Just What is Libertarianism?

[dblack]

The myth upon which Libertarianism is based is the same myth as Communism. That is that human beings will step up and do the right thing if only given the chance. It isn't true.

That's not really it. It's more along the lines of "two wrongs don't make a right". We want a government that represents society's morals - that doesn't act immorally in the name of the "good" of society. To put it another way, we don't want government to do anything we wouldn't feel justified in doing personally if it came to that.

The good of society is the primary goal of the Constitution. Morality is entirely subjective and should not even be a factor. Doing unto others is a wonderful sentiment, but I have seen so many things people are willing to do to others that I don't trust the concept much.

What holds us together is the law. Written down for all to see, interpreted and enforced in the light.

Of course. I'm saying nothing different. Except that we shouldn't endorse anything in the name of the law that we wouldn't feel justified doing personally. In other words, if I see someone attacking an old woman to steal her purse, or worse, I'd feel justified - even obligated - to use force if necessary to prevent it. And I'd want the law to do the same. But, even if I might feel personally obligated to help the poor, or the refugees in Iraq, or any other number of noble causes, I wouldn't feel justified in forcing my neighbors to join me. Likewise I don't think it's right for the law to do it on my behalf just because we had a vote.

 

[rightwinger]

Who said anything about Government?

Government is formed by a society and does the functions that the society requests
At a bare minimum, a society provides what we need to survive

Advanced societies provide what the people want

Government and society are two separate things. You keep saying "society does this," and "society needs that," when what you really mean is government does it. Government performs functions that are beneficial for government. Any claims to the contrary are propaganda.

Society doesn't provide squat. It's an abstract concept. And the idea that welfare makes a society "advanced" is too absurd for words to describe.

Coming from an anarchist.....I see that is what you believe

Read the Constitution. It starts by declaring that "We the People" are forming a government and how that government will be constituted

Government is formed by a society. It allows that society to function. You can't have one without the other

If "we the people" created government, then "we the people" are separate from government. The two things are not synonymous.

Society does not need government to function. Society existed for 10,000 years before the first government ever formed. The later is a parasite that feeds on and afflicts the former.

Read the Constitution

We the People created the Government it IS us
No society at any level has ever operated without a government. The simplest tribe had a government

But why do I argue such things with an anarchist?

If the government is us, then how did we create it? How do you create yourself?

The fact is that society existed for 10,000 years before any government ever existed. Government is the monopoly on the use of force. Prior to government societies may have made communal decisions of a sort, but there was no machinery of compulsion. It was all entirely voluntary.

“The state — or, to make matters more concrete, the government — consists of a gang of men exactly like you and me. They have, taking one with another, no special talent for the business of government; they have only a talent for getting and holding office. Their principal device to that end is to search out groups who pant and pine for something they can’t get, and to promise to give it to them. Nine times out of ten that promise is worth nothing. The tenth time it is made good by looting ‘A’ to satisfy ‘B’. In other words, government is a broker in pillage, and every election is a sort of advanced auction on stolen goods.”

― H.L. Mencken​

Our particular Government was created by We the People in something we call the Constitution

Societies 10,000 years ago still had Governments. Tribes and Clans were led by Chiefs or Tribal Elders. Those governments established rules and enforced tribal laws.

 

[bripat9643]

Government and society are two separate things. You keep saying "society does this," and "society needs that," when what you really mean is government does it. Government performs functions that are beneficial for government. Any claims to the contrary are propaganda.

Society doesn't provide squat. It's an abstract concept. And the idea that welfare makes a society "advanced" is too absurd for words to describe.

Coming from an anarchist.....I see that is what you believe

Read the Constitution. It starts by declaring that "We the People" are forming a government and how that government will be constituted

Government is formed by a society. It allows that society to function. You can't have one without the other

If "we the people" created government, then "we the people" are separate from government. The two things are not synonymous.

Society does not need government to function. Society existed for 10,000 years before the first government ever formed. The later is a parasite that feeds on and afflicts the former.

Read the Constitution

We the People created the Government it IS us
No society at any level has ever operated without a government. The simplest tribe had a government

But why do I argue such things with an anarchist?

If the government is us, then how did we create it? How do you create yourself?

The fact is that society existed for 10,000 years before any government ever existed. Government is the monopoly on the use of force. Prior to government societies may have made communal decisions of a sort, but there was no machinery of compulsion. It was all entirely voluntary.

