Just What is Libertarianism?

[PratchettFan]

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, that is what your post implies and no, it isn't unbiased factual history.

Which part wasn't factual?

As I said, it's hard to find a place to start. I settled for the general implication that we are anarchists. I'm sure you don't agree, as I'm sure you won't ever be convinced other than your belief. Let's just agree to disagree.

I never said Libertarians were anarchists. I can't help what you read into something. However, you said my examples aren't factual history. Which parts weren't factual?

 

[PratchettFan]

If Libertarians believe in the concept of "No harm, no foul" I am OK with it

Smoking a joint does not harm anyone.....leave it alone
Prostitution does not harm anyone.....leave it alone
Gays are not harming anyone.....leave them alone

But they go beyond that in a blind fanaticism that the founding fathers somehow knew everything this country would ever need

You know, the founders never supported welfare so we shouldn't do it
You know, the founders never said we should have healthcare, social security or schools....so we don't need them

Opposition to these programs is merely a consistent application of "No harm, no foul". We think mutual support and communal welfare should be voluntary. We can care for our families, friends, neighbors and communities without passing laws that will, ultimately, send people to jail of they don't do as their told.

It's not that we don't need community programs to help the people who fall through the cracks, but they don't need to be run by government. The coercive aspect of government makes it something we should resort to reluctantly.

And this is an area where I do not agree. To say it is something we need but that we should just leave it alone on the off chance someone might do something about it makes no sense at all. The reason we have the safety nets we do is because when they were needed the need was not filled by private organizations.

If you don't want to see tracts of shacks surrounding our cities, if you don't want to see dead bodies in the street, if you don't want wide spread infection due to a lack of sanitation and health care, then the only solution is government coercion, whether resorted to reluctantly or not.

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.

 

[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

A society is what led to civilization.

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

And?

A society is nothing but individuals occasionally working together. It's not some sort of collective hive mind

It is more than occasionally, you work and interact with others throughout the day. That is what makes an organized society necessary

You work and interact through out the day as part of your job not for any greater good.

People can't wait to get home and get away from the people they have to work with all day long. Shit most people don't even know their neighbor's names anymore

 

[rightwinger]

If Libertarians believe in the concept of "No harm, no foul" I am OK with it

Smoking a joint does not harm anyone.....leave it alone
Prostitution does not harm anyone.....leave it alone
Gays are not harming anyone.....leave them alone

But they go beyond that in a blind fanaticism that the founding fathers somehow knew everything this country would ever need

You know, the founders never supported welfare so we shouldn't do it
You know, the founders never said we should have healthcare, social security or schools....so we don't need them

Opposition to these programs is merely a consistent application of "No harm, no foul". We think mutual support and communal welfare should be voluntary. We can care for our families, friends, neighbors and communities without passing laws that will, ultimately, send people to jail of they don't do as their told.

It's not that we don't need community programs to help the people who fall through the cracks, but they don't need to be run by government. The coercive aspect of government makes it something we should resort to reluctantly.

And this is an area where I do not agree. To say it is something we need but that we should just leave it alone on the off chance someone might do something about it makes no sense at all. The reason we have the safety nets we do is because when they were needed the need was not filled by private organizations.

If you don't want to see tracts of shacks surrounding our cities, if you don't want to see dead bodies in the street, if you don't want wide spread infection do to a lack of sanitation and health care, then the only solution is government coercion, whether resorted to reluctantly or not.

The myth upon which Libertarianism 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 is a prime example where Libertarians demonstrate that they are batshit crazy. I think most Libertarians appreciate the functions of government and are only concerned with the treatment of individual citizens
But the idea that each community is capable of taking care of its sick and its poor through voluntary contributions is just ridiculous

 

[Skull Pilot]

If Libertarians believe in the concept of "No harm, no foul" I am OK with it

Smoking a joint does not harm anyone.....leave it alone
Prostitution does not harm anyone.....leave it alone
Gays are not harming anyone.....leave them alone

But they go beyond that in a blind fanaticism that the founding fathers somehow knew everything this country would ever need

You know, the founders never supported welfare so we shouldn't do it
You know, the founders never said we should have healthcare, social security or schools....so we don't need them

Opposition to these programs is merely a consistent application of "No harm, no foul". We think mutual support and communal welfare should be voluntary. We can care for our families, friends, neighbors and communities without passing laws that will, ultimately, send people to jail of they don't do as their told.

It's not that we don't need community programs to help the people who fall through the cracks, but they don't need to be run by government. The coercive aspect of government makes it something we should resort to reluctantly.

