Five myths about Libertarianism

[NightFox]

Remind me of this post the next time the Republican Party nominates a pro-choice candidate for president.

Let me frame my question differently.

Is supporting the principles of Roe v. Wade in keeping with the principles of libertarianism,

and if not, why not?

It's a non sequitur, the rational for the Roe vs. Wade decision was based on a Constitutional interpretation not on the principle of non-aggression, the fact that some libertarians basing their reasoning on the principle of non-aggression arrived at a conclusion that coincides with Roe vs. Wade is coincidental.

and if not, what position on abortion best represents libertarian principles?

You've already been told numerous times that the answer is neither because you have two rational conclusions drawn from the same principle. I really don't understand why you keep asking the same question hoping to get a different answer.

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." -- Albert Einstein

So it's libertarian to want a constitutional amendment to ban all abortion, if you happen to be a 'libertarian' who believes life (with personhood rights) begins at conception.

Who said anything about constitutional amendments? I'm not a pro-life libertarian but I have discussed the subject with enough of them to understand that their reasoning squares with non-aggression, if you wanted a POLICY PRESCRIPTION argument from a libertarian supporting a pro-life conclusion then I would not be the person to make that argument.

So I guess you could also be a libertarian who suppports a massive defense budget for the US if you happen to believe that such defense is necessary to protect our safety, lives, wellbeing, etc.

IF you can make a rational argument based on the non-aggression principle supporting it, however I have yet to run across a libertarian that has or has attempted to. Not to mention the fact that your hypothetical is based on a vague premise "MASSIVE defense budget" which means absolutely nothing.

Or, I guess you could also be a libertarian who supports a massive federal presence in the regulation of trade/business if you happen to believe that heavy regulation is necessary to protect our safety, lives, wellbeing, etc.

Should I go on?

Should you go on throwing out vague hypotheticals? if it makes you happy go ahead, Though I wouldn't expect any rational discussion to result from it if I were you. Why don't you try this instead, pick your hypothetical then utilize the non-aggression principle to
formulate a conclusion, one which can stand up to scrutiny, that would be doing yourself a greater service IMHO.

 

[FA_Q2]

You dont think legalizing drug and cut and running isn't legislating morality?

Ok... i try not to step in the thanatos, I really do, but this is too hilarious to pass up. You're saying legalizing something is 'legislating morality'? Do other people think this way? Anybody?

It’s what happens when you allow your mind to be mired in such thought. When you allow the government to be the arbiter of morality and the dictator of what is right and wrong, suddenly the things that the government allows are ‘moral’ and the things that it dies not is ‘immoral.’

I won’t say that the state should have no say in morality because that misses the point. The state HAS no say in morality period – it is an amoral entity and the sooner that people figure that out and get the state out of right and wrong rather than protection the better off we are going to be.

 

[NightFox]

What percent of Americans would you estimate believe that business should not in any way be regulated?

You realize that's an idiotic question, right?

 

[FA_Q2]

Instead you want to force a toxic substance on people for what???? The ability to get high? The people haven't made it legal yet stop crying.

Talk about a gross misunderstanding of the concept of force. Apparently, if I don’t take that beer out of your hand I am FORCING you to drink.

The concept of personal responsibility really does not figure into your world, does it?

Your confusing the idealism with the reality.... Nothing is wrong with having more freedoms. Except we live in a republic where states choose how much that is and libertarians seem to want to force THEIR freedoms on everyone and consequences be damned.

More misunderstanding of force. Leaving you free is somehow forcing something on you.

You know, you could always cede whatever freedoms you want to anyone that you want to. That is your right if you prefer to be a ward rather than figuring anything out.

 

[dblack]

What percent of Americans would you estimate believe that business should not in any way be regulated?

Let's not equivocate, eh?

The statement I replied to claimed that there are no libertarians who want to regulate business.

I'd like an estimate of how many people that represents. How many people want no business regulation?

Bah... bullshit. This isn't honest debate. Tired equivocation and strawmanning isn't insightful, it doesn't shed any light on the issue. It doesn't even score any points for your 'side'. It's just tired nonsense.

 

[FA_Q2]

I think some of you are under the mistaken impression that we can have a government but one that somehow does not legislate morality and society.

How exactly does that work?

Every law every regulation represents SOME KIND of moral value.

There is simply no way to avoid the reality that governments and their laws are the codification of the value system of the society they represent.

You made that same supposition in the thread cited. You also failed to back that up at all then, as you have now, and failed to respond to the myriad of points that sheds that supposition to pieces. I did not expect much change here though because the people here are very much married to the idea that they should be forcing their morality on others through force.

 

[NightFox]

You dont think legalizing drug and cut and running isn't legislating morality?