“The state — or, to make matters more concrete, the government — consists of a gang of men exactly like you and me. They have, taking one with another, no special talent for the business of government; they have only a talent for getting and holding office. Their principal device to that end is to search out groups who pant and pine for something they can’t get, and to promise to give it to them. Nine times out of ten that promise is worth nothing. The tenth time it is made good by looting ‘A’ to satisfy ‘B’. In other words, government is a broker in pillage, and every election is a sort of advanced auction on stolen goods.”

― H.L. Mencken​

Our particular Government was created by We the People in something we call the Constitution

In other words, we are not the government since we created the government.

Societies 10,000 years ago still had Governments. Tribes and Clans were led by Chiefs or Tribal Elders. Those governments established rules and enforced tribal laws.

No they didn't, you stupid turd. Government is the monopoly on the use of force, and no such entity existed 10,000 years ago. It didn't exist until about 3,000 B.C. in Sumer.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Okay, over and over again, I'm reading articles attacking this political philosophy. Here's what Wiki says about it:


Libertarianism (Latin: liber, "free") is a political philosophy that upholds liberty as its principal objective. Libertarians seek to maximize autonomy and freedom of choice, emphasizing political freedom, voluntary association and the primacy of individual judgement.


If this is the case, why should there be so many attacks against what is, to me, the very foundation of Americanism? Is it a growing dependence on government? An indoctrination in the education system against self-reliance?


And the left – and even some conservatives, are attacking Doctor Rand Paul for being a Libertarian running under a false flag. (I like some of his views, but still would vote for an governor over him)


What do you think?

Libertarianism is rejecting all government that doesn't benefit me personally. Only government which benefits me is right and just government, while the rest of it is intrusive.

For instance - if I were a cattle farmer stealing grass for my cattle, like Clive Bundy - then its right for government to provide me free grass for my cattle - but wrong for government to provide free food for poor children.

 

[bripat9643]

Okay, over and over again, I'm reading articles attacking this political philosophy. Here's what Wiki says about it:


Libertarianism (Latin: liber, "free") is a political philosophy that upholds liberty as its principal objective. Libertarians seek to maximize autonomy and freedom of choice, emphasizing political freedom, voluntary association and the primacy of individual judgement.


If this is the case, why should there be so many attacks against what is, to me, the very foundation of Americanism? Is it a growing dependence on government? An indoctrination in the education system against self-reliance?


And the left – and even some conservatives, are attacking Doctor Rand Paul for being a Libertarian running under a false flag. (I like some of his views, but still would vote for an governor over him)


What do you think?

Libertarianism is rejecting all government that doesn't benefit me personally. Only government which benefits me is right and just government, while the rest of it is intrusive.

For instance - if I were a cattle farmer stealing grass for my cattle, like Clive Bundy - then its right for government to provide me free grass for my cattle - but wrong for government to provide free food for poor children.

You are too stupid to bother arguing with.

 

[2aguy]

Libertarian: We believe in freedom and liberty
Republican: We believe in freedom and liberty
Democrat: We believe in freedom and liberty

except the first two actually mean it and the third says it to get people to hand over their freedom and their liberty.........

 

[2aguy]

its a theory that college Repubs are exposed to in college, sort of like hazing, that MOST discard after becoming adults.

And then the Borg Queen assumes control of the lefty and they become a drone in Borg society......that is why freedom and liberty mean so little to democrats.....

 

[dblack]

Okay, over and over again, I'm reading articles attacking this political philosophy. Here's what Wiki says about it:


Libertarianism (Latin: liber, "free") is a political philosophy that upholds liberty as its principal objective. Libertarians seek to maximize autonomy and freedom of choice, emphasizing political freedom, voluntary association and the primacy of individual judgement.


If this is the case, why should there be so many attacks against what is, to me, the very foundation of Americanism? Is it a growing dependence on government? An indoctrination in the education system against self-reliance?


And the left – and even some conservatives, are attacking Doctor Rand Paul for being a Libertarian running under a false flag. (I like some of his views, but still would vote for an governor over him)


What do you think?

Libertarianism is rejecting all government that doesn't benefit me personally. Only government which benefits me is right and just government, while the rest of it is intrusive.

