Just What is Libertarianism?

[rightwinger]

 

[bripat9643]

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.

And I do think it is not only right but necessary. Living in a country where abject poverty, starvation and disease are not rife is not free. If one wishes to live in such a country they should expect to have to help pay for it. But I am not naïve enough to think that most people will do this voluntarily. Some will, but it is not fair to expect them to carry the burden while others get a free ride. So I have absolutely no qualms about forcing my neighbor to join me whether they want to or not. Just as I have no qualms about forcing them to help pay for the military, fire services and sewer systems. It is the choice we make to live here. No one is forced to make that choice.

I don't buy "love it or leave it". Forcing one's will on another is "original sin" in my view. I don't expect other people to follow my orders, nor yours, regardless of whether those orders are supported by a majority. I appreciate that you don't see it this way, but this is the key to understanding libertarianism. It's essentially a qualified pacifism. We'll fight to defend ourselves, but not to bully others for the sake of convenience.

And I do understand, it is just in error. If you walk into a store and intend to walk out with something you can expect to be required to pay for it. It is not optional. The same holds true for society. Paying for the benefits of society is not an option you can decide to forgo. It isn't an issue of "love it or leave it". It is a matter of paying for what you take.

No one "walked into" society, numskull. You are born in a particular location. So how does that give government the authority to take your money? You don't even choose to go to school. The government forces you. It uses force to make you pay for everything it does.

Choice has nothing to do with government. That's why the government has guns.

 

[bripat9643]

Monopoly on violence - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia​

Max Weber - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force, also known as the monopoly on violence (German: Gewaltmonopol des Staates), is the defining conception of the state as first expounded by sociologist Max Weber in his essay Politics as a Vocation (1919). Weber claims that the state is any "human community that successfully claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory";[1] thus, "the modern state is a compulsory association which organizes domination."[2] In other words, Weber describes the state as any organization that succeeds in holding the exclusive right to use, threaten, or authorize physical force against residents of its territory. Such a monopoly, according to Weber, must occur via a process of legitimation.​

On command........he pulls up an anarchist definition of Government

Max Weber was not an anarchist, you dumbass. He was one of the most famous sociologists of the 20th Century. His politics were decidedly left-wing.

Max Weber - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

After the First World War, Max Weber was among the founders of the liberal German Democratic Party. He also ran unsuccessfully for a seat in parliament and served as advisor to the committee that drafted the ill-fated democratic Weimar Constitution of 1919. After contracting Spanish flu, he died of pneumonia in 1920, aged 56.[4]​

Let's see

A German describing government in preNazi Germany.

Yea......I'll stick with anarchy

You are a true moron, you realize, don't you?

You are a true moron, you realize, don't you?

I am not



Mother had me tested

She deserves a refund on the test.

 

[konradv]

Choice has nothing to do with government. That's why the government has guns.

Unless you're an anarchist, your post doesn't make sense. Even a minarchist government needs some funds. How would you enforce collection of taxes, strongly worded notes?

 

[PratchettFan]

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.

And I do think it is not only right but necessary. Living in a country where abject poverty, starvation and disease are not rife is not free. If one wishes to live in such a country they should expect to have to help pay for it. But I am not naïve enough to think that most people will do this voluntarily. Some will, but it is not fair to expect them to carry the burden while others get a free ride. So I have absolutely no qualms about forcing my neighbor to join me whether they want to or not. Just as I have no qualms about forcing them to help pay for the military, fire services and sewer systems. It is the choice we make to live here. No one is forced to make that choice.

I don't buy "love it or leave it". Forcing one's will on another is "original sin" in my view. I don't expect other people to follow my orders, nor yours, regardless of whether those orders are supported by a majority. I appreciate that you don't see it this way, but this is the key to understanding libertarianism. It's essentially a qualified pacifism. We'll fight to defend ourselves, but not to bully others for the sake of convenience.

And I do understand, it is just in error. If you walk into a store and intend to walk out with something you can expect to be required to pay for it. It is not optional. The same holds true for society. Paying for the benefits of society is not an option you can decide to forgo. It isn't an issue of "love it or leave it". It is a matter of paying for what you take.

