Why are libertarians generally ridiculed?

ParanoidAgnostic
ParanoidAgnostic's picture
Posts: 402
Joined: 2007-05-20
User is offlineOffline
Why are libertarians generally ridiculed?

Here in Australia libertarianism isn't a well known concept. We are either Labor (Center-Left) voters ir Liberal (ironically Center-right) Voters. Basically you're either Liberal (not the liberal party though) or Conservative. There are a few minor parties but they fit nicely into the 1-dimensional spectrum being either left or right (usually religious-right). I've generally disliked both options and only ever felt like I was voting for the lesser of two evils. I value freedom. The right wants to take away freedom to maintain old fashioned values and the left wants to take away freedom to engineer their idea of utopia.

I only realised that the political spectrum had more than one dimension a couple of years ago when my friends got hold of Penn and Teller's Bullshit on DVD from America. I only watched it to laugh at creationists and new-agers but I noticed their politics were often in line with my own values. When they mentioned that they were Libertarians it provoked me to do some reading and I discovered a politial position I could actually agree with. One built on the value of individual freedoms. It's not an exact match for my values in it's details but it's close. I agree absolutely with the foundation but disagree with some of the conclusions it reaches basend on that foundation.

Now to the point. I often kill time reading discussions on websites like Fark.com. Libertarianism is frequently mentioned and as someone who has recently defined himself as largely libertarian I take an interest. What i've found is that liberatianism is almost universally ridiculed and dismissed. Those who have liberal views with argue with conservatives and vice versa but when a libertarian idea is mentioned it's not even argued with. They just label it as libertarian, laugh at those silly libertarians and move on.

As I meantioned earlier Libertarianism isn't well known where I live so maybe there's something in American culture that I'm missing here (most of the posters are American) Why is it that a political position that seems so right to me is not given the respect of the standard liberal or conservative postions?

Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!


cam
Posts: 77
Joined: 2007-11-19
User is offlineOffline
The Liberty & Democracy Party

Hello from another Aussie!

I would say most people in Australia are a-political, or perhaps mainstream-reactionary is a better description? Swinging voters? Judging from the support of Pauline Hanson a few years back, we have lots of racists here.

I would consider myself libertarian but more of a left wing libertarian, aka libertarian socialist, or just plain anarchist. I really prefer to emphasise the liberty part more than any economic system preference.

Sometimes the libertarianism of the USA is called "big L" Libertarianism, kinda like you have "big C" Communists (people who subscribe to a statist version of communism). Libertarianism is 'right wing', that is, it prefers capitalism as an economic form.

Yes, this perspective isn't talked about much in the Australia context, but there was a political party that had candidates in a number of electorates last federal election. They are called the The Liberty & Democracy Party.

http://www.ldp.org.au/

 

 


cam
Posts: 77
Joined: 2007-11-19
User is offlineOffline
to answer your question. I

to answer your question. I think people of any sort of non-mainstream politics are ridiculed because they don't get a fair chance in the mainstream media, and hence our TV derived culture simply mimicks what they hear.

Anarchists are always associated with warlordists and rioters, government and its power institutions are always glorified. Look at all the cop shows on TV. 

 


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
This link sums it up well,

This link sums it up well, though, as it mentioned, there are variations on the term itself. 

http://www.zompist.com/libertos.html


ParanoidAgnostic
ParanoidAgnostic's picture
Posts: 402
Joined: 2007-05-20
User is offlineOffline
Thanks Cam. I wasn't aware

Thanks Cam. I wasn't aware of that party. I'll make sure to look for them when the next election comes around. I don't recall seeing them on the voting form though.

I like the sound of most of their principles. Especially the personal responsibility part. That's something too often forgotten nowdays.

The biggest thing that makes me uncomfortable about libertatianism is the worship of big business. I think businesses can look after themselves, individuals (consumers and employees) should have some protection from companies, which in many cases are becoming more powerful than governments.

I also believe in certain limited collectivism. I believe that the government should provide good quality health-care, education and public transport for everyone. They shouldn't necesarily run it but they should fund it. I also believe in finacial support for those economically disadvantaged. This is not out of some communist ideal but because I believe that these are important for individual freedom. Without them what an individual can achieve in life is far too limited by the circumstances of their birth. Also there's certain things that are for the benefit of all that should be publicly funded rather than being a profit-making venture. Roads and defence being the best examples I can think of.

I guess I'm mostly libertarian (maybe individualist) on social issues but I accept a little collectivism for ecconomic ones. Although I still believe that capitalism is the best system as it allows individual choice.

Fundamentally though I judge a law based on whether it protects or inhibits individual freedom. If it protects then it's a good law, if it inhibits (without protecting greater freedoms) then it's a bad one. If it does neither it's useless and should be gotten rid of before it's abused to take away freedoms.

 

I'm not sure that the support for Pauline Hanson was entirely based on racism. I got the feeling it was frustration at the pandering to minorities. She said things that other politicians were afraid to say because they were political suecide. Her motivation may have been racist but she opened the discussion on a lot of issues that were taboo (mostly from fear of being labelled racist).

She made some points that I agreed with, although I would have never voted for her since she was clearly stark raving mad. 

Personally I don't like distinctions being made based on race (or gender or sexuality) and I especially don't like them being incorporated in law or in government departments. I believe an individual should be judged on their own merits, and if they are given assistance it should be given based on their need. Not based on broad generalisations of race. Pauline Hanson argued against the separate system of Aboriginal Welfare. To me this is a racist institution.

I also see certain dangers in multiculturalism as it is developing in Australia (and as it has developed in the UK). We have something good here in Australia. A society where people are generally tolerant of other cultures and we don't have too many reasons to blow eachother up. This is why so many people want to immigrate here, especially as refugees. As far as I'm concerned they are welcome here. However increasingly I'm seeing too much intolerance being brought over as baggage from their homelands. This has the potential to turn our country into exactly what they are escaping from. I don't expect assimilation, they have every right to bring their culture with them, I'm just concerned about how many I see not reciprocating the tolerance which was the reason they came here in the first place.

Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!


ParanoidAgnostic
ParanoidAgnostic's picture
Posts: 402
Joined: 2007-05-20
User is offlineOffline
cam wrote: to answer your

cam wrote:

to answer your question. I think people of any sort of non-mainstream politics are ridiculed because they don't get a fair chance in the mainstream media, and hence our TV derived culture simply mimicks what they hear.

 

Sometimes I get the impression that people like an easily defined oponent that includes everything they hate. Libertarianism is tricky because in some forms it takes equally from both camps. They don't want to complicate their "us and them" world view by accepting the existence of a third party.

I was arguing in a global warming thread that while I do think it is occuring I don't think it's the apocalypse like some keep insisting it is. I also don't agree that the solution should involve creating beurocracy (carbon trading), placing our economy at a disadvantage or giving up the use of personal property.

Because I wasn't on the side of the environmentalists they immediately declared me a creationist. The logic being that I didn't agree with the left-wing take on climate change therefore I must be right-wing, anti-science and religious. If I was against them in this I must be against them in everything.

Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!