For instance - if I were a cattle farmer stealing grass for my cattle, like Clive Bundy - then its right for government to provide me free grass for my cattle - but wrong for government to provide free food for poor children.

Nope

 

[2aguy]

Libertarians usually have a lot of fun joking about conservatives when they run for office......and I would point out that libertarians think they are immune because they are liberal on the social issues........but once you get to real libertarianism.....they almost hate you more than conservatives....you guys actually believe in more freedom and liberty......and when they get done with Rand Paul, you know, the guy who does free medical work in 3rd world countries.....you won't recongnize him.......

 

[FA_Q2]

Okay, over and over again, I'm reading articles attacking this political philosophy. Here's what Wiki says about it:


Libertarianism (Latin: liber, "free") is a political philosophy that upholds liberty as its principal objective. Libertarians seek to maximize autonomy and freedom of choice, emphasizing political freedom, voluntary association and the primacy of individual judgement.


If this is the case, why should there be so many attacks against what is, to me, the very foundation of Americanism? Is it a growing dependence on government? An indoctrination in the education system against self-reliance?


And the left – and even some conservatives, are attacking Doctor Rand Paul for being a Libertarian running under a false flag. (I like some of his views, but still would vote for an governor over him)


What do you think?

Don't know if anyone has pointed this out but the reality of the attacks against libertarians here is almost entirely based on partisan team garbage. You notice the same bullshit attacks over and over again from the same people that argue against something that is not libertarianism at all. It is because we are not one of them and that inherently (in their eyes) makes us the enemy and we must be attacked.

If you get down to the brass tax of what we actually believe most people actually agree with many of those positions. The naysayers don't care though.

 

[2aguy]

Okay, over and over again, I'm reading articles attacking this political philosophy. Here's what Wiki says about it:


Libertarianism (Latin: liber, "free") is a political philosophy that upholds liberty as its principal objective. Libertarians seek to maximize autonomy and freedom of choice, emphasizing political freedom, voluntary association and the primacy of individual judgement.


If this is the case, why should there be so many attacks against what is, to me, the very foundation of Americanism? Is it a growing dependence on government? An indoctrination in the education system against self-reliance?


And the left – and even some conservatives, are attacking Doctor Rand Paul for being a Libertarian running under a false flag. (I like some of his views, but still would vote for an governor over him)


What do you think?

Don't know if anyone has pointed this out but the reality of the attacks against libertarians here is almost entirely based on partisan team garbage. You notice the same bullshit attacks over and over again from the same people that argue against something that is not libertarianism at all. It is because we are not one of them and that inherently (in their eyes) makes us the enemy and we must be attacked.

If you get down to the brass tax of what we actually believe most people actually agree with many of those positions. The naysayers don't care though.

No, they don't care....they believe in the collective...and will destroy any who resist the collective...no matter how good a person they are.........

 

[FA_Q2]

That's called the division of labor. Government isn't required for that to function.

Society didn't develop the X-box. A specific set of people working for a specific corporation developed it.

Also, "want" and "need" are two separate things.

Who said anything about Government?

Government is formed by a society and does the functions that the society requests
At a bare minimum, a society provides what we need to survive

Advanced societies provide what the people want

Government and society are two separate things. You keep saying "society does this," and "society needs that," when what you really mean is government does it. Government performs functions that are beneficial for government. Any claims to the contrary are propaganda.

Society doesn't provide squat. It's an abstract concept. And the idea that welfare makes a society "advanced" is too absurd for words to describe.

Coming from an anarchist.....I see that is what you believe

Read the Constitution. It starts by declaring that "We the People" are forming a government and how that government will be constituted

Government is formed by a society. It allows that society to function. You can't have one without the other

If "we the people" created government, then "we the people" are separate from government. The two things are not synonymous.

Society does not need government to function. Society existed for 10,000 years before the first government ever formed. The later is a parasite that feeds on and afflicts the former.

Read the Constitution

We the People created the Government it IS us
No society at any level has ever operated without a government. The simplest tribe had a government

But why do I argue such things with an anarchist?

Same thing as a no true scotsman fallacy.

You have essentially defined government in a manner that makes it's existence mandatory in any group larger than 1 person.

If an individual acts as the head of your household making the final decisions that does not make them a 'government.' To claim so really makes the word meaningless.