And this is an area where I do not agree. To say it is something we need but that we should just leave it alone on the off chance someone might do something about it makes no sense at all. The reason we have the safety nets we do is because when they were needed the need was not filled by private organizations.

If you don't want to see tracts of shacks surrounding our cities, if you don't want to see dead bodies in the street, if you don't want wide spread infection do to a lack of sanitation and health care, then the only solution is government coercion, whether resorted to reluctantly or not.

The myth upon which Libertarianism 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 is a prime example where Libertarians demonstrate that they are batshit crazy. I think most Libertarians appreciate the functions of government and are only concerned with the treatment of individual citizens
But the idea that each community is capable of taking care of its sick and its poor through voluntary contributions is just ridiculous

Yes because everyone you label as libertarian all toe the party platform 100% right?

 

[rightwinger]

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

And?

A society is nothing but individuals occasionally working together. It's not some sort of collective hive mind

It is more than occasionally, you work and interact with others throughout the day. That is what makes an organized society necessary

You work and interact through out the day as part of your job not for any greater good.

People can't wait to get home and get away from the people they have to work with all day long. Shit most people don't even know their neighbor's names anymore

Your job is part of the greater good. You provide a good or service which benefits society as a whole and are paid for it

You drive to work and use roads that society has provided and follow traffic laws that make multiple users driving the roads safer. You get home and are protected by police and fire provided by society. You use sewers and water systems that have been provided by society. You use electricity and energy from networks developed by society

 

[rightwinger]

If Libertarians believe in the concept of "No harm, no foul" I am OK with it

Smoking a joint does not harm anyone.....leave it alone
Prostitution does not harm anyone.....leave it alone
Gays are not harming anyone.....leave them alone

But they go beyond that in a blind fanaticism that the founding fathers somehow knew everything this country would ever need

You know, the founders never supported welfare so we shouldn't do it
You know, the founders never said we should have healthcare, social security or schools....so we don't need them

Opposition to these programs is merely a consistent application of "No harm, no foul". We think mutual support and communal welfare should be voluntary. We can care for our families, friends, neighbors and communities without passing laws that will, ultimately, send people to jail of they don't do as their told.

It's not that we don't need community programs to help the people who fall through the cracks, but they don't need to be run by government. The coercive aspect of government makes it something we should resort to reluctantly.

And this is an area where I do not agree. To say it is something we need but that we should just leave it alone on the off chance someone might do something about it makes no sense at all. The reason we have the safety nets we do is because when they were needed the need was not filled by private organizations.

If you don't want to see tracts of shacks surrounding our cities, if you don't want to see dead bodies in the street, if you don't want wide spread infection do to a lack of sanitation and health care, then the only solution is government coercion, whether resorted to reluctantly or not.

The myth upon which Libertarianism 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 is a prime example where Libertarians demonstrate that they are batshit crazy. I think most Libertarians appreciate the functions of government and are only concerned with the treatment of individual citizens
But the idea that each community is capable of taking care of its sick and its poor through voluntary contributions is just ridiculous

Yes because everyone you label as libertarian all toe the party platform 100% right?

That is my biggest gripe with Libertarians....nobody knows what the fuck they stand for
Some are reasonable and understand the role of government and a functioning society. Others are borderline anarchists

Yet they all claim to be Libertarians

 

[Skull Pilot]

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

And?

A society is nothing but individuals occasionally working together. It's not some sort of collective hive mind

It is more than occasionally, you work and interact with others throughout the day. That is what makes an organized society necessary

You work and interact through out the day as part of your job not for any greater good.

People can't wait to get home and get away from the people they have to work with all day long. Shit most people don't even know their neighbor's names anymore

Your job is part of the greater good. You provide a good or service which benefits society as a whole and are paid for it

You drive to work and use roads that society has provided and follow traffic laws that make multiple users driving the roads safer. You get home and are protected by police and fire provided by society. You use sewers and water systems that have been provided by society. You use electricity and energy from networks developed by society

No not all jobs benefit society as a whole.

Most are geared towards individual consumption

 

[Skull Pilot]

If Libertarians believe in the concept of "No harm, no foul" I am OK with it

Smoking a joint does not harm anyone.....leave it alone
Prostitution does not harm anyone.....leave it alone
Gays are not harming anyone.....leave them alone

But they go beyond that in a blind fanaticism that the founding fathers somehow knew everything this country would ever need

You know, the founders never supported welfare so we shouldn't do it
You know, the founders never said we should have healthcare, social security or schools....so we don't need them

Opposition to these programs is merely a consistent application of "No harm, no foul". We think mutual support and communal welfare should be voluntary. We can care for our families, friends, neighbors and communities without passing laws that will, ultimately, send people to jail of they don't do as their told.