ParanoidAgnostic
ParanoidAgnostic's picture
Posts: 402
Joined: 2007-05-20
User is offlineOffline
magilum wrote: This link

magilum wrote:

This link sums it up well, though, as it mentioned, there are variations on the term itself. 

http://www.zompist.com/libertos.html

 

It seems to be arguing against anarchistic capitalism. I guess that's what some forms of libertarianism would be when taken to the extreme but you don't argue against left-wing politicians by pointing out the flaws in communism.

Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
ParanoidAgnostic

ParanoidAgnostic wrote:
magilum wrote:

This link sums it up well, though, as it mentioned, there are variations on the term itself. 

http://www.zompist.com/libertos.html

 

It seems to be arguing against anarchistic capitalism. I guess that's what some forms of libertarianism would be when taken to the extreme but you don't argue against left-wing politicians by pointing out the flaws in communism.

I've heard enough rhetoric not to dismiss it as a straw-man (no matter how absurd), but I'll again leave a margin for different cultural interpretations of the term.


cam
Posts: 77
Joined: 2007-11-19
User is offlineOffline
ParanoidAgnostic

ParanoidAgnostic wrote:
cam wrote:

to answer your question. I think people of any sort of non-mainstream politics are ridiculed because they don't get a fair chance in the mainstream media, and hence our TV derived culture simply mimicks what they hear.

 

Sometimes I get the impression that people like an easily defined oponent that includes everything they hate. Libertarianism is tricky because in some forms it takes equally from both camps. They don't want to complicate their "us and them" world view by accepting the existence of a third party.

I was arguing in a global warming thread that while I do think it is occuring I don't think it's the apocalypse like some keep insisting it is. I also don't agree that the solution should involve creating beurocracy (carbon trading), placing our economy at a disadvantage or giving up the use of personal property.

Because I wasn't on the side of the environmentalists they immediately declared me a creationist. The logic being that I didn't agree with the left-wing take on climate change therefore I must be right-wing, anti-science and religious. If I was against them in this I must be against them in everything.

Yes that is annoying. Groupthink politics. People are type cast into their view of what is left and right. It's like when you get a leftist that defines racism as right wing, when in fact racism is found on both the left and right.

 

 


Zenrage
Zenrage's picture
Posts: 32
Joined: 2008-01-07
User is offlineOffline
ParanoidAgnostic

ParanoidAgnostic wrote:
magilum wrote:

This link sums it up well, though, as it mentioned, there are variations on the term itself.

http://www.zompist.com/libertos.html

 

It seems to be arguing against anarchistic capitalism. I guess that's what some forms of libertarianism would be when taken to the extreme but you don't argue against left-wing politicians by pointing out the flaws in communism.

That's because Libertarianism is as socially naive as Communism is economically naive. Libertarianism looks very good when you read cherry picked arguments, but in practice - that's a whole different ball game. 

Lets take a few quotes straight from www.lp.org, shall we?

Quote:
The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power.

Oh really? How would a black homosexual be able to express himself in a "free" society without a government agency, paid for by federal taxes, to protect his rights fromt hose that would ignore his rights and beat him up anyway? Think my argument is only a case of extremism? Fine. Here's another quote from their site:

 

Quote:
No conflict exists between civil order and individual rights. Both concepts are based on the same fundamental principle: that no individual, group, or government may initiate force against any other individual, group, or government.

How does a government body intend to enforce laws protecting rights if they can not initiate force upon the offenders? How can any governing body be financed so they can protect the rights of those around them without mandating taxes upon its people?  

In the absence of rationality, freedom is not free. Libertarianism naively pretends the only thing that is keeping 100% of the people from acting rational is government control. The guiding principle of Libertarianism confuses freedom within society with freedom from society.

 

Quote:
Solutions:   Libertarian policies will promote a society where people are free to make and learn from their own decisions.

Transitional Action:  Repeal all laws that presume government knows better than the individual how to run that person’s life.

Of course, no examples were given of which laws would be repealed in this act. So let's take a look at traffic laws. These laws presume that the government enforced regulations of driving safely will make people's lives better by following them. So lets follow the Libertarian model and take out all traffic lights, all road signs and all the street markings and see just how safe everyone is on the road. After all, how can people learn from their actions regarding these irresponsible behaviors unless they make some minor mistakes.  

Do we have any volunteers to be victims while people learn on their own to be more responsible drivers? Anyone?

 

Quote:
The Issue:   We oppose any abridgment of the freedom of speech through government censorship, regulation or control of communications media, including, but not limited to, laws concerning:

c) Electronic bulletin boards, communications networks, and other interactive electronic media as we hold them to be the functional equivalent of speaking halls and printing presses in the age of electronic communications, and as such deserving of full freedom;

No more moderators. Sorry magilum. You're out of a job.

Again, Libertarians pretend that freedom within society is the same thing as freedom from society.

 

Quote:
We oppose government ownership or subsidy of, or funding for, any communications organization. Removal of all of these regulations and practices throughout the communications media would open the way to diversity and innovation.

Yeah, because, y'know corporate monopolies love giving consumers a choice.  

 

Quote:
I.3 Freedom of Religion

Solution:  In order to defend freedom, we advocate a strict separation of church and State. We oppose government actions that either aid or attack any religion. We oppose taxation of church property for the same reason that we oppose all taxation.

 Again, suggesting freedoms can be had by all just as long as no one has to pay taxes to fund their enforcement. 

Quote:
I.5 The Right to Privacy

Solutions:  We support the protections provided by the Fourth Amendment and oppose any government use of search warrants to examine or seize materials belonging to innocent third parties.

And since all suspects are innocent until proven guilty, that pretty much means no search warrants can be obtained for anyone.

Quote:
I.6 The Right to Keep and Bear Arms

We also oppose the banning of inexpensive handguns ("Saturday night specials&quotEye-wink and semi-automatic or so-called assault weapons and their magazines or feeding devices

Because the Wild West was historically known for its peace and prosperity and there's no such thing as escalation in the criminal mind.  

Libertarianism: The Eternal John Wayne movie.

Quote:
I.8 Reproductive Rights

Solutions: We oppose government actions that either compel or prohibit abortion, sterilization or any other form of birth control.

Because teaching kids about STDs in school is a bad thing and they should be allowed to go out and get infected without proper warning first.

 

Quote:
Solutions: Culture wars, social friction and prejudice will fade when marriage and other personal relationships are treated as private contracts, solely defined by the individuals involved, and government discrimination is not allowed.

For success rates of how well prejudice dissolves through the involvement of private organizations, see the Family Research Institute, the American Family Association and the Klu Klux Klan.  

 I could do this all day and night and I haven't even gotten into their second section regarding economics where their solution for getting rid of corporate monopolies that create unfair competitive playing fields is to get rid of the Anti-Trust laws. Or my personal favorite where their environmental regulations suggest that private ownership of endangered species will promote their survival. I mean just because bats only live an average of one year in captivity doesn't mean we shouldn't try to keep them as pets. Or better yet, why waste time worrying about your neighbor's pit bull when you can buy an endangered wolf and be twice the menace any pit bull owner could ever be.  

 

 

 


ParanoidAgnostic
ParanoidAgnostic's picture
Posts: 402
Joined: 2007-05-20
User is offlineOffline
Zenrage wrote: That's

Zenrage wrote:

That's because Libertarianism is as socially naive as Communism is economically naive. Libertarianism looks very good when you read cherry picked arguments, but in practice - that's a whole different ball game. 