 

[2aguy]

Can't wait till they link Rand Paul to Barry Goldwater.......

 

[bendog]

The myth upon which Libertarianism is based is the same myth as Communism. That is that human beings will step up and do the right thing if only given the chance. It isn't true.

That's not really it. It's more along the lines of "two wrongs don't make a right". We want a government that represents society's morals - that doesn't act immorally in the name of the "good" of society. To put it another way, we don't want government to do anything we wouldn't feel justified in doing personally if it came to that.

The good of society is the primary goal of the Constitution. Morality is entirely subjective and should not even be a factor. Doing unto others is a wonderful sentiment, but I have seen so many things people are willing to do to others that I don't trust the concept much.

What holds us together is the law. Written down for all to see, interpreted and enforced in the light.

Of course. I'm saying nothing different. Except that we shouldn't endorse anything in the name of the law that we wouldn't feel justified doing personally. In other words, if I see someone attacking an old woman to steal her purse, or worse, I'd feel justified - even obligated - to use force if necessary to prevent it. And I'd want the law to do the same. But, even if I might feel personally obligated to help the poor, or the refugees in Iraq, or any other number of noble causes, I wouldn't feel justified in forcing my neighbors to join me. Likewise I don't think it's right for the law to do it on my behalf just because we had a vote.

You've lost me with the analogy. I have no more moral duty to the old woman with a purse than say the Christians in Syria. Yet, you're saying it's ok to use the force of the state to protect the old lady, but not ok to protect the Syrian Christians?

What am I missing?

 

[FA_Q2]

Okay, over and over again, I'm reading articles attacking this political philosophy. Here's what Wiki says about it:


Libertarianism (Latin: liber, "free") is a political philosophy that upholds liberty as its principal objective. Libertarians seek to maximize autonomy and freedom of choice, emphasizing political freedom, voluntary association and the primacy of individual judgement.


If this is the case, why should there be so many attacks against what is, to me, the very foundation of Americanism? Is it a growing dependence on government? An indoctrination in the education system against self-reliance?


And the left – and even some conservatives, are attacking Doctor Rand Paul for being a Libertarian running under a false flag. (I like some of his views, but still would vote for an governor over him)


What do you think?

Don't know if anyone has pointed this out but the reality of the attacks against libertarians here is almost entirely based on partisan team garbage. You notice the same bullshit attacks over and over again from the same people that argue against something that is not libertarianism at all. It is because we are not one of them and that inherently (in their eyes) makes us the enemy and we must be attacked.

If you get down to the brass tax of what we actually believe most people actually agree with many of those positions. The naysayers don't care though.

No, they don't care....they believe in the collective...and will destroy any who resist the collective...no matter how good a person they are.........

In a way. Interestingly enough though - the worst offenders are almost all ON THE RIGHT.

 

[2aguy]

Okay, over and over again, I'm reading articles attacking this political philosophy. Here's what Wiki says about it:


Libertarianism (Latin: liber, "free") is a political philosophy that upholds liberty as its principal objective. Libertarians seek to maximize autonomy and freedom of choice, emphasizing political freedom, voluntary association and the primacy of individual judgement.


If this is the case, why should there be so many attacks against what is, to me, the very foundation of Americanism? Is it a growing dependence on government? An indoctrination in the education system against self-reliance?


And the left – and even some conservatives, are attacking Doctor Rand Paul for being a Libertarian running under a false flag. (I like some of his views, but still would vote for an governor over him)


What do you think?

Don't know if anyone has pointed this out but the reality of the attacks against libertarians here is almost entirely based on partisan team garbage. You notice the same bullshit attacks over and over again from the same people that argue against something that is not libertarianism at all. It is because we are not one of them and that inherently (in their eyes) makes us the enemy and we must be attacked.

If you get down to the brass tax of what we actually believe most people actually agree with many of those positions. The naysayers don't care though.

No, they don't care....they believe in the collective...and will destroy any who resist the collective...no matter how good a person they are.........

In a way. Interestingly enough though - the worst offenders are almost all ON THE RIGHT.

The only reason you can say that is that the libertarians have never been in a position to threaten the democrat hold on power.....so the discussion has been between conservatives an libertarians....which I prefer.....once an actual libertarian gets into a position where they will have power to stop the democrats...then you will see the difference between the right and the left......

