Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
You really have no concept of the ground-breaking work done by Libertarian Party do you?
We have CONSISTENTLY been the only staunch defenders of Civil Liberty.. Opposing (for instance the Patriot Act, Asset Forfeiture, eminent domain seizures, and the War on Drugs.
We have fought for ballot access rules to be taken from the partisians and democratized.
We WORK HARD to put candidates on the ballots in all 50 states.
We champion CHOICE on everything consistently.. Especially in your choice of schools, medical care, and consumption..
We INVENTED Med Savings accounts and "cap and trade" and "congestion pricing" for decreasing traffic jams..
We've opposed MOST of America's badly chosen projections of power..
But yet --- you want to ATTEMPT to equate all that CONVICTION AND PRINCIPLE with Halloween custumes and Ayn Rand..
Bet you dont even know that Rand EXCORIATED AND SHUNNED the infant Lib Party.. She told us that "we were not judgemental enough" in our pursuit of freedoms. That we should toss our morals and ethics into the mix..
That was really really weak dude..
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.
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.
Absolutely it's a platitude because you're giving zero about how that would actually work. OK, I'll stipulate to the fact that if we all lived on the set of Bonanza then you'd have something. However, when you go from not everyone being a God fearing Christian in an area with 50s TV character and population is measured in people per acre instead of square miles per person, you're leaving out a few details. A couple scenarios to see if you can stop orbiting the globe with your answers. Oddball BTW is clearly getting into specifics. You're not entering the atmosphere.
- You go on vacation and someone moved into your house when you were gone. They have a forged document saying you sold it to them and they start shooting at you from the upstairs window when you start walking up your driveway. Your neighbors are doubtful, but the new residents of your home are scary and they're not interested in helping you. What are you going to do?
- You are in your fields on your Bonanza set dreamworld working and someone rides by and sets your house on fire and takes off. What are you going to do?
- Even if you could convince America to go anarchist, we live in a dangerous world led by despots who want our stuff. They have armies and start sending and your neighbors you tax bills, non-payment is punishable by death. What are you going to do?
- On the Bonanza set you live on in your mind, you have 10 acres. A bad guy says you don't, you have 9. His acre is the one by the stream and he's charging you $10 every time yo go there. He's got guns and forged documents and your house is a ways away and your neighbors aren't interested in a war with him. They pat you on the shoulder.
- Your neighbor's boy rapes your daughter. He denies it. Your neighbors don't know.
Come out of the corner and stop playing with yourself and get involved in the discussion. Or don't. But stop pretending you're doing one when you do the other.
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 ones 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?
Is that what the 'social contract of the United States' says? You could fool me. I've read the Constitution and pretty much every single document that led to its final form. And I simply find no place in it that authorizes any government, entity, or person to take money from Citizen A and give it to Citizen B without Citizen A's consent.
You and Oddball continue to distort and misrepresent what I describe as social contract and neither of you will honestly address the concepts I've put out there. You would have failed miserably in the excercise if you had been graded on your debating skills on this subject.
Frederick Bastiat is among my favorite great philosophers and thinkes. One of my very favorite quotations of his:
"Sometimes the law defends plunder and participates in it. Thus the beneficiaries are spared the shame and danger that their acts would otherwise involve... But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them and gives it to the other persons to whom it doesn't belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish that law without delay ... No legal plunder; this is the principle of justice, peace, order, stability, harmony and logic."
And this one, though it needs its full context:
"By virtue of exchange, one man's prosperity is beneficial to all others."
And this one which sounds very much like my definition of social contract:
"If every person has the right to defend -- even by force -- his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right -- its reason for existing, its lawfulness -- is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force -- for the same reason -- cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups."
Coincidentally, Bastiat was as close to a pure libertarian as I define libertarian as it gets.
Nothing I have said is refuted by Bastiat....And I worship no man.Great, except almost everything you are arguing is refuted by Frédéric Bastiat.
Hey Jethro, I thought Friedrich von Hayek was your 'jesus'?
For someone who accuses others of being infantile, you appear to be the one here who needs to grow the hell up, junior.
Really Jethro? Frédéric Bastiat has no problem with 'social contracts'
"If every person has the right to defend even by force his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right its reason for existing, its lawfulness is based on individual right."
Frédéric Bastiat
You worship which 'man', Frédéric Bastiat or Friedrich von Hayek?