It's not that we don't need community programs to help the people who fall through the cracks, but they don't need to be run by government. The coercive aspect of government makes it something we should resort to reluctantly.

And this is an area where I do not agree. To say it is something we need but that we should just leave it alone on the off chance someone might do something about it makes no sense at all. The reason we have the safety nets we do is because when they were needed the need was not filled by private organizations.

If you don't want to see tracts of shacks surrounding our cities, if you don't want to see dead bodies in the street, if you don't want wide spread infection do to a lack of sanitation and health care, then the only solution is government coercion, whether resorted to reluctantly or not.

The myth upon which Libertarianism 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 is a prime example where Libertarians demonstrate that they are batshit crazy. I think most Libertarians appreciate the functions of government and are only concerned with the treatment of individual citizens
But the idea that each community is capable of taking care of its sick and its poor through voluntary contributions is just ridiculous

Yes because everyone you label as libertarian all toe the party platform 100% right?

That is my biggest gripe with Libertarians....nobody knows what the fuck they stand for
Some are reasonable and understand the role of government and a functioning society. Others are borderline anarchists

Yet they all claim to be Libertarians

the same can be said for all political parties.

 

[g5000]

Your job is part of the greater good. You provide a good or service which benefits society as a whole and are paid for it

You drive to work and use roads that society has provided and follow traffic laws that make multiple users driving the roads safer. You get home and are protected by police and fire provided by society. You use sewers and water systems that have been provided by society. You use electricity and energy from networks developed by society

Some of those services could be provided by the private sector. Electricity, for example. Water and sewer, too.

Just like the Internet today, and the railroads of the past.

Social safety nets, however, have never been adequately provided by non-governmental entities, and never will be. Which is why I have no problem with Social Security, except that the eligibility age needs to be raised to 70 and indexed to 9 percent of the population going forward.

 

[g5000]

That is my biggest gripe with Libertarians....nobody knows what the fuck they stand for
Some are reasonable and understand the role of government and a functioning society. Others are borderline anarchists

Yet they all claim to be Libertarians

This is why I cite their official party platform. I think I have caught many a self-professed Libertarian by surprise by showing them what the Libertarian platform really is.

 

[rightwinger]

Your job is part of the greater good. You provide a good or service which benefits society as a whole and are paid for it

You drive to work and use roads that society has provided and follow traffic laws that make multiple users driving the roads safer. You get home and are protected by police and fire provided by society. You use sewers and water systems that have been provided by society. You use electricity and energy from networks developed by society

Some of those services could be provided by the private sector. Electricity, for example. Water and sewer, too.

Just like the Internet today, and the railroads of the past.

Social safety nets, however, have never been adequately provided by non-governmental entities, and never will be. Which is why I have no problem with Social Security, except that the eligibility age needs to be raised to 70 and indexed to 9 percent of the population going forward.

Of course

And if the private sector can do it better and cheaper then the private sector should do it
If the governament at any level can do it better and cheaper, then the government should do it

The Great Depression showed why local charities cannot be depended upon to take care of our poor. The Government is best suited to take care of the poor and that needs to be done at the local, state and federal level

 

[defcon4]

That is my biggest gripe with Libertarians....nobody knows what the fuck they stand for

Go to their website to find out. Ah…. wait a minute.. I forgot. You need somebody to tell you what to think… I am so sorry to assume that you would want to find out on your own what you are unfamiliar with.

 

[rightwinger]

A society is what led to civilization.

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

And?

A society is nothing but individuals occasionally working together. It's not some sort of collective hive mind

It is more than occasionally, you work and interact with others throughout the day. That is what makes an organized society necessary

You work and interact through out the day as part of your job not for any greater good.

People can't wait to get home and get away from the people they have to work with all day long. Shit most people don't even know their neighbor's names anymore

Your job is part of the greater good. You provide a good or service which benefits society as a whole and are paid for it

You drive to work and use roads that society has provided and follow traffic laws that make multiple users driving the roads safer. You get home and are protected by police and fire provided by society. You use sewers and water systems that have been provided by society. You use electricity and energy from networks developed by society

No not all jobs benefit society as a whole.

