Just What is Libertarianism?

[SuperDemocrat]

Libertarianism: I got mine, fuck the rest of you

That is kind of like...Obama...I got the presidency. F the rest of you

 

[Synthaholic]

Just What is Libertarianism?

Somalia.

 

[dblack]

It has everything to do with it. I get it from libertarians. The entire ideology is based upon the idea that if you just leave people alone they will take care of each other, work hand in hand to fix problems and everything will work out fine. Well, they won't take care of each other, they won't work hand in hand and what you will end up with is an oligarchy akin to feudalism. Libertarianism is a beautiful dream, but then so is communism. They would work wonderfully if you could just get rid of all those pesky people.

That actually isn't part of libertarian ideology. Some libertarians are optimistic that people, left to their own devices, are generally good and will treat each other fairly without mandates from government, and I tend to count myself in that camp. But many - probably more - have a darker view of human nature (that apparently you share). For them, limited government is even more important because they don't believe you can't trust people with the kind of power an authoritarian state offers.

It is certainly part of the libertarian ideology you have presented. And it is part of the libertarian ideology I have ever heard expressed by any other libertarian. Those who share my view of human nature (which is quite dark, I fully admit) need to rethink their position, because all they are doing is transferring that power from the hands of people they have some control over to people they do not. The notion that the new authoritarians will be any more concerned about individual rights than the former is just naïve.

Libertarian policies wouldn't transfer power from government to business. The power government holds is the power to employ force to achieve its goals. Limiting the power of government in no way imparts that power to business.

 

[ScienceRocks]

A 20th-21st century form of Amish. These people believe everything should be done by either small business or corporations. Otherwise, stay out of my life and let me herd my goat in peace.

Doesn't make a lack of sense.

 

[Synthaholic]

Without an EPA what would prevent companies from polluting, and when they did what would force them to clean it up?

 

[dblack]

Without an EPA what would prevent companies from polluting, and when they did what would force them to clean it up?

Laws against polluting.

 

[bripat9643]

Without an EPA what would prevent companies from polluting, and when they did what would force them to clean it up?

Laws against polluting.

NO, actually lawsuits would. There wouldn't be any public property, so any pollution would mean someone's property was being damaged.

 

[PratchettFan]

I was referring to your phrase "key to understanding libertarianism". I understand libertarianism, it just doesn't work. It is based upon the idea that human beings don't exist. That is in error.

Then the error is yours. It's not based on that idea.

It certainly is. It assumes that human beings will suddenly stop acting like human beings if they are just given the chance. They won't. The society is a reflection of the people living in that society, not the other way round.

I don't know where you got that. But it has nothing to do with libertarian ideology.

It has everything to do with it. I get it from libertarians. The entire ideology is based upon the idea that if you just leave people alone they will take care of each other, work hand in hand to fix problems and everything will work out fine. Well, they won't take care of each other, they won't work hand in hand and what you will end up with is an oligarchy akin to feudalism. Libertarianism is a beautiful dream, but then so is communism. They would work wonderfully if you could just get rid of all those pesky people.

I would actually say that is a bit off. The core of the philosophy, IMHO, is not that people will take care of those around them but by and large that people would take care of themselves.

And if they can't?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Without an EPA what would prevent companies from polluting, and when they did what would force them to clean it up?

Laws against polluting.

Which are enforced by the EPA.

Congress passes laws, they don't enforce them, that's the responsibility of the Executive.

And the EPA (or whatever it might be called, the name in meaningless) is the administrative agency that's part of the Executive branch responsible for enforcement of environmental laws.

 

[PratchettFan]

It has everything to do with it. I get it from libertarians. The entire ideology is based upon the idea that if you just leave people alone they will take care of each other, work hand in hand to fix problems and everything will work out fine. Well, they won't take care of each other, they won't work hand in hand and what you will end up with is an oligarchy akin to feudalism. Libertarianism is a beautiful dream, but then so is communism. They would work wonderfully if you could just get rid of all those pesky people.

That actually isn't part of libertarian ideology. Some libertarians are optimistic that people, left to their own devices, are generally good and will treat each other fairly without mandates from government, and I tend to count myself in that camp. But many - probably more - have a darker view of human nature (that apparently you share). For them, limited government is even more important because they don't believe you can't trust people with the kind of power an authoritarian state offers.

It is certainly part of the libertarian ideology you have presented. And it is part of the libertarian ideology I have ever heard expressed by any other libertarian. Those who share my view of human nature (which is quite dark, I fully admit) need to rethink their position, because all they are doing is transferring that power from the hands of people they have some control over to people they do not. The notion that the new authoritarians will be any more concerned about individual rights than the former is just naïve.