"We"? Who's "we"? There's an organization now? I thought this thread was about the abstract theory of 'libertarianism', thus what I was talking about was the label "libertarian", period.
I'm sure there's an actual party using the name somewhere, just as there are other democratic and republican and socialist and communist parties but I thought we were talking about the label and the concept. That's all I was talking about -- the use of the label. From what I've read in this thread, interested parties can't even agree on what libertarianism is, so what some third party advocates really isn't relevant, since the very label isn't defined. That's why I opined on the label. It's the only quantifiable element here.
Au Contrare -- it's EXTREMELY relevant to point to the authorized political party that represents "libertarians".. I can tell EXACTLY where WE (yes there is a we) have stood on the Patriot Act since it's birth. YOU on the other hand would have a hell of challenge telling me where YOUR sorry ass party representation stands on most ANY issue..
Point is --- should be well - known what we've done and stand for. It doesn't change election cycle to cycle.
Not only is there a REAL 3rd party behind that label.. There are MANY outstanding think tanks and organizations (like Cato, Reason, IJustice) that are world class BROADCASTERS of libertarian thought.
You can "try" to arrive at "what a libertarian thinks" from anectdotes or stereotypes or silly references to Halloween costumes, -- or you can go the sources of the OPENLY libertarian institutions that we have BUILT with our money and time...
Somebody's having a little martyr complex hissyfit moment.
If it wasn't clear -- I didn't post about the Libertarian Party. I don't know a damn thing about that. So your martyr premise is contrived.
I did not post about "libertarians" either, since I don't know who they are, since they don't know who they are according to what I've read here. What I posted about was the trendy use of the label libertarian and why those who cloak themselves in it might want to do so. Is that disctinction elusive?
What I posted about was the motivation that might lie behind using a label. That's it. Reading an entire Checkers Speech into it is just irrelevant. Whether those that use the label for themselves really are libertarians, "weekend" libertarians, or just following a trend, is not something we can analyze since we don't have a definition of the word in the first place.
To demonstrate:
WHO is a libertarian, and who is not? Names in the public discourse, please. Discuss.
No mention of any "social contract" there, junior....Just free people coming together to form voluntary associations, with no mention of compelling others to join in...Coercing others into the association being, of course, base premise of the modern "social contract".
You really, really suck at this...Best go play with your Legos.
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.
You really have no concept of the ground-breaking work done by Libertarian Party do you?
We have CONSISTENTLY been the only staunch defenders of Civil Liberty.. Opposing (for instance the Patriot Act, Asset Forfeiture, eminent domain seizures, and the War on Drugs.
We have fought for ballot access rules to be taken from the partisians and democratized.
We WORK HARD to put candidates on the ballots in all 50 states.
We champion CHOICE on everything consistently.. Especially in your choice of schools, medical care, and consumption..
We INVENTED Med Savings accounts and "cap and trade" and "congestion pricing" for decreasing traffic jams..
We've opposed MOST of America's badly chosen projections of power..
But yet --- you want to ATTEMPT to equate all that CONVICTION AND PRINCIPLE with Halloween custumes and Ayn Rand..
Bet you dont even know that Rand EXCORIATED AND SHUNNED the infant Lib Party.. She told us that "we were not judgemental enough" in our pursuit of freedoms. That we should toss our morals and ethics into the mix..
That was really really weak dude..
How do libertarians get credit for Med Savings accounts and "cap and trade" and "congestion pricing" ?
Nothing I have said is refuted by Bastiat....And I worship no man.
For someone who accuses others of being infantile, you appear to be the one here who needs to grow the hell up, junior.
Really Jethro? Frédéric Bastiat has no problem with 'social contracts'
"If every person has the right to defend even by force his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right its reason for existing, its lawfulness is based on individual right."
Frédéric Bastiat
You worship which 'man', Frédéric Bastiat or Friedrich von Hayek?
Which does not justify the idea of a social contract in any way whatsoever. That people can freely contract, explicitly, with one another to defend one another has never been in question. Social contract theory says that people can be forced to defend, or pay to defend, others against their will, which is not what Bastiat is referring to in the above quote at all.
Really Jethro? Frédéric Bastiat has no problem with 'social contracts'
"If every person has the right to defend even by force — his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right — its reason for existing, its lawfulness — is based on individual right."
Frédéric Bastiat
You worship which 'man', Frédéric Bastiat or Friedrich von Hayek?