No one "walked into" society, numskull. You are born in a particular location. So how does that give government the authority to take your money? You don't even choose to go to school. The government forces you. It uses force to make you pay for everything it does.

Choice has nothing to do with government. That's why the government has guns.

When you were a child your parents made those choices for you. You're not a child now.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

And I do think it is not only right but necessary. Living in a country where abject poverty, starvation and disease are not rife is not free. If one wishes to live in such a country they should expect to have to help pay for it. But I am not naïve enough to think that most people will do this voluntarily. Some will, but it is not fair to expect them to carry the burden while others get a free ride. So I have absolutely no qualms about forcing my neighbor to join me whether they want to or not. Just as I have no qualms about forcing them to help pay for the military, fire services and sewer systems. It is the choice we make to live here. No one is forced to make that choice.

I don't buy "love it or leave it". Forcing one's will on another is "original sin" in my view. I don't expect other people to follow my orders, nor yours, regardless of whether those orders are supported by a majority. I appreciate that you don't see it this way, but this is the key to understanding libertarianism. It's essentially a qualified pacifism. We'll fight to defend ourselves, but not to bully others for the sake of convenience.

And I do understand, it is just in error. If you walk into a store and intend to walk out with something you can expect to be required to pay for it. It is not optional. The same holds true for society. Paying for the benefits of society is not an option you can decide to forgo. It isn't an issue of "love it or leave it". It is a matter of paying for what you take.

If you walked into a grocery store and had people shoving "samples" at you all over the place and you decide to eat a few only to get a bill for $25 before you leave and sick when you get home, then you've been shopping at LiberalMart. They let you believe you're getting something for nothing, but you find out otherwise later on.

Regarding the benefits everyone in the country enjoys, like roads, police, fire ETC. No one should have to pay a higher price than anyone else. Give the poor a break? Why? They likely consume most of the resources. There aren't a lot of domestic police calls to Martha's Vineyard, but there's a shit ton in Baltimore. When everyone is paying for these services, they're more likely to pay attention to how those services are used. It would naturally keep the cost of government at bay. In that circumstance I would have no qualms about forcing my neighbor to pay.

If you are saying the current system for determining who pays what is flawed, you will get no argument from me. But that is an issue of process, not concept. If you think the store is requiring you to buy jam with every loaf of bread and that isn't right, then you also have a point. But again, that is not about the concept but about the policies of the store. In that case, you work to change the policies or shop at a different store. Or you can decide that you like the store so much that you just accept sometimes you're going to have to buy jam you don't want.

Forcing people to buy stuff they don't want is a form of theft. That's his point.

 

[bripat9643]

Choice has nothing to do with government. That's why the government has guns.

Unless you're an anarchist, your post doesn't make sense. Even a minarchist government needs some funds. How would you enforce collection of taxes, strongly worded notes?

I am an anarchist. Government is what doesn't make sense.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

And I do think it is not only right but necessary. Living in a country where abject poverty, starvation and disease are not rife is not free. If one wishes to live in such a country they should expect to have to help pay for it. But I am not naïve enough to think that most people will do this voluntarily. Some will, but it is not fair to expect them to carry the burden while others get a free ride. So I have absolutely no qualms about forcing my neighbor to join me whether they want to or not. Just as I have no qualms about forcing them to help pay for the military, fire services and sewer systems. It is the choice we make to live here. No one is forced to make that choice.

I don't buy "love it or leave it". Forcing one's will on another is "original sin" in my view. I don't expect other people to follow my orders, nor yours, regardless of whether those orders are supported by a majority. I appreciate that you don't see it this way, but this is the key to understanding libertarianism. It's essentially a qualified pacifism. We'll fight to defend ourselves, but not to bully others for the sake of convenience.

And I do understand, it is just in error. If you walk into a store and intend to walk out with something you can expect to be required to pay for it. It is not optional. The same holds true for society. Paying for the benefits of society is not an option you can decide to forgo. It isn't an issue of "love it or leave it". It is a matter of paying for what you take.