That is your opinion on what the result would be. I would counter that you are incorrect in that assumption though. We are not advocating transferring power to those you do not have control over - we are advocating transferring power to the single entity that you actually do have control over - yourself. We have already established that the government would still need to enforce law and protect rights. You seem to think that the regulatory structure that is in place now limits the power of business and the consolidation of that power within government is the proper price to pay for that. I think that you are the naive one here because that structure in no way limits the power of business - it INCREASES it. By huge leaps and bounds. What I see you doing is advocating for the very thing that you believe libertarian thought will create.

What I am doing is acknowledging the reality of human nature. The people who wish to attain power will use that power. They will use it to prevent others from attaining competing power. This is not assumption, just history. It doesn't matter what kind of system you put in. That is always going to be the case. The only working solution is to accept this and find ways to prevent the consolidation of power and libertarianism will not do that. Government does limit the power of business by competing with it. Not in the economic sense but in the sense of the wielding power itself. No system is going to work perfectly because all systems are just collections of human beings. But I think what we have now does a pretty good job of creating a balance which maximizes the individuals ability to act independently.

 

[PratchettFan]

It has everything to do with it. I get it from libertarians. The entire ideology is based upon the idea that if you just leave people alone they will take care of each other, work hand in hand to fix problems and everything will work out fine. Well, they won't take care of each other, they won't work hand in hand and what you will end up with is an oligarchy akin to feudalism. Libertarianism is a beautiful dream, but then so is communism. They would work wonderfully if you could just get rid of all those pesky people.

That actually isn't part of libertarian ideology. Some libertarians are optimistic that people, left to their own devices, are generally good and will treat each other fairly without mandates from government, and I tend to count myself in that camp. But many - probably more - have a darker view of human nature (that apparently you share). For them, limited government is even more important because they don't believe you can trust people with the kind of power an authoritarian state offers.

Why do you waste your time trying to educate this guy? He's a jackass who isn't capable of being educate of of committing logic.

I enjoy discussing the topic, and I like interacting with people who see things differently than I do.

As do I.

Then why don't you ever respond to anything I post?

Because I don't like your style and I don't have to respond. If you wish to have a discussion with me then do it with a modicum of respect. You don't want to do that, that is your right and I fully support your right to do it. I also support my right to ignore you. Your choice.

 

[PratchettFan]

It has everything to do with it. I get it from libertarians. The entire ideology is based upon the idea that if you just leave people alone they will take care of each other, work hand in hand to fix problems and everything will work out fine. Well, they won't take care of each other, they won't work hand in hand and what you will end up with is an oligarchy akin to feudalism. Libertarianism is a beautiful dream, but then so is communism. They would work wonderfully if you could just get rid of all those pesky people.

That actually isn't part of libertarian ideology. Some libertarians are optimistic that people, left to their own devices, are generally good and will treat each other fairly without mandates from government, and I tend to count myself in that camp. But many - probably more - have a darker view of human nature (that apparently you share). For them, limited government is even more important because they don't believe you can't trust people with the kind of power an authoritarian state offers.

It is certainly part of the libertarian ideology you have presented. And it is part of the libertarian ideology I have ever heard expressed by any other libertarian. Those who share my view of human nature (which is quite dark, I fully admit) need to rethink their position, because all they are doing is transferring that power from the hands of people they have some control over to people they do not. The notion that the new authoritarians will be any more concerned about individual rights than the former is just naïve.

Libertarian policies wouldn't transfer power from government to business. The power government holds is the power to employ force to achieve its goals. Limiting the power of government in no way imparts that power to business.

Of course it does. When you limit the power of government to control business, then business steps in. Government and business are simply two aspects of the same thing. They aren't some kind of separate animal, they are people. The people who attain power are the people who want power. The want to wield power over others. That is why they are willing to go to the trouble of attaining power in the first place. If you create a power vacuum it will simply be filled.

 

[dblack]

... When you limit the power of government to control business, then business steps in. Government and business are simply two aspects of the same thing. They aren't some kind of separate animal, they are people. The people who attain power are the people who want power. The want to wield power over others. That is why they are willing to go to the trouble of attaining power in the first place. If you create a power vacuum it will simply be filled.

State power and economic power are fundamentally different things. State power is distributed coercively. Laws are passed and if they are not obeyed, resistance is met with force. In a free market, economic power is distributed voluntarily. Ultimately, businesses have no power to force their will on us. We can refuse to deal with them and the worst they can do in return is refuse to deal with us.

 

[dblack]

Without an EPA what would prevent companies from polluting, and when they did what would force them to clean it up?

Laws against polluting.

Which are enforced by the EPA.