Which does not justify the idea of a social contract in any way whatsoever. That people can freely contract, explicitly, with one another to defend one another has never been in question. Social contract theory says that people can be forced to defend, or pay to defend, others against their will, which is not what Bastiat is referring to in the above quote at all.
The more I talk to you self proclaimed libertarians, when certain 'words' are used you folks act like you are stepping in dogshit, even when they are describing the same concepts. There must be a list somewhere of libertarian dog shit words. Social is one of them.
You really have no concept of the ground-breaking work done by Libertarian Party do you?
We have CONSISTENTLY been the only staunch defenders of Civil Liberty.. Opposing (for instance the Patriot Act, Asset Forfeiture, eminent domain seizures, and the War on Drugs.
We have fought for ballot access rules to be taken from the partisians and democratized.
We WORK HARD to put candidates on the ballots in all 50 states.
We champion CHOICE on everything consistently.. Especially in your choice of schools, medical care, and consumption..
We INVENTED Med Savings accounts and "cap and trade" and "congestion pricing" for decreasing traffic jams..
We've opposed MOST of America's badly chosen projections of power..
But yet --- you want to ATTEMPT to equate all that CONVICTION AND PRINCIPLE with Halloween custumes and Ayn Rand..
Bet you dont even know that Rand EXCORIATED AND SHUNNED the infant Lib Party.. She told us that "we were not judgemental enough" in our pursuit of freedoms. That we should toss our morals and ethics into the mix..
That was really really weak dude..
How do libertarians get credit for Med Savings accounts and "cap and trade" and "congestion pricing" ?
Libertarians have no problem with medical savings accounts though they do have a problem with government making them mandatory. And they have a huge problem with government taking money and meddling in things, like healthcare, that should remain in the voluntary private sector in the first place.
No libertarian worthy of the name would agree to cap and trade or anything like it. Congestion pricing can be a product of social contract for the benefit of all, but it should never be arbitrarily dictated by government.
"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.
Absolutely it's a platitude because you're giving zero about how that would actually work. OK, I'll stipulate to the fact that if we all lived on the set of Bonanza then you'd have something. However, when you go from not everyone being a God fearing Christian in an area with 50s TV character and population is measured in people per acre instead of square miles per person, you're leaving out a few details. A couple scenarios to see if you can stop orbiting the globe with your answers. Oddball BTW is clearly getting into specifics. You're not entering the atmosphere.
- You go on vacation and someone moved into your house when you were gone. They have a forged document saying you sold it to them and they start shooting at you from the upstairs window when you start walking up your driveway. Your neighbors are doubtful, but the new residents of your home are scary and they're not interested in helping you. What are you going to do?
- You are in your fields on your Bonanza set dreamworld working and someone rides by and sets your house on fire and takes off. What are you going to do?
- Even if you could convince America to go anarchist, we live in a dangerous world led by despots who want our stuff. They have armies and start sending and your neighbors you tax bills, non-payment is punishable by death. What are you going to do?
- On the Bonanza set you live on in your mind, you have 10 acres. A bad guy says you don't, you have 9. His acre is the one by the stream and he's charging you $10 every time yo go there. He's got guns and forged documents and your house is a ways away and your neighbors aren't interested in a war with him. They pat you on the shoulder.
- Your neighbor's boy rapes your daughter. He denies it. Your neighbors don't know.
Come out of the corner and stop playing with yourself and get involved in the discussion. Or don't. But stop pretending you're doing one when you do the other.
I can't tell you exactly how it would work, the same way 100 years ago nobody could have possibly predicted a McDonald's every two miles and a drug store on every street corner. The market isn't going to conform to my central plan, as that would defeat the purpose. All that I can say is that people would be free to contract the defense services of anybody who was willing to do so.
Really Jethro? Frédéric Bastiat has no problem with 'social contracts'
"If every person has the right to defend even by force his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right its reason for existing, its lawfulness is based on individual right."
Frédéric Bastiat
You worship which 'man', Frédéric Bastiat or Friedrich von Hayek?
Which does not justify the idea of a social contract in any way whatsoever. That people can freely contract, explicitly, with one another to defend one another has never been in question. Social contract theory says that people can be forced to defend, or pay to defend, others against their will, which is not what Bastiat is referring to in the above quote at all.
The more I talk to you self proclaimed libertarians, when certain 'words' are used you folks act like you are stepping in dogshit, even when they are describing the same concepts. There must be a list somewhere of libertarian dog shit words. Social is one of them.
