The question libertarians just can’t answer

[Kevin_Kennedy]

False. I am asking what your solution is for people who have fallen on hard times.

Perhaps they had a serious illness which left them broke.
Perhaps they developed mental impairments which preclude them from being employed.

There are many possible reasons why they are destitute, and not all of them are their fault.

So my question is: what is the Libertarian solution? Let them live and die on the street? Maybe contract and spread diseases?

What?

If you are so concerned about these people, you would take the time to help them directly.

Yup, it's real easy to be all concerned and caring and generous when you can force other people to pay for that concern and caring and generosity.

That in a nutshellis the #1 difference between true libertarians and other ideologies. The libertarian can accept concepts of social contract, no matter how much Kevin and Oddball reject that. The libertarian may give away most or all of what he has to help somebody else.

But he will never agree for the government or anybody else to confiscate property from one individual and give it to another individual just because the second individual NEEDS it or as any other wealth redistribution gimmick.

When Did I Sign This ?Social Contract?? | Tom Woods

The Social Contract and Other Myths

It should be clear that the title-transfer theory immediately tosses out of court all variants of the “social contract” theory as a justification for the State. Setting aside the historical problem of whether such a social contract ever took place, it should be evident that the social contract, whether it be the Hobbesian surrender of all one’s rights, the Lockean surrender of the right of self-defense, or any other, was a mere promise of future behavior (future will) and in no way surrendered title to alienable property. Certainly no past promise can bind later generations, let alone the actual maker of the promise.

The Ethics of Liberty by Murray N. Rothbard

Look at that, "true" libertarians opposed to the idea of the nonsensical social contract.

Regardless, you contradict yourself. The "social contract" of the United States says that there will be redistributionist social safety nets that take money from one individual and give it to others. So on what basis can you possibly reject this, if you support the social contract?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

As libertarianism is based on property rights, it is absolutely a libertarian position I'm taking and has nothing to do with anarchism. What I'm advocating could work with or without a government. Nor are libertarianism and anarchism mutually exclusive in general.

Regardless, your dictator vs. the collective wisdom of your neighbors argument has nothing to do with anything. The simple fact here is that your neighbors, in forcing you to fund an educational system that you do not want or use, are acting as the dictators.

Property rights do not exist without government. Otherwise, property belongs to whoever has the power to take and hold it.

SO true Erand. After reading the strong anarchist beliefs of the OP and others who are absolutist doctrinaire libertarians, we now can answer the OP's question:

"If your approach is so great, why hasn’t any country anywhere in the world ever tried it?"

It has been tried...SOMALIA.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

See above.

That precludes the possibility of private defense and private law. Anarcho-capitalists do not believe in no law. Hans-Hermann Hoppe refers to it as a "private law society."

What about providing some substance. I'm tired of your wispy cloud non answers. When you have some content, get back to me. I'm a smart guy who hates government. I'm a low hurdle to convince if you have anything. But we don't need government and it's my job to convince you we do while you give me platitudes isn't interesting to me.

"We need government, otherwise people will take over your house." - You

"An anarchist would argue that private defense and private justice, as there is no absence of law in anarchism, would protect your property." - Me

Sorry about the platitudes.

 

[editec]

I see that people who think themselves LIBERTARIAN are trying to shoehorn THEIR VERSION OF WHAT THE WORD MEANS into their own set of litmus tests.

If you read this thread in its entirety what you discover is even those folks who calls themselves LIBERTARIANS cannot come down on any single concept that makes LIBERTARIANISM unique.

Everybody loves freedom, most people want the smallest cheapestm least intrusive government possible.

It's only self congratulatory libertarians who think that wanting those things makes them somehow unique.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

I see that people who think themselves LIBERTARIAN are trying to shoehorn THEIR VERSION OF WHAT THE WORD MEANS into their own set of litmus tests.

If you read this thread in its entirety what you discover is even those folks who calls themselves LIBERTARIANS cannot come down on any single concept that makes LIBERTARIANISM unique.

Everybody loves freedom, most people want the smallest cheapestm least intrusive government possible.

It's only self congratulatory libertarians who think that wanting those things makes them somehow unique.