Any ideal taken to it's extreeme is generally unrealistic. Much of what you go on to argue with is anarchism, which is what some forms of libertarianism become when taken to the extreeme, but not what all libertarian's want. In fact you seem to have selectively read the quotes you respond to.

Quote:

Quote:
The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power.

Oh really? How would a black homosexual be able to express himself in a "free" society without a government agency, paid for by federal taxes, to protect his rights fromt hose that would ignore his rights and beat him up anyway? Think my argument is only a case of extremism? Fine. Here's another quote from their site:

 Most libertarians would see the only valid role of the government to be the protection of the freedoms of the individual. The rule is generally that your freedoms end where they infringe on the freedoms of others. The black homosexual would be free to express himself and those what disagree with his expression would be free to express that. The moment they try to interfere with his ability to express his freedom the government may step in and take action.

Quote:

 

Quote:
No conflict exists between civil order and individual rights. Both concepts are based on the same fundamental principle: that no individual, group, or government may initiate force against any other individual, group, or government.

How does a government body intend to enforce laws protecting rights if they can not initiate force upon the offenders? How can any governing body be financed so they can protect the rights of those around them without mandating taxes upon its people?  

 once someone is an offender they themselves have initiated force. There's no problem with the government responding to that force with force.

Quote:

 

Quote:
Solutions:   Libertarian policies will promote a society where people are free to make and learn from their own decisions.

Transitional Action:  Repeal all laws that presume government knows better than the individual how to run that person’s life.

Of course, no examples were given of which laws would be repealed in this act. So let's take a look at traffic laws. These laws presume that the government enforced regulations of driving safely will make people's lives better by following them. So lets follow the Libertarian model and take out all traffic lights, all road signs and all the street markings and see just how safe everyone is on the road. After all, how can people learn from their actions regarding these irresponsible behaviors unless they make some minor mistakes.  

 It's very simple. Any law that does not protect the freedoms of individuals have no right to be laws. This means that for example, laws agains gay marriage are totally out of the question as they protect nothing. Laws agains assult are allowed because they protect the individual.

Quote:

 

Quote:
The Issue:   We oppose any abridgment of the freedom of speech through government censorship, regulation or control of communications media, including, but not limited to, laws concerning:

c) Electronic bulletin boards, communications networks, and other interactive electronic media as we hold them to be the functional equivalent of speaking halls and printing presses in the age of electronic communications, and as such deserving of full freedom;

No more moderators. Sorry magilum. You're out of a job.

 There's a difference between government censorship and censorship by the owner of a venue. Please note the words "government censorship" in the quote.

Quote:

 

Quote:
We oppose government ownership or subsidy of, or funding for, any communications organization. Removal of all of these regulations and practices throughout the communications media would open the way to diversity and innovation.

Yeah, because, y'know corporate monopolies love giving consumers a choice.  

 Okay I agree here partially. This is the only place I really dissagree with libertarianism. Companies with too much power will take away the freedom of employees and consumers.

Quote:

 

Quote:
reedom of Religion

Solution:  In order to defend freedom, we advocate a strict separation of church and State. We oppose government actions that either aid or attack any religion. We oppose taxation of church property for the same reason that we oppose all taxation.

 Again, suggesting freedoms can be had by all just as long as no one has to pay taxes to fund their enforcement.

 

I think most libertarians accept taxation in moderation. 

 

Quote:

Quote:
I.5 The Right to Privacy

Solutions:  We support the protections provided by the Fourth Amendment and oppose any government use of search warrants to examine or seize materials belonging to innocent third parties.

And since all suspects are innocent until proven guilty, that pretty much means no search warrants can be obtained for anyone.

 Again, selective reading. "innocent third parties" This means you cannot be raided on the chance of finding evidence in a crime that you are not a suspect in. The accused is not a "third party".

Quote:

Quote:
I.6 The Right to Keep and Bear Arms

We also oppose the banning of inexpensive handguns ("Saturday night specials&quotEye-wink and semi-automatic or so-called assault weapons and their magazines or feeding devices

Because the Wild West was historically known for its peace and prosperity and there's no such thing as escalation in the criminal mind.  

Libertarianism: The Eternal John Wayne movie.

 Okay, you have me there. but I'm Aussie, we're not as much into guns as the US. On one level I understand the right to defend yourself but on the other I'd hate to deal with some of the testosterone pumped morons I meet daily if they were carrying weapons.

Quote:

Quote:
I.8 Reproductive Rights

Solutions: We oppose government actions that either compel or prohibit abortion, sterilization or any other form of birth control.

Because teaching kids about STDs in school is a bad thing and they should be allowed to go out and get infected without proper warning first.

 Where does that statement oppose education?

Quote:

 

Quote:
Solutions: Culture wars, social friction and prejudice will fade when marriage and other personal relationships are treated as private contracts, solely defined by the individuals involved, and government discrimination is not allowed.

For success rates of how well prejudice dissolves through the involvement of private organizations, see the Family Research Institute, the American Family Association and the Klu Klux Klan.  

You take a quote about marriage and respond with bigotted organisations. You're not even reading these are you?

Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2642
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
Quote: I think most

Quote:
I think most libertarians accept taxation in moderation.

I have always found this mode of thinking to be hilarious because it begs the question of 'Whose level of moderation?"

The privatization of municipal services such as police and firefighters is one avenue to analyze. Yellow#5 addressed this once by saying that a small fee for the upkeep of the services was necessary, but essentially the people using the services would have to pay the most. Call the cops = $5.95. Cops come out to the house = $56.99 per hour. Cops arrest you = $25.00 handcuff rental fee, $50.00 per day cell rent, etc. Meanwhile, the guy that owns the cops(literally) uses his money to make new laws and lobby for stricter punishments in the form of longer sentences.

Who polices the police in a 'free market'?

Poor people have a fire at the house next door to the rich guy and the firemen roll out the hose and wet down the rich guy's house to keep the flames away from it until the other house burns to the ground.

 

This is all speculation on my part. I'm not wholly convinced that MY thinking on the issue is exactly what COULD happen. However, I am skeptical of the idea that if given the opportunity Libertarianism isn't just an attempt at glittering generalities to appeal to the 'lowest common denominator' of criminals.

I once took one of those online quizzes to determine what mode of political thought gave me the best label. It scored me a 'centrist'. I changed the answer to one question concerning marijuana use to 'test the test' and it called me a libertarian. I've never been more insulted in my life. lol.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


ParanoidAgnostic
ParanoidAgnostic's picture
Posts: 402
Joined: 2007-05-20
User is offlineOffline
darth_josh wrote: I have

darth_josh wrote:

I have always found this mode of thinking to be hilarious because it begs the question of 'Whose level of moderation?"

Unless you're an anarchist, communist or fascist this question must be asked in any political system on a huge number of subjects.

I  don't see how this is a flaw with libertarianism in particular.

Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!


triften
Silver Member
triften's picture
Posts: 591
Joined: 2007-01-01
User is offlineOffline
magilum wrote: This link

magilum wrote:

This link sums it up well, though, as it mentioned, there are variations on the term itself.

http://www.zompist.com/libertos.html

That guy seems to switch back and forth between discussing the Libertarian Party, then libertarians in general (with many Republican examples). It would be like someone saying, I don't know, evolution is false because abiogenesis is impossible.

Also, his claim that our country is an example of laissez-faire capitalism is ridiculous. We've got so many safeguards to make sure the rich get richer, it's pathetic. Ours is not an example of laissez-faire capitalism.

As has been said, it looks like he's arguing against anarchism.

-Triften 


Archeopteryx
Superfan
Archeopteryx's picture
Posts: 1037
Joined: 2007-09-09
User is offlineOffline
ParanoidAgnostic

ParanoidAgnostic wrote:

Okay, you have me there. but I'm Aussie, we're not as much into guns as the US. On one level I understand the right to defend yourself but on the other I'd hate to deal with some of the testosterone pumped morons I meet daily if they were carrying weapons.

 

I'm sure there is a difference in the amount of gun possession between our two countries, but from what I understand, this is also a stereotype of America. There are a lot of people here who possess guns for self protection, but I have a feeling that many non-Americans may have a caricatured perception of that fact.

Which isn't to accuse you of stereotyping, necessarily, but from what you said in the above quote, it sort of sounds like you're understanding of American gun possession doesn't exactly match up with mine.

But I'm probably just thinking about it too much. 

A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.


ParanoidAgnostic
ParanoidAgnostic's picture
Posts: 402
Joined: 2007-05-20
User is offlineOffline
Archeopteryx wrote:   I'm

Archeopteryx wrote:
 

I'm sure there is a difference in the amount of gun possession between our two countries, but from what I understand, this is also a stereotype of America. There are a lot of people here who possess guns for self protection, but I have a feeling that many non-Americans may have a caricatured perception of that fact.

I don't believe that every American carries a gun. I don't even believe that most Americans own a gun. I am however sure that there is a massive difference in the culture of America and Australia with regard to guns.

Here they are virtually non-existent. If you're not a farmer or maybe a sports-shooter you pretty much cannot own a gun. Even paintballing was boderline illegal until recently and now it's still tricky to get a permit to own a paintball gun.

A while back there was a mass shooting and in the knee-jerk reaction there were total bans on the ownership on certain types of guns. The only people who kicked up a fuss were sports shooters. 

Noone would even suggest that people should be allowed to carry guns around for self-defence. It's very rare that we hear about a crime involving a firearm.

 

I know that the media distorts things but it seems that guns are much more a part of the American consiousness.  

 

Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!


Zenrage
Zenrage's picture
Posts: 32
Joined: 2008-01-07
User is offlineOffline
ParanoidAgnostic

ParanoidAgnostic wrote:

Zenrage wrote:

That's because Libertarianism is as socially naive as Communism is economically naive. Libertarianism looks very good when you read cherry picked arguments, but in practice - that's a whole different ball game.

Any ideal taken to it's extreeme is generally unrealistic. Much of what you go on to argue with is anarchism, which is what some forms of libertarianism become when taken to the extreeme, but not what all libertarian's want. In fact you seem to have selectively read the quotes you respond to.

In other words, I shouldn't hate the whole thing simply because its not your god and I'm not taking things into proper context.

Never heard that before.

Quote:

Most libertarians would see the only valid role of the government to be the protection of the freedoms of the individual. The rule is generally that your freedoms end where they infringe on the freedoms of others. The black homosexual would be free to express himself and those what disagree with his expression would be free to express that. The moment they try to interfere with his ability to express his freedom the government may step in and take action.

 

This is directly from the libertarian party website. If they aren't "most" Libertarians, then who the hell is? The Libertarian method of orchestrating civility is to hand everything over to corporate entities and to end taxes. Sorry if I see that as being just slightly irresponsible.

 

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
No conflict exists between civil order and individual rights. Both concepts are based on the same fundamental principle: that no individual, group, or government may initiate force against any other individual, group, or government.

How does a government body intend to enforce laws protecting rights if they can not initiate force upon the offenders? How can any governing body be financed so they can protect the rights of those around them without mandating taxes upon its people?

once someone is an offender they themselves have initiated force. There's no problem with the government responding to that force with force.

Again, who do you intend to sacrifice to ensure proper social behavior?

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Solutions: Libertarian policies will promote a society where people are free to make and learn from their own decisions.

Transitional Action: Repeal all laws that presume government knows better than the individual how to run that person’s life.

Of course, no examples were given of which laws would be repealed in this act. So let's take a look at traffic laws. These laws presume that the government enforced regulations of driving safely will make people's lives better by following them. So lets follow the Libertarian model and take out all traffic lights, all road signs and all the street markings and see just how safe everyone is on the road. After all, how can people learn from their actions regarding these irresponsible behaviors unless they make some minor mistakes.

It's very simple. Any law that does not protect the freedoms of individuals have no right to be laws. This means that for example, laws agains gay marriage are totally out of the question as they protect nothing. Laws agains assult are allowed because they protect the individual.

Says the guy who believes that a person's freedoms only end when they encroach on another person's freedoms. So where the hell is your argument for traffic laws? Traffic laws don't protect anyone's freedoms. Traffic laws exist solely for the purpose of guiding human behavior because the government system believes itself to have a better idea of what people need than the people themselves. I mean as long as people have the freedom to go where they want and as fast as they want, the side of the road they drive on shouldn't matter. Should it?

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The Issue: We oppose any abridgment of the freedom of speech through government censorship, regulation or control of communications media, including, but not limited to, laws concerning:

c) Electronic bulletin boards, communications networks, and other interactive electronic media as we hold them to be the functional equivalent of speaking halls and printing presses in the age of electronic communications, and as such deserving of full freedom;

No more moderators. Sorry magilum. You're out of a job.

There's a difference between government censorship and censorship by the owner of a venue. Please note the words "government censorship" in the quote.

So its much better to have corporate censorship than it is to have government censorship because.. people can elect people to government positions..?

 

Quote:
I think most libertarians accept taxation in moderation.

Not my god. Not the mainstream god. Blah, blah, blah.

Oh, I'm sorry. Maybe I should just take your argument on faith?

Quote:
Again, selective reading. "innocent third parties" This means you cannot be raided on the chance of finding evidence in a crime that you are not a suspect in. The accused is not a "third party".

Granted, I was stretching.

Quote:
Okay, you have me there. but I'm Aussie, we're not as much into guns as the US. On one level I understand the right to defend yourself but on the other I'd hate to deal with some of the testosterone pumped morons I meet daily if they were carrying weapons.

I agree with the right to bear arms but people don't need semi-automatics, automatics, flame throwers or bazookas to defend themselves unless they intend to be squaring off against a turf war between the Crips and the Bloods in the middle of their living room.

Also, the 7-day waiting period to test for psychological problems is a very good idea.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I.8 Reproductive Rights

Solutions: We oppose government actions that either compel or prohibit abortion, sterilization or any other form of birth control.

Because teaching kids about STDs in school is a bad thing and they should be allowed to go out and get infected without proper warning first.

Where does that statement oppose education?