No one "walked into" society, numskull. You are born in a particular location. So how does that give government the authority to take your money? You don't even choose to go to school. The government forces you. It uses force to make you pay for everything it does.

Choice has nothing to do with government. That's why the government has guns.

When you were a child your parents made those choices for you. You're not a child now.

Your parents cannot sign any contracts that are legally binding on you. When that was allowed in the past, it was called "slavery." As an adult, no one has the right to force you to pay for anything.

 

[konradv]

Unless you're an anarchist, your post doesn't make sense. Even a minarchist government needs some funds. How would you enforce collection of taxes, strongly worded notes?

I am an anarchist. Government is what doesn't make sense.

Human nature being both social and predatory at times proves that we will always need to band together for mutual aid and defense. Therefore, IMO, anarchism is what doesn't make sense.

 

[kaz]

What does that have to do with libertarians?

 

[kaz]

Unless you're an anarchist, your post doesn't make sense. Even a minarchist government needs some funds. How would you enforce collection of taxes, strongly worded notes?

I am an anarchist. Government is what doesn't make sense.

Human nature being both social and predatory at times proves that we will always need to band together for mutual aid and defense. Therefore, IMO, anarchism is what doesn't make sense.

There is a significant difference between banding together and sticking your hand in your neighbor's pocket

 

[konradv]

There is a significant difference between banding together and sticking your hand in your neighbor's pocket

Regardless, neither is anarchism, which bripat was espousing and to which I was responding.

 

[kaz]

Choice has nothing to do with government. That's why the government has guns.

Unless you're an anarchist, your post doesn't make sense. Even a minarchist government needs some funds. How would you enforce collection of taxes, strongly worded notes?

Yes, bripat is an anarchist. I'm a minarchist. And yes, we do need some funds, and I am with you that taxes while I think they should be low should not be optional.

The significant difference to me is it is never appropriate for government to take money from one citizen and give it to another or to have programs, taxes, or anything else that does not treat all citizens equally.

I'm impressed, you clearly get anarchist and minarchist. Liberals usually just think we are Republicans

 

[kaz]

There is a significant difference between banding together and sticking your hand in your neighbor's pocket

Regardless, neither is anarchism, which bripat was espousing and to which I was responding.

Fair enough, that's true

 

[PratchettFan]

And I do think it is not only right but necessary. Living in a country where abject poverty, starvation and disease are not rife is not free. If one wishes to live in such a country they should expect to have to help pay for it. But I am not naïve enough to think that most people will do this voluntarily. Some will, but it is not fair to expect them to carry the burden while others get a free ride. So I have absolutely no qualms about forcing my neighbor to join me whether they want to or not. Just as I have no qualms about forcing them to help pay for the military, fire services and sewer systems. It is the choice we make to live here. No one is forced to make that choice.

I don't buy "love it or leave it". Forcing one's will on another is "original sin" in my view. I don't expect other people to follow my orders, nor yours, regardless of whether those orders are supported by a majority. I appreciate that you don't see it this way, but this is the key to understanding libertarianism. It's essentially a qualified pacifism. We'll fight to defend ourselves, but not to bully others for the sake of convenience.

And I do understand, it is just in error. If you walk into a store and intend to walk out with something you can expect to be required to pay for it. It is not optional. The same holds true for society. Paying for the benefits of society is not an option you can decide to forgo. It isn't an issue of "love it or leave it". It is a matter of paying for what you take.

No one "walked into" society, numskull. You are born in a particular location. So how does that give government the authority to take your money? You don't even choose to go to school. The government forces you. It uses force to make you pay for everything it does.

Choice has nothing to do with government. That's why the government has guns.

When you were a child your parents made those choices for you. You're not a child now.

Your parents cannot sign any contracts that are legally binding on you. When that was allowed in the past, it was called "slavery." As an adult, no one has the right to force you to pay for anything.