 

[Pete7469]

Okay, over and over again, I'm reading articles attacking this political philosophy. Here's what Wiki says about it:


Libertarianism (Latin: liber, "free") is a political philosophy that upholds liberty as its principal objective. Libertarians seek to maximize autonomy and freedom of choice, emphasizing political freedom, voluntary association and the primacy of individual judgement.


If this is the case, why should there be so many attacks against what is, to me, the very foundation of Americanism? Is it a growing dependence on government? An indoctrination in the education system against self-reliance?


And the left – and even some conservatives, are attacking Doctor Rand Paul for being a Libertarian running under a false flag. (I like some of his views, but still would vote for an governor over him)


What do you think?

Regarding the bed wetters, they hate libertarianism because people living independently is an anathema to their goal of a collectivist global government. The very concept of people living free to either wallow in squalor or achieve a better standard of living would render democrooks useless.

Which would actually be an improvement over their current parasitic status.

The average moonbat is of course too stupid to realize that more freedom would benefit them in the long run, so they regurgitate the bullshit fed to them by the sick statist sociopaths who have no illusion about how destructive to their power libertarians would be if they managed to wrest control of the republicrat party.

Which brings us to "conservatives" who are just as protective of their power as the democrook scumbag elite, the only real difference is they'd let us keep more of our own money.

That's why I don't believe many so called "conservative" policies are actually "right wing". They're merely less left wing than the democrooks. Kind of like the nazis were not quite as leftwing as the commies, but since they both appealed to the sort of folks who viewed the state as a benevolent provider to one degree or another they clashed.

I like Rand, and I hope he makes libertarian politics more trendy. I would be quite happy to see him or Ted Cruz elected.

 

[Pete7469]

Libertarian: We believe in freedom and liberty
Republican: We believe in freedom and liberty
Democrat: We believe in freedom and liberty

Libertarian: We believe in free weed.
Republican: We believe in freedom and libery
Democrat: If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.

My perspective on this:

Libertarian: We believe in the freedom to use weed you buy yourself.
Republicrat: We believe in freedom and liberty, but not to use weed.
Democrook: We want to give you free weed, so you'll stay lethargic and easier to control.

 

[rightwinger]

Coming from an anarchist.....I see that is what you believe

Read the Constitution. It starts by declaring that "We the People" are forming a government and how that government will be constituted

Government is formed by a society. It allows that society to function. You can't have one without the other

If "we the people" created government, then "we the people" are separate from government. The two things are not synonymous.

Society does not need government to function. Society existed for 10,000 years before the first government ever formed. The later is a parasite that feeds on and afflicts the former.

Read the Constitution

We the People created the Government it IS us
No society at any level has ever operated without a government. The simplest tribe had a government

But why do I argue such things with an anarchist?

If the government is us, then how did we create it? How do you create yourself?

The fact is that society existed for 10,000 years before any government ever existed. Government is the monopoly on the use of force. Prior to government societies may have made communal decisions of a sort, but there was no machinery of compulsion. It was all entirely voluntary.

“The state — or, to make matters more concrete, the government — consists of a gang of men exactly like you and me. They have, taking one with another, no special talent for the business of government; they have only a talent for getting and holding office. Their principal device to that end is to search out groups who pant and pine for something they can’t get, and to promise to give it to them. Nine times out of ten that promise is worth nothing. The tenth time it is made good by looting ‘A’ to satisfy ‘B’. In other words, government is a broker in pillage, and every election is a sort of advanced auction on stolen goods.”

― H.L. Mencken​

Our particular Government was created by We the People in something we call the Constitution

In other words, we are not the government since we created the government.

Societies 10,000 years ago still had Governments. Tribes and Clans were led by Chiefs or Tribal Elders. Those governments established rules and enforced tribal laws.

No they didn't, you stupid turd. Government is the monopoly on the use of force, and no such entity existed 10,000 years ago. It didn't exist until about 3,000 B.C. in Sumer.

Good god....anarchists are batshit crazy

Not even worthy of a reply

 

[Dot Com]

its a theory that college Repubs are exposed to in college, sort of like hazing, that MOST discard after becoming adults.

Yes... because maximizing autonomy and freedom of choice, emphasizing political freedom, voluntary association and the primacy of individual judgement is a silly, worthless proposition.
:roll:

start your own country then rocket scientist guy