeast]

The Libertarian premise that there should be less government and more liberties to the people as well as the false notion that the law exists without government due to natural rights is what will lead you to anarchy pretty fast. It was James Madison who wrote in the Federalist #51 the following:

Certainy men are not angels, so they should be governed lest we would live a society no better than those of the Wild Wild West, or the barbaric tribes of Medevil Europe. People don't do things because it is either a natural reaction or right or law, they do so because they either want to or need to without any restrictions. The only thing keeping most people from killing is the fact that there is a law with some enforcement behind it, and that enforcement comes from a government of some type. Having less of that would only lead to anarchy, which is where Somalia is at right now.

So lets imagine an actual Libertarian society where the governments only task is to enforce law (Police and Courts) and control an army. Everything else would be handled in the free market. What in that scenario will lead
us into anarchy. The past has shown whenever a government has even a small footing it will grow larger not smaller.

And you are to tell me that the governments whim should be law, which means its fine to restrict marriage for gays, its okay for non violent drug offenders to be thrown in jail, Its okay to throw two consenting adults in jail for an exchange of money. Its okay to violate human rights because government gives us rights not the fact that we can think, perceive, and create.

The reason why the Old West was wild was the lack of respect for property. Robbing a bank is not wrong because a government says it is but because it is immoral to take what some one else has worked for. If tomorrow the government was gone and I decided to kill someone does that make it okay, because there isn't a public entity to decide if it's legal or not? If i stole something from someone when they weren't looking and there was no way the police could find out does that make it moral?

We have delegated certain powers to our government. The government is not designed to restrict our rights, its designed to protect them. People have gotten to comfortable with the former that they have forgotten the latter.

 

[Malice]

I officially have elected myself Libertarian

 

[SuBe]

I'm a Libertarian also, and I don't think I have the patience to set Dnno1 straight. If he wants to believe that his "interpretation" of what a Libertarian is is correct, and if it makes him feel better, whatever...

 

[redfirebird2008]

CorpusBlack's avatar is full of "epic win." t:

 

[SuBe]

I know, I should ask him if I can borrow it since he never logs on anymore.

 

[StorminNorman]

CorpusBlack's avatar needs a Bailout. Don't ask him if you can borrow it - threaten his reputation and simply take it.

 

[StorminNorman]

I'm a Libertarian also, and I don't think I have the patience to set Dnno1 straight. If he wants to believe that his "interpretation" of what a Libertarian is is correct, and if it makes him feel better, whatever...

Are you a registered libertarian?

The temptation for me to register is great...I just don't want to be unable to vote in the GOP primaries.

 

[redfirebird2008]

CorpusBlack's avatar needs a Bailout. Don't ask him if you can borrow it - threaten his reputation and simply take it.

 

[SuBe]

Why would I do that? He works with me....Go lay down Normie...

 

[SuBe]

Are you a registered libertarian?

The temptation for me to register is great...I just don't want to be unable to vote in the GOP primaries.

The Day we have Open Primaries. Boy Howdy am I going to register so hard...!

 

[redfirebird2008]

I think SuBe needs to use this Doc Ock line against CorpusBlack: "The power of the sun in the palm of my hand...now bend over beyotch!" OK so I made up the bend over beyotch part, but I think it works.

 

[Scarlet spidey]

Are you a registered libertarian?

The temptation for me to register is great...I just don't want to be unable to vote in the GOP primaries.

Which is the one of two reasons I'm not a registered Libertarian. The other is Bob Barr.

 

[StorminNorman]

How did Bob Barr get the Libertarian nomination? The Libertarian Party were running ads AGAINST him during his time as a congressman.

 

[marcofthebeast]

It seems that the Libertarian party was desperate to nominate someone that was recognizable, and that was a mistake. Bob Barr could have had a total change of heart and become the most libertarian person in the world, but he still would have been the wrong candidate because he lacks any type of leadership qualities.

 

[Scarlet spidey]

How did Bob Barr get the Libertarian nomination? The Libertarian Party were running ads AGAINST him during his time as a congressman.