Congress passes laws, they don't enforce them, that's the responsibility of the Executive.

Which would be fine. The problem libertarians have with the EPA, and most other regulatory agencies, is that the rules they enforce aren't legislated by Congress. That job is delegated to an authority regime which becomes a target for everyone looking to manipulate the rules in their favor.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Lately it just seems to be another word to be co-opted by buffoons.

 

[jillian]

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?

it's funny watching people who call the president "obama" refer to rand paul as "dr".

you can't be a libertarian if you're anti-choice and anti-gay marriage. you're only a pretend libertarian if you support government moralizing on behalf of the religious right.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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?

it's funny watching people who call the president "obama" refer to rand paul as "dr".

you can't be a libertarian if you're anti-choice and anti-gay marriage. you're only a pretend libertarian if you support government moralizing on behalf of the religious right.

This is, as I have mentioned several times over the years, complete nonsense. Jillian wants "libertarian" to mean "social liberal" very badly, but it just isn't so. One could be the most "socially conservative" person alive, believing that marriage is between one man and one woman only, and that abortion is murder, and still be a libertarian so long as that person is not advocating using government violence to enforce their position. So you can think marriage is between a man and a woman and be a libertarian, as long as you accept that other people and religious institutions may disagree with you and you don't want the government to make your definition the only definition under the law.

"The fact is that libertarianism is not and does not pretend to be a complete moral or aesthetic theory; it is only a political theory, that is, the important subset of moral theory that deals with the proper role of violence in social life... It should not be surprising, therefore, that there are libertarians who are indeed hedonists and devotees of alternative life-styles, and that there are also libertarians who are firm adherents of "bourgeois" conventional or religious morality. There are libertarian libertines and there are libertarians who cleave firmly to the disciplines of natural or religious law. There are other libertarians who have no moral theory at all apart from the imperative of non-violation of rights. That is because libertarianism per se has no general or personal moral theory. Libertarianism does not offer a way of life; it offers liberty, so that each person is free to adopt and act upon his own values and moral principles." - Murray Rothbard

This is beyond Jillian, of course, and so she will continue to spout her inane mantra about what she wishes libertarianism were, rather than what it is.

 

[MisterBeale]

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?

The definition you quoted has flowery language that is meaningless. You could put "Republican" in front of that definition and every right winger on this board would salute it.

Resistance to Libertarianism is not the result of that definition. It is when you get into specifics that you encounter problems.

End the Fed.

Return to a gold standard.

Legalize all drugs.

Eliminate the FDA, FAA, USDA, IRS, and just about all other federal agencies.

Eliminate all federal laws against financial fraud.

Eliminate all federal safety regulations.

Eliminate all federal child labor laws.

Eliminate all federal environmental regulations.

Shrink our military down to the size of a cub scout troop.

Wow. That sounds like a shopping list of very wonderful things. Ahhh yes, returning specifically to what the constitution says federal government employees are for, who could be against that? All democrats and republicans should be for a these issues. This is just plain old common sense constitutional government.

Is there really ANY reason that the individual states can't take care of anything that needs to be taken of after the above recommendations are followed? The various states are perfectly able to take care of themselves.

 

[MisterBeale]

Libertarians need to acknowledge that the Government is .....We the People

Congress has a 15% approval rating. Clearly, it doesn't reflect the will of the people, just the will of politicians.

We the People elected them
We the People deserve them

Fat chance. The people weren't given real choices. Nobody really showed up, only like 36% of the population even bothered to show up for the rigged game.

We the people stayed home and jacked off, as it was a much more productive use of our time.

When they give us a system that isn't rigged, without hand picked candidates by the party bosses and their corporate handlers, maybe folks will show up at the polls. Till then, no, the public deserves better. Nice try.

 

[bripat9643]

That actually isn't part of libertarian ideology. Some libertarians are optimistic that people, left to their own devices, are generally good and will treat each other fairly without mandates from government, and I tend to count myself in that camp. But many - probably more - have a darker view of human nature (that apparently you share). For them, limited government is even more important because they don't believe you can trust people with the kind of power an authoritarian state offers.

Why do you waste your time trying to educate this guy? He's a jackass who isn't capable of being educate of of committing logic.

I enjoy discussing the topic, and I like interacting with people who see things differently than I do.

As do I.

Then why don't you ever respond to anything I post?

Because I don't like your style and I don't have to respond. If you wish to have a discussion with me then do it with a modicum of respect. You don't want to do that, that is your right and I fully support your right to do it. I also support my right to ignore you. Your choice.

You say one insulting thing after another about libertarians, and you believe you're entitled to be treated with respect?

The arrogance of liberals defies comprehension.