You dumb fucking heeb. It's been put down in this thread over a dozen times, and yet you still come in, AGAIN, to play semantics.


LET ME GIVE IT TO YOU ONE MORE TIME, CORKY:


The Non-Aggression Principle. AS one unique conceptual difference between libertarians and modern day Statists.

 

[Bfgrn]

Property rights do not exist without government. Otherwise, property belongs to whoever has the power to take and hold it.

SO true Erand. After reading the strong anarchist beliefs of the OP and others who are absolutist doctrinaire libertarians, we now can answer the OP's question:

"If your approach is so great, why hasn’t any country anywhere in the world ever tried it?"

It has been tried...SOMALIA.

Cute cartoon there Kevin the anarchist...but:

Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
William E. Gladstone

How truly sad you share the surname Kennedy.

Acceptance of the New York Liberal Party Nomination
September 14, 1960
John F. Kennedy


This is my political credo:

I believe in human dignity as the source of national purpose, in human liberty as the source of national action, in the human heart as the source of national compassion, and in the human mind as the source of our invention and our ideas. It is, I believe, the faith in our fellow citizens as individuals and as people that lies at the heart of the liberal faith. For liberalism is not so much a party creed or set of fixed platform promises as it is an attitude of mind and heart, a faith in man's ability through the experiences of his reason and judgment to increase for himself and his fellow men the amount of justice and freedom and brotherhood which all human life deserves.

I believe also in the United States of America, in the promise that it contains and has contained throughout our history of producing a society so abundant and creative and so free and responsible that it cannot only fulfill the aspirations of its citizens, but serve equally well as a beacon for all mankind. I do not believe in a superstate. I see no magic in tax dollars which are sent to Washington and then returned. I abhor the waste and incompetence of large-scale federal bureaucracies in this administration as well as in others. I do not favor state compulsion when voluntary individual effort can do the job and do it well. But I believe in a government which acts, which exercises its full powers and full responsibilities. Government is an art and a precious obligation; and when it has a job to do, I believe it should do it. And this requires not only great ends but that we propose concrete means of achieving them.

Our responsibility is not discharged by announcement of virtuous ends. Our responsibility is to achieve these objectives with social invention, with political skill, and executive vigor. I believe for these reasons that liberalism is our best and only hope in the world today. For the liberal society is a free society, and it is at the same time and for that reason a strong society. Its strength is drawn from the will of free people committed to great ends and peacefully striving to meet them. Only liberalism, in short, can repair our national power, restore our national purpose, and liberate our national energies.

 

[Ravi]

I see that people who think themselves LIBERTARIAN are trying to shoehorn THEIR VERSION OF WHAT THE WORD MEANS into their own set of litmus tests.

If you read this thread in its entirety what you discover is even those folks who calls themselves LIBERTARIANS cannot come down on any single concept that makes LIBERTARIANISM unique.

Everybody loves freedom, most people want the smallest cheapestm least intrusive government possible.

It's only self congratulatory libertarians who think that wanting those things makes them somehow unique.

You dumb fucking heeb. It's been put down in this thread over a dozen times, and yet you still come in, AGAIN, to play semantics.


LET ME GIVE IT TO YOU ONE MORE TIME, CORKY:


The Non-Aggression Principle. AS one unique conceptual difference between libertarians and modern day Statists.

Heeb? Negged. Pretty aggressive for a non-aggression principle, lol.

 

[dblack]

Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
William E. Gladstone

Yup. Libertarianism is trust of, and respect for, freedom of the individual - tempered by rule of law.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

I see that people who think themselves LIBERTARIAN are trying to shoehorn THEIR VERSION OF WHAT THE WORD MEANS into their own set of litmus tests.

If you read this thread in its entirety what you discover is even those folks who calls themselves LIBERTARIANS cannot come down on any single concept that makes LIBERTARIANISM unique.

Everybody loves freedom, most people want the smallest cheapestm least intrusive government possible.

It's only self congratulatory libertarians who think that wanting those things makes them somehow unique.

You dumb fucking heeb. It's been put down in this thread over a dozen times, and yet you still come in, AGAIN, to play semantics.