First of all, moderate taxation means a moderate board of education. Second, if people didn't complain that what was being taught in schools was against their religious freedom, the whole Creationism/Evolution thing would be a non-issue.

So lets not pretend that people with religious delusions wont make this into an issue which your system just wont be able to defend itself against.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Solutions: Culture wars, social friction and prejudice will fade when marriage and other personal relationships are treated as private contracts, solely defined by the individuals involved, and government discrimination is not allowed.

For success rates of how well prejudice dissolves through the involvement of private organizations, see the Family Research Institute, the American Family Association and the Klu Klux Klan.

You take a quote about marriage and respond with bigotted organisations.

Bigotted, private organizations which show exactly why prejudice will NOT fade when government is removed from the scene.

The question is, are you capable of comprehending these viewpoints?

The Libertarian philosophy does not make a distinction between freedom within society and freedom from society. Freedom without government controlled restrictions is social anarchy and the Libertarian philosophy, coming from their own political website, pretneds that all forms of authority are dictatorial by default.

Corporate influence without government controlled restraint is economic feudalism. The Libertarian philosophy can not distinguish between equal economic competition and corporate greed. Their position is to level the playign field by removing those antitrust laws which mandate the level playing field. 

 Libertarianism is an incredibly irresponsible social and economic philosophy with the singular belief that everything will be ok as long as their is nothing but unrestricted freedom for everyone. 


ParanoidAgnostic
ParanoidAgnostic's picture
Posts: 402
Joined: 2007-05-20
User is offlineOffline
Zenrage wrote: In other

Zenrage wrote:

In other words, I shouldn't hate the whole thing simply because its not your god and I'm not taking things into proper context.

Never heard that before.

Wow, just wow. You've taken missing the point and made it an art form. I would argue that your opposition to this idea is almost religious in nature.  you're coming across like a creationsist arguing against evolution. The very idea personally offends you and you will not even allow yourself to consider the possibility you may be wrong. to that end you will even go to the length of purposefully misinterpreting the other side's argument so that it's eaiser to convince yourself they are wrong. 

As I stated before I dissagree with libertarians on a couple of key points. I do however think that their guiding principle is sound. I just believe that the libertarian point of view deserves the same repespect as the traditional left and right. It is not my God I'm defending here. I'm really defending open political discussion. At the moment I see debate being stifled because one point of view is only ridiculed, not rebutted as ideas should be. 

Quote:


This is directly from the libertarian party website. If they aren't "most" Libertarians, then who the hell is? The Libertarian method of orchestrating civility is to hand everything over to corporate entities and to end taxes. Sorry if I see that as being just slightly irresponsible.

Firstly 'libertarian party' and 'libertarianism' are two different things. Does the Democratic party represent only democracy? Why have a Rebublican party if you're already a republic? I've been told many times by history buffs and arm-chair communists that the Communist party is no repesentation of 'true' communism. Just because a group takes a word as their lablel does not mean the define that word.

Secondly, If the wanted anarchy they would call themselves anarchists and their page would be much shorter. The fact that have ruls for the government to abide by means the accept that there will be a goverment? If they envisioned a nation without a government you would only see the word government if it was in close proximity to dismantle. 

Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!


Archeopteryx
Superfan
Archeopteryx's picture
Posts: 1037
Joined: 2007-09-09
User is offlineOffline
ParanoidAgnostic

ParanoidAgnostic wrote:
Archeopteryx wrote:

I'm sure there is a difference in the amount of gun possession between our two countries, but from what I understand, this is also a stereotype of America. There are a lot of people here who possess guns for self protection, but I have a feeling that many non-Americans may have a caricatured perception of that fact.

I don't believe that every American carries a gun. I don't even believe that most Americans own a gun. I am however sure that there is a massive difference in the culture of America and Australia with regard to guns.

Here they are virtually non-existent. If you're not a farmer or maybe a sports-shooter you pretty much cannot own a gun. Even paintballing was boderline illegal until recently and now it's still tricky to get a permit to own a paintball gun.

A while back there was a mass shooting and in the knee-jerk reaction there were total bans on the ownership on certain types of guns. The only people who kicked up a fuss were sports shooters.

Noone would even suggest that people should be allowed to carry guns around for self-defence. It's very rare that we hear about a crime involving a firearm.

 

I know that the media distorts things but it seems that guns are much more a part of the American consiousness.

 

No arguments here. Thanks for elaborating. 

A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.


ParanoidAgnostic
ParanoidAgnostic's picture
Posts: 402
Joined: 2007-05-20
User is offlineOffline
Zenrage wrote:

Zenrage wrote:

Again, who do you intend to sacrifice to ensure proper social behavior?

You 'sacrifice' those who do not live up to their end of the bargain. People are responsible for their actions. If they take action that harms themselves it's none of the government's business. If they take action that harms anoher then they have initiated force and can be responded to with force in order to protect the freedoms of those not infringing on the freedoms of others.

Quote:

Says the guy who believes that a person's freedoms only end when they encroach on another person's freedoms. So where the hell is your argument for traffic laws? Traffic laws don't protect anyone's freedoms. Traffic laws exist solely for the purpose of guiding human behavior because the government system believes itself to have a better idea of what people need than the people themselves. I mean as long as people have the freedom to go where they want and as fast as they want, the side of the road they drive on shouldn't matter. Should it?

This is open to debate. I would argue that if you drive in a way that endagers others then you are infringing on their rights and therefore certain laws that limit the way you may drive are valid under the principles of libertarianism. Laws that would force you to wear a seatbelt however are not since the only person who can be harmed by you not wearing a seatbelt is yourself.

Quote:

So its much better to have corporate censorship than it is to have government censorship because.. people can elect people to government positions..?

The difference is that you can choose to accept orreject the censorship when it is imposed by a company. If you don't like the censorship rules on a privately owned message board then don't use it. Find one that is non-censored or start your own. With companies you can always choose to take your business elsewhere. People have the right to decide how what they own is used and others have a right to choose not to use it.

Quote:

Not my god. Not the mainstream god. Blah, blah, blah.

Oh, I'm sorry. Maybe I should just take your argument on faith?

Again, ridicule rather than rebuttal.

Quote:

First of all, moderate taxation means a moderate board of education. Second, if people didn't complain that what was being taught in schools was against their religious freedom, the whole Creationism/Evolution thing would be a non-issue.

It's their right to remain ignorant. However it is not their right to impose ignorance on others. Again it comes down to not infringing on the rights of others.

Teaching "God did it" in science is not religious freedom. It's not a religous class. Religion has no place in it. Under libertarianism religious freedom isn't an issue. So long as your faith is expressed in ways that do not get in the way of other's living theri lives you can practice it however you like. This is the core of libertarianism: It's none of the government's business.

 

Quote:

Bigotted, private organizations which show exactly why prejudice will NOT fade when government is removed from the scene.

I didn't know the goverment had been removed from the scene when those organisations formed? That's not the point anyway.

The quote is about personal relationships and accepting that other people's private lives can't hurt you. Much of this biggotry comes form the delusion that it is out role to moralise about other people's personal relationships and while the government does it too it's rather difficult to convince those people otherwise.

 

Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!


