Just What is Libertarianism?

[PratchettFan]

I will grant you that, but it doesn't change my position. It assumes human nature is other than it is.

No one is saying that libertarianism is perfect, but basing ones politics on freedom and liberty is a better way to do it.

That depends upon what one means by freedom and liberty. Neither of those things are free.

And no one would say that they are.

I woukd rather suffer the effects of too much Liberty and freedom than the effects of too little.

On the contrary. I have talked to any number of people who think they are. I think the reason you would suffer too much than too little is because you have never had to live with too much. For example, mine owners often created towns where their workers had to live, paid them in company script they could only spend at the company store and then proceeded to drive them so far into debt they were essentially slave labor. That was freedom - at least for the owners. Allowing a larger company to buy out all of the resources in order to cut off the supplies of any competitors was freedom. Selling poison as medicine was freedom.

I think the thing people forget is that government and business are not different. They are both populated by people who will act like people. To consider that business will act in an honest and public spirited manner if left to be free is just wishful thinking which has been proven to be wrong. Too much liberty results in oligarchy, not freedom. For a stable society which maximizes freedom for everyone requires a balancing between business and government.

Wow! That is quite a load of crap. I don't even know where to start. Let me just say that you are labor one under the common false belief that Libertarians are anarchists. Far from it.

I never said they were. I am pointing out the hazards of too much liberty and freedom. That was not a load of crap, that was history.

 

[The Rabbi]

No one is saying that libertarianism is perfect, but basing ones politics on freedom and liberty is a better way to do it.

That depends upon what one means by freedom and liberty. Neither of those things are free.

And no one would say that they are.

I woukd rather suffer the effects of too much Liberty and freedom than the effects of too little.

On the contrary. I have talked to any number of people who think they are. I think the reason you would suffer too much than too little is because you have never had to live with too much. For example, mine owners often created towns where their workers had to live, paid them in company script they could only spend at the company store and then proceeded to drive them so far into debt they were essentially slave labor. That was freedom - at least for the owners. Allowing a larger company to buy out all of the resources in order to cut off the supplies of any competitors was freedom. Selling poison as medicine was freedom.

I think the thing people forget is that government and business are not different. They are both populated by people who will act like people. To consider that business will act in an honest and public spirited manner if left to be free is just wishful thinking which has been proven to be wrong. Too much liberty results in oligarchy, not freedom. For a stable society which maximizes freedom for everyone requires a balancing between business and government.

Wow! That is quite a load of crap. I don't even know where to start. Let me just say that you are labor one under the common false belief that Libertarians are anarchists. Far from it.

I never said they were. I am pointing out the hazards of too much liberty and freedom. That was not a load of crap, that was history.

Yes without oppressive government we'd all be dead. Tell us about it.

 

[PratchettFan]

That depends upon what one means by freedom and liberty. Neither of those things are free.

And no one would say that they are.

I woukd rather suffer the effects of too much Liberty and freedom than the effects of too little.

On the contrary. I have talked to any number of people who think they are. I think the reason you would suffer too much than too little is because you have never had to live with too much. For example, mine owners often created towns where their workers had to live, paid them in company script they could only spend at the company store and then proceeded to drive them so far into debt they were essentially slave labor. That was freedom - at least for the owners. Allowing a larger company to buy out all of the resources in order to cut off the supplies of any competitors was freedom. Selling poison as medicine was freedom.

I think the thing people forget is that government and business are not different. They are both populated by people who will act like people. To consider that business will act in an honest and public spirited manner if left to be free is just wishful thinking which has been proven to be wrong. Too much liberty results in oligarchy, not freedom. For a stable society which maximizes freedom for everyone requires a balancing between business and government.

Wow! That is quite a load of crap. I don't even know where to start. Let me just say that you are labor one under the common false belief that Libertarians are anarchists. Far from it.

I never said they were. I am pointing out the hazards of too much liberty and freedom. That was not a load of crap, that was history.

Yes without oppressive government we'd all be dead. Tell us about it.

I don't need to. You just said it.

 

[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?

Many people have become convinced that giving up liberty will give them more security.

 

[dblack]

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

We do. Totally get it. What you don't get is that the government isn't simply a mechanism for the majority to bully minorities.

 

[Skull Pilot]

When was the last time we were asked whether a government agency should be created or expanded?

I elect representatives

Don't you?

Nope.

There has been no one that has run who I deemed trustworthy enough to represent me.

Then you trust me to pick your representative for you

Nope.

You see you give up your right to complain when you vote for incompetent people to represent you.

I don't fold to the lesser of 2 evil choice. It's the very definition of a false dichotomy.

I get to pick your representative for you

You don't live in my state.

So no you don't.

Besides my vote doesn't count as I live in a blue state full of people like you so why waste my time voting for an unnacceptable repugnantcan?

And I have more influence over what happens in my life than the government so I would rather concentrate on improving my situation rather than wasting time researching which candidate will make me puke less than the other.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The problem with libertarianism isn't with the philosophy, as much as the results. Encouraging more person to person dealings insures that without supervision more of the strong will inevitably prey on the weak. I don't find that to be a good idea for the long term stability of a civilization. It was tried before. We call it feudalism. A system in which someone doesn't look to government for protection, but a patron. We can't do everything for ourselves, as much as libertarians would like us believe it. Some will inevitably dominate. Without regulation, some will exploit their neighbors. That unfortunately is human nature and, like the Marxists, the libertarians seem to ignore the obvious on that score

Most things in life we are better off doing on our own. But other things can be better done as part of a collective society using Government to our advantage.
We are better off as part of a whole than as a bunch of individuals

No we're not.