LET ME GIVE IT TO YOU ONE MORE TIME, CORKY:


The Non-Aggression Principle. AS one unique conceptual difference between libertarians and modern day Statists.

Heeb? Negged. Pretty aggressive for a non-aggression principle, lol.

Oh, noes! There is nothing aggressive about calling someone who's a travesty a fucking travesty.Go troll another thread, Ravi. This one is way to advanced for you.

 

[Contumacious]

Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
William E. Gladstone

Yup. Libertarianism is trust of, and respect for, freedom of the individual - tempered by rule of law.

......tempered by OBJECTIVE laws.......

 

[Ravi]

You dumb fucking heeb. It's been put down in this thread over a dozen times, and yet you still come in, AGAIN, to play semantics.


LET ME GIVE IT TO YOU ONE MORE TIME, CORKY:


The Non-Aggression Principle. AS one unique conceptual difference between libertarians and modern day Statists.

Heeb? Negged. Pretty aggressive for a non-aggression principle, lol.

Oh, noes! There is nothing aggressive about calling someone who's a travesty a fucking travesty.Go troll another thread, Ravi. This one is way to advanced for you.

Yet another reason the fairy tale world of libertarianism is doomed to fail. self righteous bullshit.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

SO true Erand. After reading the strong anarchist beliefs of the OP and others who are absolutist doctrinaire libertarians, we now can answer the OP's question:

"If your approach is so great, why hasn’t any country anywhere in the world ever tried it?"

It has been tried...SOMALIA.

Cute cartoon there Kevin the anarchist...but:

Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
William E. Gladstone

How truly sad you share the surname Kennedy.

Acceptance of the New York Liberal Party Nomination
September 14, 1960
John F. Kennedy


This is my political credo:

I believe in human dignity as the source of national purpose, in human liberty as the source of national action, in the human heart as the source of national compassion, and in the human mind as the source of our invention and our ideas. It is, I believe, the faith in our fellow citizens as individuals and as people that lies at the heart of the liberal faith. For liberalism is not so much a party creed or set of fixed platform promises as it is an attitude of mind and heart, a faith in man's ability through the experiences of his reason and judgment to increase for himself and his fellow men the amount of justice and freedom and brotherhood which all human life deserves.

I believe also in the United States of America, in the promise that it contains and has contained throughout our history of producing a society so abundant and creative and so free and responsible that it cannot only fulfill the aspirations of its citizens, but serve equally well as a beacon for all mankind. I do not believe in a superstate. I see no magic in tax dollars which are sent to Washington and then returned. I abhor the waste and incompetence of large-scale federal bureaucracies in this administration as well as in others. I do not favor state compulsion when voluntary individual effort can do the job and do it well. But I believe in a government which acts, which exercises its full powers and full responsibilities. Government is an art and a precious obligation; and when it has a job to do, I believe it should do it. And this requires not only great ends but that we propose concrete means of achieving them.

Our responsibility is not discharged by announcement of virtuous ends. Our responsibility is to achieve these objectives with social invention, with political skill, and executive vigor. I believe for these reasons that liberalism is our best and only hope in the world today. For the liberal society is a free society, and it is at the same time and for that reason a strong society. Its strength is drawn from the will of free people committed to great ends and peacefully striving to meet them. Only liberalism, in short, can repair our national power, restore our national purpose, and liberate our national energies.

My last name isn't actually Kennedy... Yet wouldn't your position be that we need government to protect us from the people you allegedly trust?

 

[Contumacious]

Heeb? Negged. Pretty aggressive for a non-aggression principle, lol.

Oh, noes! There is nothing aggressive about calling someone who's a travesty a fucking travesty.Go troll another thread, Ravi. This one is way to advanced for you.

Yet another reason the fairy tale world of libertarianism is doomed to fail. self righteous bullshit.

Well that is true.

Unfortunately, in any given country parasites outnumber the producers. They gang up , elect politicians who , in exchange for power, will steal, loot and plunder on their behalf.

So yes, Libertarians face an uphill battle.

.

 

[Pogo]

As far as definitions then, my impression is that the word "libertarian" -- in this country anyway-- is a contemporary fad label. Much the same as a little kid dressing up in a Batman costume, some folks want to dress up in the robes of a label whose description they can't even agree on, because it's the current cool.