How do libertarians get credit for Med Savings accounts and "cap and trade" and "congestion pricing" ?
Libertarians have no problem with medical savings accounts though they do have a problem with government making them mandatory. And they have a huge problem with government taking money and meddling in things, like healthcare, that should remain in the voluntary private sector in the first place.
No libertarian worthy of the name would agree to cap and trade or anything like it. Congestion pricing can be a product of social contract for the benefit of all, but it should never be arbitrarily dictated by government.
Cap and trade is a 'market' based solution to pollution. As opposed to traditional command-and-control regulation.
Which does not justify the idea of a social contract in any way whatsoever. That people can freely contract, explicitly, with one another to defend one another has never been in question. Social contract theory says that people can be forced to defend, or pay to defend, others against their will, which is not what Bastiat is referring to in the above quote at all.
The more I talk to you self proclaimed libertarians, when certain 'words' are used you folks act like you are stepping in dogshit, even when they are describing the same concepts. There must be a list somewhere of libertarian dog shit words. Social is one of them.
Heh... some truth to that.
Of course, liberals have their own 'dogshit' words ('individual', 'freedom', etc..)
Libertarians have no problem with medical savings accounts though they do have a problem with government making them mandatory. And they have a huge problem with government taking money and meddling in things, like healthcare, that should remain in the voluntary private sector in the first place.
No libertarian worthy of the name would agree to cap and trade or anything like it. Congestion pricing can be a product of social contract for the benefit of all, but it should never be arbitrarily dictated by government.
Cap and trade is a 'market' based solution to pollution. As opposed to traditional command-and-control regulation.
No, it isn't. It is a government created distortion of the market.
Absolutely it's a platitude because you're giving zero about how that would actually work. OK, I'll stipulate to the fact that if we all lived on the set of Bonanza then you'd have something. However, when you go from not everyone being a God fearing Christian in an area with 50s TV character and population is measured in people per acre instead of square miles per person, you're leaving out a few details. A couple scenarios to see if you can stop orbiting the globe with your answers. Oddball BTW is clearly getting into specifics. You're not entering the atmosphere.
- You go on vacation and someone moved into your house when you were gone. They have a forged document saying you sold it to them and they start shooting at you from the upstairs window when you start walking up your driveway. Your neighbors are doubtful, but the new residents of your home are scary and they're not interested in helping you. What are you going to do?
- You are in your fields on your Bonanza set dreamworld working and someone rides by and sets your house on fire and takes off. What are you going to do?
- Even if you could convince America to go anarchist, we live in a dangerous world led by despots who want our stuff. They have armies and start sending and your neighbors you tax bills, non-payment is punishable by death. What are you going to do?
- On the Bonanza set you live on in your mind, you have 10 acres. A bad guy says you don't, you have 9. His acre is the one by the stream and he's charging you $10 every time yo go there. He's got guns and forged documents and your house is a ways away and your neighbors aren't interested in a war with him. They pat you on the shoulder.
- Your neighbor's boy rapes your daughter. He denies it. Your neighbors don't know.
Come out of the corner and stop playing with yourself and get involved in the discussion. Or don't. But stop pretending you're doing one when you do the other.
I can't tell you exactly how it would work, the same way 100 years ago nobody could have possibly predicted a McDonald's every two miles and a drug store on every street corner. The market isn't going to conform to my central plan, as that would defeat the purpose. All that I can say is that people would be free to contract the defense services of anybody who was willing to do so.
You can't tell me ANYTHING about how it would work. At least you answered the question, the answer is you have no idea. Once you start to have one, let us know.
The more I talk to you self proclaimed libertarians, when certain 'words' are used you folks act like you are stepping in dogshit, even when they are describing the same concepts. There must be a list somewhere of libertarian dog shit words. Social is one of them.
Heh... some truth to that.
Of course, liberals have their own 'dogshit' words ('individual', 'freedom', etc..)
Oh. I see, the extremism of libertarians must be explained away as everyone else is also extreme. Liberals do not subscribe to the right wing definitions applied to them. Liberals have no problem with 'individual' or 'freedom'. As a matter of fact liberals strongly believe in individual excellence, personal distinction and freedom.
I look forward to a world which will be safe not only for democracy and diversity but also for personal distinction.
President John F. Kennedy
The Greek definition of happiness is full use of ones powers along the lines of excellence.
President John F. Kennedy