Ok... i try not to step in the thanatos, I really do, but this is too hilarious to pass up. You're saying legalizing something is 'legislating morality'? Do other people think this way? Anybody?

It’s what happens when you allow your mind to be mired in such thought. When you allow the government to be the arbiter of morality and the dictator of what is right and wrong, suddenly the things that the government allows are ‘moral’ and the things that it dies not is ‘immoral.’

I would have to disagree with that conclusion, IMHO the problem isn't that such minds view government as the "arbiter of morality" the problem is that such minds think that the government is bound by a completely different morality than individuals are. That's why for example individuals can believe murder is immoral for individuals yet defend murder by the state, it's not dictated morality it's dual morality supported by cognitive dissonance. The legalization question in the mode of reason such people rely on simply becomes a proposition where government is the arbiter of what is permitted, not what is moral.

It could be argued that state is dictating morality from the standpoint that such people have been programmed by statist propaganda (from a very early age) to believe the dual morality complex is rational.

 

[FA_Q2]

Ok... i try not to step in the thanatos, I really do, but this is too hilarious to pass up. You're saying legalizing something is 'legislating morality'? Do other people think this way? Anybody?

It’s what happens when you allow your mind to be mired in such thought. When you allow the government to be the arbiter of morality and the dictator of what is right and wrong, suddenly the things that the government allows are ‘moral’ and the things that it dies not is ‘immoral.’

I would have to disagree with that conclusion, IMHO the problem isn't that such minds view government as the "arbiter of morality" the problem is that such minds think that the government is bound by a completely different morality than individuals are. That's why for example individuals can believe murder is immoral for individuals yet defend murder by the state, it's not dictated morality it's dual morality supported by cognitive dissonance. The legalization question in the mode of reason such people rely on simply becomes a proposition where government is the arbiter of what is permitted, not what is moral.

It could be argued that state is dictating morality from the standpoint that such people have been programmed by statist propaganda (from a very early age) to believe the dual morality complex is rational.

In this context I was referring to thantos believing that the government not jailing you for doing drugs was somehow equivalent to ‘legislating’ drug abuse as MORAL. In that context, your statements do not make any sense. I can agree with your supposition in general but in context of the quoted statements, there is no dual morality shown. Rather, there is the admission that anything the state does not make illegal is somehow moral ergo the state is defining morality.

 

[kaz]

For the less educated posters on the board, and for the curious.

That's the propaganda, isn't it? If you don't go for it, you're "less educated". When the truth is that it just doesn't work. While nearly everyone has libertarian leanings and doesn't like to be told what to do, the truly educated realize, if the more radical elements of libertarianism came to fruition, it would be a disaster on the scale of Marxism.

It's funny how you mock windbag's commentary, then prove he was correct...

 

[editec]

I think some of you are under the mistaken impression that we can have a government but one that somehow does not legislate morality and society.

How exactly does that work?

Every law every regulation represents SOME KIND of moral value.

There is simply no way to avoid the reality that governments and their laws are the codification of the value system of the society they represent.

You made that same supposition in the thread cited. You also failed to back that up at all then, as you have now, and failed to respond to the myriad of points that sheds that supposition to pieces.

Its an apodictic truthy, lad.

That every law and every regulation is based either directly or indirectly on some moral value is so logically self evident that it does not require proof.

If you do not understand the above, I really and truly cannot think of any way to teach you something so fundamental.

I did not expect much change here though because the people here are very much married to the idea that they should be forcing their morality on others through force.

No libertarian I ever met did NOT grant government the FRANCHISE on violence. And that franchise is used to enforce the societu's take of morality.

I think your confusion is that you cannot recognize that something so seemingly amoral as say a PARKING LAW, is an extention of morality in society.

Every law, every regulation is a KIND of moral judgement.

 

[NightFox]

It’s what happens when you allow your mind to be mired in such thought. When you allow the government to be the arbiter of morality and the dictator of what is right and wrong, suddenly the things that the government allows are ‘moral’ and the things that it dies not is ‘immoral.’

I would have to disagree with that conclusion, IMHO the problem isn't that such minds view government as the "arbiter of morality" the problem is that such minds think that the government is bound by a completely different morality than individuals are. That's why for example individuals can believe murder is immoral for individuals yet defend murder by the state, it's not dictated morality it's dual morality supported by cognitive dissonance. The legalization question in the mode of reason such people rely on simply becomes a proposition where government is the arbiter of what is permitted, not what is moral.

It could be argued that state is dictating morality from the standpoint that such people have been programmed by statist propaganda (from a very early age) to believe the dual morality complex is rational.

In this context I was referring to thantos believing that the government not jailing you for doing drugs was somehow equivalent to ‘legislating’ drug abuse as MORAL. In that context, your statements do not make any sense. I can agree with your supposition in general but in context of the quoted statements, there is no dual morality shown. Rather, there is the admission that anything the state does not make illegal is somehow moral ergo the state is defining morality.