Of course a child's parent can sign contracts in their name. It happens all the time. And of course you can be forced to pay for stuff. Also happens all the time. You don't get a free ride, whether you think it is fair or not.

 

[bripat9643]

I don't buy "love it or leave it". Forcing one's will on another is "original sin" in my view. I don't expect other people to follow my orders, nor yours, regardless of whether those orders are supported by a majority. I appreciate that you don't see it this way, but this is the key to understanding libertarianism. It's essentially a qualified pacifism. We'll fight to defend ourselves, but not to bully others for the sake of convenience.

And I do understand, it is just in error. If you walk into a store and intend to walk out with something you can expect to be required to pay for it. It is not optional. The same holds true for society. Paying for the benefits of society is not an option you can decide to forgo. It isn't an issue of "love it or leave it". It is a matter of paying for what you take.

No one "walked into" society, numskull. You are born in a particular location. So how does that give government the authority to take your money? You don't even choose to go to school. The government forces you. It uses force to make you pay for everything it does.

Choice has nothing to do with government. That's why the government has guns.

When you were a child your parents made those choices for you. You're not a child now.

Your parents cannot sign any contracts that are legally binding on you. When that was allowed in the past, it was called "slavery." As an adult, no one has the right to force you to pay for anything.

Of course a child's parent can sign contracts in their name. It happens all the time. And of course you can be forced to pay for stuff. Also happens all the time. You don't get a free ride, whether you think it is fair or not.

No they can't - not a contract that is binding on the child. Check with a lawyer if you think otherwise. You claim it happens all the time, then provide an example.

In your world view, not being enslaved is the same as "getting a free ride."

 

[PratchettFan]

Unless you're an anarchist, your post doesn't make sense. Even a minarchist government needs some funds. How would you enforce collection of taxes, strongly worded notes?

I am an anarchist. Government is what doesn't make sense.

Human nature being both social and predatory at times proves that we will always need to band together for mutual aid and defense. Therefore, IMO, anarchism is what doesn't make sense.

Anarchism does not exist and will never exist. It is a pipe dream of people who have never grasped the idea that other people exist.

 

[PratchettFan]

And I do understand, it is just in error. If you walk into a store and intend to walk out with something you can expect to be required to pay for it. It is not optional. The same holds true for society. Paying for the benefits of society is not an option you can decide to forgo. It isn't an issue of "love it or leave it". It is a matter of paying for what you take.

No one "walked into" society, numskull. You are born in a particular location. So how does that give government the authority to take your money? You don't even choose to go to school. The government forces you. It uses force to make you pay for everything it does.

Choice has nothing to do with government. That's why the government has guns.

When you were a child your parents made those choices for you. You're not a child now.

Your parents cannot sign any contracts that are legally binding on you. When that was allowed in the past, it was called "slavery." As an adult, no one has the right to force you to pay for anything.

Of course a child's parent can sign contracts in their name. It happens all the time. And of course you can be forced to pay for stuff. Also happens all the time. You don't get a free ride, whether you think it is fair or not.

No they can't - not a contract that is binding on the child. Check with a lawyer if you think otherwise. You claim it happens all the time, then provide an example.

In your world view, not being enslaved is the same as "getting a free ride."

No, that is your world view - which you are free to have. You can even attempt to act upon it if you don't mind prison. But you don't get the benefits of the country free of charge.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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

Why do you disagree with maximizing autonomy and freedom of choice, emphasizing political freedom, voluntary association, and the primacy of individual judgement?

 

[M14 Shooter]

And I do think it is not only right but necessary. Living in a country where abject poverty, starvation and disease are not rife is not free. If one wishes to live in such a country they should expect to have to help pay for it. But I am not naïve enough to think that most people will do this voluntarily. Some will, but it is not fair to expect them to carry the burden while others get a free ride. So I have absolutely no qualms about forcing my neighbor to join me whether they want to or not. Just as I have no qualms about forcing them to help pay for the military, fire services and sewer systems. It is the choice we make to live here. No one is forced to make that choice.

So.... submit to my version of morality, or find somewhere else to live. Nice.