Barr sucked. I don't know what the LP was thinking when they got him, but they were wrong.
If they make another big mistake in 2012 I'm going to have to join the Constitution Party instead.

 

[StorminNorman]

Penn Jillette: Why I’m a Libertarian Nut Instead of Just a Nut

I don’t speak for all Libertarians any more than Sean Penn speaks for all Democrats. I’m not even sure my LP membership card is up to date. I’ve voted Libertarian as long as I can remember but I don’t really remember much before the Clintons and the Bushes. Those clans made a lot of us bugnutty. When I go on Glenn’s show he calls me a Libertarian, I think that’s my only real credential. There are historical reasons and pragmatic reasons to be a Libertarian, but there are historic and pragmatic reasons to be a Democrat, a Republican or a Socialist. I don’t know if everyone would be better off under a Libertarian government. I don’t know what would be best for anyone. I don’t even know what’s best for me. What makes me Libertarian is I don’t think anyone else really knows what’s best for anyone. My argument for Libertarianism is simple - personal morality.

I start with the Declaration of Independence: “Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” So, essentially our government does what they do with my consent.

I know barely enough about Max Weber to type his name into Google, but it seems he’s credited with asserting the idea that the state has a monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force. I put those two ideas together (my consent and use of physical force) and figure we all give our government the right to use force. So, the way I figure, it’s not okay for our government to use force in any situation where I personally wouldn’t use force.

For example, if I’m not willing to kill a cute cow, I shouldn’t eat steak. I don’t have to kill Bessy right now with my bare hands, but I have to be willing to snuff her if I want to chow down on a T-bone. If it’s not okay for me, it’s not okay for a slaughterhouse. Asking someone else to do something immoral is immoral. If it’s not okay for me to break David Blaine’s hands so my magic show has less competition, it’s not okay for me to ask someone else to beat him up. Someone else doing your dirty work is still your dirty work.

If I had a gun, and I knew a murder was happening, (we’re speaking hypothetically here, I’m not asking you to believe that I could accurately tell a murder from aggressive CPR), I would use that gun to stop that murder. I might be too much of a coward to use a gun myself to stop a murder or rape or robbery, but I think the use of a gun is justified. I’m even okay with using force to enforce voluntary contracts. If I were a hero, I would use a gun to protect the people who choose to live under this free system and to stop another country from attacking America. But I wouldn’t use a gun to force someone to love something like say…a library.

Look, I love libraries. I spent a lot of time in the Greenfield Public Library when I was a child. I would give money to build a library. I would ask you to give money to build a library. But, if for some reason you were crazy enough to think you had a better idea for your money than building my library, I wouldn’t pull a gun on you. I wouldn’t use a gun to build an art museum, look at the wonders of the universe through a big telescope, or even find a cure for cancer.

The fact that the majority wants something good does not give them the right to use force on the minority that don’t want to pay for it. If you have to use a gun, it’s not really a very good idea. Democracy without respect for individual rights sucks. It’s just ganging up on the weird kid, and I’m always the weird kid.

People try to argue that government isn’t really force. You believe that? Try not paying your taxes. (This is only a thought experiment though -- suggesting someone not pay their taxes is probably a federal offense, and while I may be a nut, I’m not crazy.) When they come to get you for not paying your taxes, try not going to court. Guns will be drawn. Government is force.

It’s amazing to me how many people think that voting to have the government give poor people money is compassion. Helping poor and suffering people yourself is compassion. Voting for our government to use guns to give money to help poor and suffering people is immoral self-righteous bullying laziness. People need to be fed, medicated, educated, clothed, and sheltered. If we’re compassionate, we’ll help them, but you get no moral credit for forcing other people to do what you think is right. There is great joy in helping people, but no joy in doing it at gunpoint.

I’m a Libertarian nut because I don’t want my government to do anything in my name that I wouldn’t do myself.

http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/25575/

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

I dunno, with Ron Paul yesterday claiming that we shouldn't have an education system or agriculture defense...I dunno.

I mean, the Mad Max Wasteland is awesome and all. But c'mon.