I understand completely where you are coming from, what I was trying to get at (ineffective communication on my part) was the idea that the person that contends that government legalizing something is "legislating morality" doesn't understand morality correctly in the first place. They can't because the basis of their view of morality is a lie, after all how can one be said to understand morality if one believes that the same morals don't apply to everyone?

Sorry I didn't mean to derail your discussion or anything....

 

[FA_Q2]

I would have to disagree with that conclusion, IMHO the problem isn't that such minds view government as the "arbiter of morality" the problem is that such minds think that the government is bound by a completely different morality than individuals are. That's why for example individuals can believe murder is immoral for individuals yet defend murder by the state, it's not dictated morality it's dual morality supported by cognitive dissonance. The legalization question in the mode of reason such people rely on simply becomes a proposition where government is the arbiter of what is permitted, not what is moral.

It could be argued that state is dictating morality from the standpoint that such people have been programmed by statist propaganda (from a very early age) to believe the dual morality complex is rational.

In this context I was referring to thantos believing that the government not jailing you for doing drugs was somehow equivalent to ‘legislating’ drug abuse as MORAL. In that context, your statements do not make any sense. I can agree with your supposition in general but in context of the quoted statements, there is no dual morality shown. Rather, there is the admission that anything the state does not make illegal is somehow moral ergo the state is defining morality.

I understand completely where you are coming from, what I was trying to get at (ineffective communication on my part) was the idea that the person that contends that government legalizing something is "legislating morality" doesn't understand morality correctly in the first place. They can't because the basis of their view of morality is a lie, after all how can one be said to understand morality if one believes that the same morals don't apply to everyone?

Sorry I didn't mean to derail your discussion or anything....

Now, don’t start with that sorry stuff, I value the comments that you bring to this board so bring it on – it is always worth a read

You did not derail anything either, I just wanted to frame the comment as I meant it. It’s interesting the context you place this in though I was not getting that deep as we were dealing with thantos after all but I understand what you are saying now.

 

[NYcarbineer]

What percent of Americans would you estimate believe that business should not in any way be regulated?

You realize that's an idiotic question, right?

How so? The other poster claimed that no libertarians want business regulated in any way.

How many of those people are there?

 

[NightFox]

In this context I was referring to thantos believing that the government not jailing you for doing drugs was somehow equivalent to ‘legislating’ drug abuse as MORAL. In that context, your statements do not make any sense. I can agree with your supposition in general but in context of the quoted statements, there is no dual morality shown. Rather, there is the admission that anything the state does not make illegal is somehow moral ergo the state is defining morality.

I understand completely where you are coming from, what I was trying to get at (ineffective communication on my part) was the idea that the person that contends that government legalizing something is "legislating morality" doesn't understand morality correctly in the first place. They can't because the basis of their view of morality is a lie, after all how can one be said to understand morality if one believes that the same morals don't apply to everyone?

Sorry I didn't mean to derail your discussion or anything....

Now, don’t start with that sorry stuff, I value the comments that you bring to this board so bring it on – it is always worth a read

Same goes for you, always a learning experience reading the thoughts of rational folks capable of formulating well reasoned arguments.

 

[dblack]

What percent of Americans would you estimate believe that business should not in any way be regulated?

You realize that's an idiotic question, right?

How so? The other poster claimed that no libertarians want business regulated in any way.

It's an idiotic question because it hinges on your repeated equivocation around the term 'regulation'. You know goddamned well that libertarianism doesn't imply no laws at all. Laws protecting individual rights and private property are fundamental to free markets and free societies. When libertarians speak against regulation they're talking about laws that don't protect our rights but, instead, grant special rights to some at the expense of other. And every time libertarians speak out against that kind of regulation, instead of attempting an argument to defend it, you start screeching about how libertarians are anarchists and want no laws at all. It's just dumb. And a waste of time.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It's a non sequitur, the rational for the Roe vs. Wade decision was based on a Constitutional interpretation not on the principle of non-aggression, the fact that some libertarians basing their reasoning on the principle of non-aggression arrived at a conclusion that coincides with Roe vs. Wade is coincidental.


You've already been told numerous times that the answer is neither because you have two rational conclusions drawn from the same principle. I really don't understand why you keep asking the same question hoping to get a different answer.

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." -- Albert Einstein

So it's libertarian to want a constitutional amendment to ban all abortion, if you happen to be a 'libertarian' who believes life (with personhood rights) begins at conception.

Who said anything about constitutional amendments? I'm not a pro-life libertarian but I have discussed the subject with enough of them to understand that their reasoning squares with non-aggression, if you wanted a POLICY PRESCRIPTION argument from a libertarian supporting a pro-life conclusion then I would not be the person to make that argument.