Zenrage
Zenrage's picture
Posts: 32
Joined: 2008-01-07
User is offlineOffline
Quote:

Quote:
The very idea personally offends you and you will not even allow yourself to consider the possibility you may be wrong. to that end you will even go to the length of purposefully misinterpreting the other side's argument so that it's eaiser to convince yourself they are wrong.

I'm not the one claiming "its guiding principles are sound" and then accepting all the irresponsibilities along with the underlying ethical rationalities and pretending everything will be ok. There's a significant difference between acknowledging corruption and not doing a damn thing to stop it. Libertarianism has no means of stopping political corruption, they just pretend that if they eliminate taxes and give the people unrestricted freedoms, that everything will be ok. That's a very dangerous and irresponsible assumption.

As for ridicule vs rebuttal, when you come up with something worth intellectual rebuttal, I'll stop the ridicule. In the meantime "That's not what real Libertarians believe" doesn't cut it as anything more than the theistic "That's not what my god tells me" non-argument. Every time you use that pathetic, non-intelectual argument as your rebuttal, I'm going to have absolutley no problem comparing it to any theist using "My god doesn't believe in that".

Quote:
Secondly, If the wanted anarchy they would call themselves anarchists and their page would be much shorter.

If you honestly believe people in America will do that then by all means, explain what the hell is so patriotic about the Patriot Act?

Whether they want anarchy or not is irrelevent. That's where Libertarians are heading. Giving people absolute freedom and removing taxes is social anarchy, pure and simple. You can sit there and whine on and on about "they have freedoms as long as they don't interfere with the freedoms of others" all you want, but as long as you don't have a socialist foundation, or the taxes to support it, YOU WONT HAVE THE POWER OR THE RESOURCES TO STOP THEM FROM INFRINGING ON THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS!!! 

There is nothing in ANY libertarian philosophy to suggest otherwise. So any limits you suggest that the libertarians have on paper will only look good on paper until you show some form of support to allow it to funtion in practical application. So until you do show up with something valid, I have no reason to believe that any part of your crackpot philosophy will actually work or that it deserves any more respect than any other bad idea deserves.

 


Kimmerling
Posts: 3
Joined: 2008-01-19
User is offlineOffline
Libertarianism, like

Libertarianism, like anarchy, if put into practice would only manage to be a brief transitory state. It would lead to corporate rule. I don't mean corporate rule like we complain about now, I mean barcodes that identify us by the corporation that owns us, slavery, debter's prisons. That said, I consider myself an anarchist.


DanielC
Posts: 11
Joined: 2008-01-20
User is offlineOffline
Hm, from what I know

Hm, from what I know Libertarianism is for the legalization of all drugs.  I don't think thats all bad accept for some of the really nasty ones, like heroin or crack cocaine.  Some kid gets hooked and never gets out of it.  Other than that I'm pretty cool with the idea.  Though I don't believe in democracy or republics.  I'm pretty heart-set on a representative meritocracy rather than a psuedo-democratic nepotistic popularity contest.  I'll probably get flamed for this post.  Oh well, I used big words and feel good about myself.

Atheists agree: Adults should not have imaginary friends.


Family_Guy
Family_Guy's picture
Posts: 110
Joined: 2007-02-08
User is offlineOffline
Why don't any of you ask

Why don't any of you ask the totalitarian of the group what libertarianism is?

 Libertarianism, at its core, is a immature and naive form of 'governing' where people think that if you let the average person make all the choices about what should go on in their lives and let the free market determine prices, that everyone will be hunky dory and that prices will necessarily decline.

However, what it turns out to be is a clusterfuck.  Who maintains the roads in a libertarian state?  Well, that would be whoever is paid the least and wins the bid to maintain the roads.  Well, who does it while the bidding process is happening?  No one.  Therefore, you end up with one of two scenarios - either you didn't take in enough bids and didn't get the lowest price, or your roads have degraded immensely in the meantime while you've been trying to save your pennies.

Don't even get me started on the sewer system, education, health care, emergency personnel services, et al.  Privatization doesn't work - it just makes the rich richer.

What the state needs to do is to take over the lives of most people and charge excessive taxes.  Based on how people order in their local drive thru (and the people working in said drive thru) and their silly belief in an invisible parent in the sky, can you actually sit there with a straight face and tell me that the average person is capable of selecting the best course to take in a libertarian world?

You might not like it, but most people are too stupid to live.  And they're certainly too stupid to not get fleeced in a libertarian world. 

"Like Fingerpainting 101, gimme no credit for having class; one thumb on the pulse of the nation, one thumb in your girlfriend's ass; written on, written off, some calling me a joke, I don't think that I'm a sellout but I do enjoy Coke."

-BHG


triften
Silver Member
triften's picture
Posts: 591
Joined: 2007-01-01
User is offlineOffline
Family_Guy wrote: What the

Family_Guy wrote:

What the state needs to do is to take over the lives of most people and charge excessive taxes. Based on how people order in their local drive thru (and the people working in said drive thru) and their silly belief in an invisible parent in the sky, can you actually sit there with a straight face and tell me that the average person is capable of selecting the best course to take in a libertarian world?

You might not like it, but most people are too stupid to live. And they're certainly too stupid to not get fleeced in a libertarian world.

Most people? Are you including yourself there? If you are going to take such a stance you shouldn't assume that you will be magically excluded from being protected from yourself.

Who decides what is the right behavior? We certainly can't vote on who makes those decisions since so many people are stupid. Then, once we start controlling their behaviors, they can stop thinking and become dumber because someone else is making decisions for them. Then they'll need more supervision because they are distinctly dumber than the last batch of idiots. Totalitarian control is not a solution.

Personally, I'd rather err towards naively optimistic than hopelessly cynical. 

-Triften 


Adnihilo
Adnihilo's picture
Posts: 72
Joined: 2006-09-07
User is offlineOffline
Why? Because they're Right Wing Anarcho-Hucksters...

Why are libertarians generally ridiculed?

You've a fellow Aussie right winged social darwinist [racist] Neo-Libertarian huckster here that should give you a clue! Be mindful I'm not accusing you my friend of being a 'fellow' Aussie Libertarian of the same ilk..

John Ray is another Randian style right wing Capitalist 'NeoLibertarian' spewing a half ass backwards view of liberalism or 'left libertarians' by wrongly claiming them to be 'Fascists'. This John Ray Right winged Aussie Libertarian character is another buffonish author like this Zionist with a right wing political agenda seen on the Daily Show a few nights back. Liberal Fascism is written by right wing 'Zionist' author, Goldberg who is nothing other than a "loyal foot soldier in the Republican Noise Machine."

Fascism by its very definition is opposed to liberalism and as John Stewart identified in that right wing joker's title last night, liberal fascism is an oxymoron. Fascism is even defined as "right wing authoritarian" in American Heritage Dictionary. Fascism is defined as a system of government exercising authoritarianism by the extreme right, typically through merging state & business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism.

Another reason Libertarians are ridiculed is because of False Libertarian Gods like Ron Paul offering false hope to alleged libertarians here in the US when the 'committed' evangelical isn't even a NeoLibertarian [Capitalist Randian style right liberatarian] according to his voting record and public statements.