Seems to be loosely based on the writings of the self-centered antisocialite Ayn Rand, whose books were then canonized for the convenience they offered of making excuses for self-centered antisocial policy. The antisocial contract if you will. Perhaps that is the extreme at the end of the pendulum opposite socialism, between the two of which a reasonable people find a balance.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

As far as definitions then, my impression is that the word "libertarian" -- in this country anyway-- is a contemporary fad label. Much the same as a little kid dressing up in a Batman costume, some folks want to dress up in the robes of a label whose description they can't even agree on, because it's the current cool.

Seems to be loosely based on the writings of the self-centered antisocialite Ayn Rand, whose books were then canonized for the convenience they offered of making excuses for self-centered antisocial policy. The antisocial contract if you will. Perhaps that is the extreme at the end of the pendulum opposite socialism, between the two of which a reasonable people find a balance.

That's a good one, Dullard.

 

[Contumacious]

As far as definitions then, my impression is that the word "libertarian" -- in this country anyway-- is a contemporary fad label. Much the same as a little kid dressing up in a Batman costume, some folks want to dress up in the robes of a label whose description they can't even agree on, because it's the current cool.

Seems to be loosely based on the writings of the self-centered antisocialite Ayn Rand, whose books were then canonized for the convenience they offered of making excuses for self-centered antisocial policy. The antisocial contract if you will. Perhaps that is the extreme at the end of the pendulum opposite socialism, between the two of which a reasonable people find a balance.

I see, so from your standpoint fascism is a lot better............do you consider gassing/incinerating 6,000,000 millions Jews as antisocial behavior?

.

 

[Pogo]

So... two defamations of character, no substance. That's instructive. Do go on....

 

[Pogo]

As far as definitions then, my impression is that the word "libertarian" -- in this country anyway-- is a contemporary fad label. Much the same as a little kid dressing up in a Batman costume, some folks want to dress up in the robes of a label whose description they can't even agree on, because it's the current cool.

Seems to be loosely based on the writings of the self-centered antisocialite Ayn Rand, whose books were then canonized for the convenience they offered of making excuses for self-centered antisocial policy. The antisocial contract if you will. Perhaps that is the extreme at the end of the pendulum opposite socialism, between the two of which a reasonable people find a balance.

I see, so from your standpoint fascism is a lot better............do you consider gassing/incinerating 6,000,000 millions Jews as antisocial behavior?

.

Amazing. A quick analysis of pop psychology is the same as killing six million Jews. OK then.

When you learn to read, check my sig.

Duh.

 

[Ravi]

As far as definitions then, my impression is that the word "libertarian" -- in this country anyway-- is a contemporary fad label. Much the same as a little kid dressing up in a Batman costume, some folks want to dress up in the robes of a label whose description they can't even agree on, because it's the current cool.

Seems to be loosely based on the writings of the self-centered antisocialite Ayn Rand, whose books were then canonized for the convenience they offered of making excuses for self-centered antisocial policy. The antisocial contract if you will. Perhaps that is the extreme at the end of the pendulum opposite socialism, between the two of which a reasonable people find a balance.

I see, so from your standpoint fascism is a lot better............do you consider gassing/incinerating 6,000,000 millions Jews as antisocial behavior?

.

Wouldn't an actual libertarian blame the people that got gassed?

 

[Contumacious]

As far as definitions then, my impression is that the word "libertarian" -- in this country anyway-- is a contemporary fad label. Much the same as a little kid dressing up in a Batman costume, some folks want to dress up in the robes of a label whose description they can't even agree on, because it's the current cool.

Seems to be loosely based on the writings of the self-centered antisocialite Ayn Rand, whose books were then canonized for the convenience they offered of making excuses for self-centered antisocial policy. The antisocial contract if you will. Perhaps that is the extreme at the end of the pendulum opposite socialism, between the two of which a reasonable people find a balance.

I see, so from your standpoint fascism is a lot better............do you consider gassing/incinerating 6,000,000 millions Jews as antisocial behavior?

.

Wouldn't an actual libertarian blame the people that got gassed?

No only those who for some perverse reason want to smear Libertarianism.

.