So I guess you could also be a libertarian who suppports a massive defense budget for the US if you happen to believe that such defense is necessary to protect our safety, lives, wellbeing, etc.

IF you can make a rational argument based on the non-aggression principle supporting it, however I have yet to run across a libertarian that has or has attempted to. Not to mention the fact that your hypothetical is based on a vague premise "MASSIVE defense budget" which means absolutely nothing.

Or, I guess you could also be a libertarian who supports a massive federal presence in the regulation of trade/business if you happen to believe that heavy regulation is necessary to protect our safety, lives, wellbeing, etc.

Should I go on?

Should you go on throwing out vague hypotheticals? if it makes you happy go ahead, Though I wouldn't expect any rational discussion to result from it if I were you. Why don't you try this instead, pick your hypothetical then utilize the non-aggression principle to
formulate a conclusion, one which can stand up to scrutiny, that would be doing yourself a greater service IMHO.

1. A constitutional amendment is needed to establish personhood rights for fetuses, since none exist in the constitution. A 'libertarian' who thinks fetuses are people presumably wants sufficient changes made in current law, including constitutional law, in order to protect fetuses as people.

2. It was you who said a libertarian can hold any view they want and still call it libertarian if they can justify it with the 'non-aggression' principle,

therefore according to you it's libertarian to want the current defense budget we have, or an even bigger one, if a person believes that's necessary to prevent 'aggression'.

Also, according to you it's libertarian to want heavy regulation of business if a person believes that's necessary to prevent 'aggression'.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You realize that's an idiotic question, right?

How so? The other poster claimed that no libertarians want business regulated in any way.

It's an idiotic question because it hinges on your repeated equivocation around the term 'regulation'. You know goddamned well that libertarianism doesn't imply no laws at all. Laws protecting individual rights and private property are fundamental to free markets and free societies. When libertarians speak against regulation they're talking about laws that don't protect our rights but, instead, grant special rights to some at the expense of other. And every time libertarians speak out against that kind of regulation, instead of attempting an argument to defend it, you start screeching about how libertarians are anarchists and want no laws at all. It's just dumb. And a waste of time.

Why do you keep addressing me? It was the other poster who claimed that no libertarians supported regulation.

And it's funny that now YOU are speaking for libertarians as if you were some sort of appointed spokesman,

yet when I cited verbatim from the Libertarian Party platform, I was attacked multiple times because somehow I was trying to claim that the platform spoke for libertarians.

 

[NightFox]

What percent of Americans would you estimate believe that business should not in any way be regulated?

You realize that's an idiotic question, right?

How so? The other poster claimed that no libertarians want business regulated in any way.

It's an idiotic question because there is no reasonable way to provide an answer based on factual data.

How many of those people are there?

How would one determine this without asking the question of every person in America? How does one determine the number of people in the sample that lied in their answer? how does one determine the number of people in the sample that didn't understand the question but gave an answer anyways? What about the people that refuse to answer the question?

To be fair though let's examine the question that you replied to:

Progressives think the government should regulate everything from war to who does business with whom. I bet you can't find anyone who calls themselves a libertarian who agrees with that.

The premise here is that "progressives think the government should regulate everything from war to who does business with whom"

This is clearly an assertion that isn't supported by any documentation of facts, It's probably safe to assume that some progressives believe this (because we can find documentation of self-identified progressives claiming it) but as a generalization it hasn't been demonstrated to be factual.

I bet you can't find anyone who calls themselves a libertarian who agrees with that.

This is again an assumption, probably one that's fairly easy to demonstrate as false since the bar is rather low given it doesn't require anything beyond "someone who calls themselves a libertarian" , a more significant (and reasonable) challenge would have been "I bet you can't find anyone that can use libertarian principle to formulate a well reasoned argument, capable of holding up under scrutiny, agreeing with that".

IMHO responding to set of unsupported assertions with a question that any reasonable person can see could only result in another unsupported assertion is illogical, unless of course your purpose was to point out the flaws in the original unsupported assertions using analogy, in which case one would ask why not just point them out directly?

 

[Contumacious]

How so? The other poster claimed that no libertarians want business regulated in any way.

How many of those people are there?

Libertarians want businesses regulated by the invisible hand of the market place. People vote democratically with their money.

.

 

[NYcarbineer]

How so? The other poster claimed that no libertarians want business regulated in any way.

How many of those people are there?

Libertarians want businesses regulated by the invisible hand of the market place. People vote democratically with their money.

.

So there's no need, for example, for certain medicines to be regulated, for example, by requiring prescriptions?

There's no need for doctors to be in any way licensed? No need for safety regulations on automobile manufacturing?