Self proclaimed NeoLibertarian [learn to differentiate between the 2 - the NeoLibertarian and the original Liberal or Left Libertarian also known as 'anarchist'] Ron Paul's public statements, manifestos, interviews and, most importantly voting records, all taken into consideration in a political orientation indicator, [similar to a personality type indicator in form and function] show his political orientation or ideology residing fully in the Right Wing Authoritarian [RWA] quadrant populated by other well known RWA Fascists like Hitler and Bush. You'll also see there that Kucinich and Gravel are the sole candidates residing fully in the left libertarian quandrant because they're genuine liberals or progressives unlike moderate conservatives such as Hillary and Obama..

Here in the US at least, we've got the looney toon anarcho-huckster Christian version of whacky right winged NeoLibertarians like Ron Paul just mentioned and Kevin Craig here who just can't get elected to Congress because, well he's even too crazy for the psychotic Christians we got in this country!

That should give you some idea why NeoLibertarians at least are ridiculed in America. Liberal or left Libertarians like Kucinich and Gravel of course don't have a chance with America having moved so far to the right that even its so called liberals are putting False Hope in False Fascist Gods like Ron Paul...

At least there in Australia, it does look like you've got a genuine NeoLibertarian party in the Democrats and Greens for Left Leaning Libertarians.. [Noting like our two party RIGHT wing authoritarian system here that you too have mostly all right wing authoritarian political parties..]

If there was a God, Man wouldn't have had to invent him [reversing Voltaire's famous quote].


ParanoidAgnostic
ParanoidAgnostic's picture
Posts: 402
Joined: 2007-05-20
User is offlineOffline
Adnihilo wrote: At least

Adnihilo wrote:

At least there in Australia, it does look like you've got a genuine NeoLibertarian party in the Democrats and Greens for Left Leaning Libertarians.. [Noting like our two party RIGHT wing authoritarian system here that you too have mostly all right wing authoritarian political parties..]

The left can be just as authoritarian as the right. They have different motivations and justifications but in the end they just want to make everyone live by their rules.

I'll accept the Democrats (although they don't actually appear to have policies, they just complain about everyone else's) but the greens want to control people's lives in the name of the environment and various social causes. They are not any type of libertarian.

Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!


mrjonno
Posts: 726
Joined: 2007-02-26
User is offlineOffline
The only 'freedoms' an

The only 'freedoms' an individual has are the ones society deems you should have. In a decent society these freedoms are broad but not unlimited.

Also without a functioning and tax collector government there is no private property at all.

Why do you own your house, is it because you worked hard for it, actually no its your house because we have a legal system that recognises it.

 

Taxation the price of civilization

 

 


ParanoidAgnostic
ParanoidAgnostic's picture
Posts: 402
Joined: 2007-05-20
User is offlineOffline
mrjonno wrote: The only

mrjonno wrote:

The only 'freedoms' an individual has are the ones society deems you should have. In a decent society these freedoms are broad but not unlimited.

Also without a functioning and tax collector government there is no private property at all.

Why do you own your house, is it because you worked hard for it, actually no its your house because we have a legal system that recognises it.

 

Taxation the price of civilization

 

 

 

I'm all for society so long as society exists for the individuals that live in it and not the other way around. When a society grows too collectivist the individuals exist only to serve the society.

Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!


qbg
Posts: 298
Joined: 2006-11-22
User is offlineOffline
Kimmerling

Kimmerling wrote:

Libertarianism, like anarchy, if put into practice would only manage to be a brief transitory state. It would lead to corporate rule.

That reminds me of a quotation from Noam Chomsky:

"Anarcho-captialism is, in my opinion, a doctrinal system which, if ever implemented, would lead to forms of tyranny and oppression that have few counterparts in human history.  There isn't the slightest possibility that its (in my view, horrendous) ideas would be implemented, because they would quickly destroy any society that made this colossal error.  The idea of "free contract" between the potentate and his starving subject is a sick joke, perhaps worth some moments in an academic seminar exploring the consequence of (in my view, absurd) ideas, but nowhere else."

"What right have you to condemn a murderer if you assume him necessary to "God's plan"? What logic can command the return of stolen property, or the branding of a thief, if the Almighty decreed it?"
-- The Economic Tendency of Freethought


ParanoidAgnostic
ParanoidAgnostic's picture
Posts: 402
Joined: 2007-05-20
User is offlineOffline
qbg wrote: That reminds me

qbg wrote:

That reminds me of a quotation from Noam Chomsky:

"Anarcho-captialism is, in my opinion, a doctrinal system which, if ever implemented, would lead to forms of tyranny and oppression that have few counterparts in human history.  There isn't the slightest possibility that its (in my view, horrendous) ideas would be implemented, because they would quickly destroy any society that made this colossal error.  The idea of "free contract" between the potentate and his starving subject is a sick joke, perhaps worth some moments in an academic seminar exploring the consequence of (in my view, absurd) ideas, but nowhere else."

Funny that the most opressive societies in the real world have been built on far left ideals

Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!


Adnihilo
Adnihilo's picture
Posts: 72
Joined: 2006-09-07
User is offlineOffline
ParanoidAgnostic

See Below

 


Adnihilo
Adnihilo's picture
Posts: 72
Joined: 2006-09-07
User is offlineOffline
Fascist vs Anarchist - Communist vs Anarcho-Huckster Capitalist

ParanoidAgnostic wrote:
Adnihilo wrote:

At least there in Australia, it does look like you've got a genuine NeoLibertarian party in the Democrats and Greens for Left Leaning Libertarians.. [Noting like our two party RIGHT wing authoritarian system here that you too have mostly all right wing authoritarian political parties..]

The left can be just as authoritarian as the right. They have different motivations and justifications but in the end they just want to make everyone live by their rules.

You need to comprehend the multi-dimensional world of political orientation or ideology that relates to both social and economic dimensions rather than comprehending it from your more simplistic left to right linear viewpoint. Yes, the left can be authoritarian as you can see here and they're called communists - who are the antithesis of the Anarcho-huckster found in right wing NeoLibertarians. By the same token, a left libertarian, or genuine liberal progressive [anarchist meaning against hierarchical power] will find the right wing Authoritarian the most disagreeable form of government. An-archy" means "without a ruler," or more generally, "without authority," and it is in this sense that anarchists have continually used the word.

An-archy" means "without a ruler," or more generally, "without authority," and it is in this sense that anarchists have continually used the word. Anarchists have been using the term "libertarian" to describe themselves and their ideas since the 1850's. "Libertarian" does not imply "free market" capitalism nor "socialism" state ownership. However, due to the creation of the Libertarian Party in the USA, many wrongly consider the idea of "libertarian socialism" to be a contradiction in terms when it is liberatarian capitalism that is the contradiction in terms. Hence the reason I refer to NeoLibertarians or US 'right wing Liberarians' as anarcho-hucksters..

ParanoidAgnostic wrote:
I'll accept the Democrats (although they don't actually appear to have policies, they just complain about everyone else's)

The Dems, at least in America don't appear to stand behind their own alleged left leaning social and economic dem policies and platform because as you can see all Dem candidates 'allowed' to lead the pack from a continuing demise in US democracy [election fraud] are actually [pro war] Right Wing Authoritarians according to their voting records and public statements. The only truly progressive Democratic candidates running for Prez in America have been forced out its fraudulent election system.