We're better off as individuals who occasionally work together then part ways

 

[rightwinger]

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

We do. Totally get it. What you don't get is that the government isn't simply a mechanism for the majority to bully minorities.

Why of course....that is why we have courts

To protect the rights of the minority

 

[dblack]

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

We do. Totally get it. What you don't get is that the government isn't simply a mechanism for the majority to bully minorities.

Why of course....that is why we have courts

To protect the rights of the minority

No, that's why we have constitutional limits on the power of government.

 

[rightwinger]

The problem with libertarianism isn't with the philosophy, as much as the results. Encouraging more person to person dealings insures that without supervision more of the strong will inevitably prey on the weak. I don't find that to be a good idea for the long term stability of a civilization. It was tried before. We call it feudalism. A system in which someone doesn't look to government for protection, but a patron. We can't do everything for ourselves, as much as libertarians would like us believe it. Some will inevitably dominate. Without regulation, some will exploit their neighbors. That unfortunately is human nature and, like the Marxists, the libertarians seem to ignore the obvious on that score

Most things in life we are better off doing on our own. But other things can be better done as part of a collective society using Government to our advantage.
We are better off as part of a whole than as a bunch of individuals

No we're not.

We're better off as individuals who occasionally work together then part ways

A society is what led to civilization.

The strength of humankind is built on its ability to build strong societies. Economically, security, and socially

 

[rightwinger]

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

We do. Totally get it. What you don't get is that the government isn't simply a mechanism for the majority to bully minorities.

Why of course....that is why we have courts

To protect the rights of the minority

No, that's why we have constitutional limits on the power of government.

Hence....courts

 

[PratchettFan]

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

We do. Totally get it. What you don't get is that the government isn't simply a mechanism for the majority to bully minorities.

Why of course....that is why we have courts

To protect the rights of the minority

No, that's why we have constitutional limits on the power of government.

Constitutional limits are meaningless without courts.

 

[dblack]

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

We do. Totally get it. What you don't get is that the government isn't simply a mechanism for the majority to bully minorities.

Why of course....that is why we have courts

To protect the rights of the minority

No, that's why we have constitutional limits on the power of government.

Constitutional limits are meaningless without courts.

Not necessarily. They're meaningless without a solid consensus that they worth having. When we complain that Congress, or the President, or the Court have failed to follow the Constitution, it's mostly a reflection on a population that no longer understands its value.

 

[PratchettFan]

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

We do. Totally get it. What you don't get is that the government isn't simply a mechanism for the majority to bully minorities.

Why of course....that is why we have courts

To protect the rights of the minority

No, that's why we have constitutional limits on the power of government.

Constitutional limits are meaningless without courts.

Not necessarily. They're meaningless without a solid consensus that they worth having. When we complain that Congress, or the President, or the Court have failed to follow the Constitution, it's mostly a reflection on a population that no longer understands its value.

Article III Section 2 of the Constitution places the authority to decide cases under the Constitution in the hands of the federal courts. It does not place that authority in the hands of the population. If a claim is made the Congress or President, or even a lower court, has failed to follow the Constitution the USSC is the body which makes the final determination. If we don't accept that, then we are not following the Constitution.

 

[dblack]

We do. Totally get it. What you don't get is that the government isn't simply a mechanism for the majority to bully minorities.

Why of course....that is why we have courts

To protect the rights of the minority

No, that's why we have constitutional limits on the power of government.

Constitutional limits are meaningless without courts.

Not necessarily. They're meaningless without a solid consensus that they worth having. When we complain that Congress, or the President, or the Court have failed to follow the Constitution, it's mostly a reflection on a population that no longer understands its value.

Article III Section 2 of the Constitution places the authority to decide cases under the Constitution in the hands of the federal courts. It does not place that authority in the hands of the population. If a claim is made the Congress or President, or even a lower court, has failed to follow the Constitution the USSC is the body which makes the final determination. If we don't accept that, then we are not following the Constitution.

Sure. I know. You're missing the point.

 

[konradv]

There is nothing we are better off using government to accomplish.

You were going invade Iraq alone?!?!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Libertarianism: someone please invent a time machine so we can go back to 1750.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

We do. Totally get it. What you don't get is that the government isn't simply a mechanism for the majority to bully minorities.

Why of course....that is why we have courts

To protect the rights of the minority

No, that's why we have constitutional limits on the power of government.

Constitutional limits are meaningless without courts.

Not necessarily. They're meaningless without a solid consensus that they worth having. When we complain that Congress, or the President, or the Court have failed to follow the Constitution, it's mostly a reflection on a population that no longer understands its value.

Article III Section 2 of the Constitution places the authority to decide cases under the Constitution in the hands of the federal courts. It does not place that authority in the hands of the population. If a claim is made the Congress or President, or even a lower court, has failed to follow the Constitution the USSC is the body which makes the final determination. If we don't accept that, then we are not following the Constitution.

Correct.

Articles III and VI authorize the doctrine of judicial review, the interpretive authority of the courts to determine what the Constitution means, and the Constitution's case law as the supreme law of the land; “and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

 

[bripat9643]

Libertarianism: someone please invent a time machine so we can go back to 1750.

We lived under a monarchy in 1750. Although that would be preferable to the system we now all suffer under.

 

[bripat9643]

There is nothing we are better off using government to accomplish.

You were going invade Iraq alone?!?!

So you believe invading Iraq was something worthwhile to do?