Most are geared towards individual consumption

If society is willing to pay for it, then it benefits
Your job does not exist in a vacuum, someone must need it

 

[Skull Pilot]

And?

A society is nothing but individuals occasionally working together. It's not some sort of collective hive mind

It is more than occasionally, you work and interact with others throughout the day. That is what makes an organized society necessary

You work and interact through out the day as part of your job not for any greater good.

People can't wait to get home and get away from the people they have to work with all day long. Shit most people don't even know their neighbor's names anymore

Your job is part of the greater good. You provide a good or service which benefits society as a whole and are paid for it

You drive to work and use roads that society has provided and follow traffic laws that make multiple users driving the roads safer. You get home and are protected by police and fire provided by society. You use sewers and water systems that have been provided by society. You use electricity and energy from networks developed by society

No not all jobs benefit society as a whole.

Most are geared towards individual consumption

If society is willing to pay for it, then it benefits
Your job does not exist in a vacuum, someone must need it

Don't confuse wants and needs.

No one needs an i phone
No one needs an x box
No one needs a liter if bourbon.

 

[rightwinger]

It is more than occasionally, you work and interact with others throughout the day. That is what makes an organized society necessary

You work and interact through out the day as part of your job not for any greater good.

People can't wait to get home and get away from the people they have to work with all day long. Shit most people don't even know their neighbor's names anymore

Your job is part of the greater good. You provide a good or service which benefits society as a whole and are paid for it

You drive to work and use roads that society has provided and follow traffic laws that make multiple users driving the roads safer. You get home and are protected by police and fire provided by society. You use sewers and water systems that have been provided by society. You use electricity and energy from networks developed by society

No not all jobs benefit society as a whole.

Most are geared towards individual consumption

If society is willing to pay for it, then it benefits
Your job does not exist in a vacuum, someone must need it

Don't confuse wants and needs.

No one needs an i phone
No one needs an x box
No one needs a liter if bourbon.

If society wants it...they need it

May not lead to survival of the society but it is something that leads to more enjoyment as part of a society

Nobody could develop an x-box on their own. But the fact that your society has developed one makes your life in that society more enjoyable. One of the reasons we formed societies

Lets say you belong to a small tribe. You may not hunt or fish but you play music. The tribe does not need your music, but they are willing to share their food with you because they enjoy your music

 

[bripat9643]

An indoctrination in the education system against self-reliance?

Shoot man, the corporate barons decided to head the US in that direction in the 1880's....

The "corporate barons" ran the education system in 1880?

 

[bripat9643]

You work and interact through out the day as part of your job not for any greater good.

People can't wait to get home and get away from the people they have to work with all day long. Shit most people don't even know their neighbor's names anymore

Your job is part of the greater good. You provide a good or service which benefits society as a whole and are paid for it

You drive to work and use roads that society has provided and follow traffic laws that make multiple users driving the roads safer. You get home and are protected by police and fire provided by society. You use sewers and water systems that have been provided by society. You use electricity and energy from networks developed by society

No not all jobs benefit society as a whole.

Most are geared towards individual consumption

If society is willing to pay for it, then it benefits
Your job does not exist in a vacuum, someone must need it

Don't confuse wants and needs.

No one needs an i phone
No one needs an x box
No one needs a liter if bourbon.

If society wants it...they need it

May not lead to survival of the society but it is something that leads to more enjoyment as part of a society

Nobody could develop an x-box on their own. But the fact that your society has developed one makes your life in that society more enjoyable. One of the reasons we formed societies

Lets say you belong to a small tribe. You may not hunt or fish but you play music. The tribe does not need your music, but they are willing to share their food with you because they enjoy your music

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.

 

[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?

OK, after Pearl Harbor were we each expected to go it alone vs. the Japanese? For any question you can't or refuse to answer I'll have another.

Was that supposed to be an answer to the question I posted?

Again, do you believe invading Iraq was something worthwhile to do?

 

[bripat9643]

If Libertarians believe in the concept of "No harm, no foul" I am OK with it

Smoking a joint does not harm anyone.....leave it alone
Prostitution does not harm anyone.....leave it alone
Gays are not harming anyone.....leave them alone

But they go beyond that in a blind fanaticism that the founding fathers somehow knew everything this country would ever need

You know, the founders never supported welfare so we shouldn't do it
You know, the founders never said we should have healthcare, social security or schools....so we don't need them

As a broad philosophy, Libertarianism views are worth considering. But the movement has filled with whack jobs and haters who are little more than anarchists

When did any libertarian ever claim that we shouldn't have healthcare for schools?