ParanoidAgnostic wrote:
but the greens want to control people's lives in the name of the environment and various social causes. They are not any type of libertarian.

Although that may be your perception, the reality for both the US and Aussie Green Party proves to be against the hiearchial power structures found in Gov't and particulary corporations that are generally refusing to help fend off the global environmental disaster facing humanity.

ParanoidAgnostic wrote:
Funny that the most opressive societies in the real world have been built on far left ideals

How on earth can you perceive France as well as other social democracies across Europe and in Canada as 'oppressive' ??? Universal Health Care is oppressive? Govenments empowered to protect labor against the greed of corporations, against wage slavery, against unjust termination and overall ill treatment is oppressive?

The most observable or 'empirical' evidence showing your statement to be a complete fallacy stems from how a citizenry objects to its govt - especially via protest. Here in the Police State of America our citizenry fears its gov't who rules them whereas in places like France the government fears the citizenry they serve.

qbg wrote:
Noam Chomsky quote:

"Anarcho-captialism is, in my opinion, a doctrinal system which, if ever implemented, would lead to forms of tyranny and oppression that have few counterparts in human history. There isn't the slightest possibility that its (in my view, horrendous) ideas would be implemented, because they would quickly destroy any society that made this colossal error. The idea of "free contract" between the potentate and his starving subject is a sick joke, perhaps worth some moments in an academic seminar exploring the consequence of (in my view, absurd) ideas, but nowhere else."

Understand [not you so much qbg] that what Chomsky speaks of here when he mentions 'Anarcho-capitalism' refers to right winged Neo-Libertarian 'anarcho hucksters' found in US or Australia, not left libertarians, the true 'anarchists' originating from Europe.

Find Reference to this in:

ANARCHO-CAPITALISM SUCKS! and What is Anarchism?

 For an excellent read on what libertarian socialism is refer to Chomsky here in Socialism, real and fake:

"One can debate the meaning of the term "socialism," but if it means anything, it means control of production by the workers themselves, not owners and managers who rule them and control all decisions, whether in capitalist enterprises or an absolutist state."

From What Uncle Sam Really Wants by Norm Chomsky

 

If there was a God, Man wouldn't have had to invent him [reversing Voltaire's famous quote].


ParanoidAgnostic
ParanoidAgnostic's picture
Posts: 402
Joined: 2007-05-20
User is offlineOffline
Adnihilo

Adnihilo wrote:
ParanoidAgnostic wrote:

The left can be just as authoritarian as the right. They have different motivations and justifications but in the end they just want to make everyone live by their rules.

You need to comprehend the multi-dimensional world of political orientation or ideology that relates to both social and economic dimensions rather than comprehending it from your more simplistic left to right linear viewpoint. Yes, the left can be authoritarian as you can see here and they're called communists - who are the antithesis of the Anarcho-huckster found in right wing NeoLibertarians. By the same token, a left libertarian, or genuine liberal progressive [anarchist meaning against hierarchical power] will find the right wing Authoritarian the most disagreeable form of government. An-archy" means "without a ruler," or more generally, "without authority," and it is in this sense that anarchists have continually used the word.

You need to read the posts you are responding to.

I said "The left can be just as authoritarian as the right." and you somehow took it to mean "The left and right are always very authoritarian." Clearly I know there is more to if than left and right. As covered earlier I don't see myself fitting anywhere along the traditional left-right continuum. 

My point, as you seem to agree with, is that the left is not all about freedom and the right does not have a monopoly on opression.

Quote:

ParanoidAgnostic wrote:
I'll accept the Democrats (although they don't actually appear to have policies, they just complain about everyone else's)

The Dems, at least in America don't appear to stand behind their own alleged left leaning social and economic dem policies and platform because as you can see all Dem candidates 'allowed' to lead the pack from a continuing demise in US democracy [election fraud] are actually [pro war] Right Wing Authoritarians according to their voting records and public statements. The only truly progressive Democratic candidates running for Prez in America have been forced out its fraudulent election system.

 That was in reply to a point about the Australian Democrats. The American Democrats are an entirely different matter.

Quote:

ParanoidAgnostic wrote:
but the greens want to control people's lives in the name of the environment and various social causes. They are not any type of libertarian.

Although that may be your perception, the reality for both the US and Aussie Green Party proves to be against the hiearchial power structures found in Gov't and particulary corporations that are generally refusing to help fend off the global environmental disaster facing humanity.

 Evidence against the Australian greens supporting personal freedom. From their web page: http://greens.org.au

These include support for current anti-freedom laws and the desire to create new ones. 

Principles:

Quote:

The Australian Greens do not support the legalisation of currently illegal drugs.

Goals:

Quote:

equal representation of women and men in public life. (forced equality, it should always be the best person for the job, not a quota system) 

family-friendly workplaces and public spaces. (A workplace is not a creche and the government should not be forcing employers to turn their offices into child-care centres)

increased representation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in all levels of, government and other decision making roles. (quotas again)

Measures:

Quote:

ban all advertising and all sponsorship of tobacco products.

establish an independent body to regulate alcohol advertising.

reduce the effects of passive smoking, by introducing a ban on smoking in defined public spaces.

prohibit advertising promotions for alcohol that encourage excessive drinking.

support criminal penalties for drug dealers.

introduce legislation to promote healthy choices, including a ban on junk food advertising on children’s television.

continue restrictions on pharmaceutical advertising, and restrict pharmaceutical promotions to health professionals, including undergraduates.

support education and other programs that seek to eliminate racism, promote belonging and encourage connection between people. (Not neccesarily anti-freedom but the way I've seen it implemented so far is indocrination sessions. People have a right to their opinions, they should not have political correctness forced on them)

initiate national anti-discrimination public education campaigns. (again, not bad in itself, but the implementations generally lead to 'there is only one right opinion&#39Eye-wink

facilitate the televising of top level women’s sport.  (If people were interested in watching women play sport then there would be a market for it, the government should ne be deciding what we watch)

 

Then there's the massive socialism implied in their plans. Like it or not money is a large part of our our society and being able to decide how you spend the money that you earn is fundamental to your freedom within this society. If the goverment is forcing you to spend a large portion of your income on their plans they are taking away your freedom. I accept that this is neccesary to some degree but the socialism promoted by the greens would take away far too significant proportion of my economic freedom.

 There is also the obvious fact that they are environmentalists and most 'solutions' pushed by today's environmentlaists take away personal freedom (like giving up private cars for public transport) There are some environmentalists that have more sane plans such as promoting cleaner and more efficient technologies but they aren't the loud ones at the moment.

Quote:

ParanoidAgnostic wrote:
Funny that the most opressive societies in the real world have been built on far left ideals

How on earth can you perceive France as well as other social democracies across Europe and in Canada as 'oppressive' ??? Universal Health Care is oppressive? Govenments empowered to protect labor against the greed of corporations, against wage slavery, against unjust termination and overall ill treatment is oppressive?

You've read my statement backward. I wrote "the most opressive societies in the real world have been built on far left ideals" and you somehow read "left wing ideals have always led to opression."

Do you see the subtle difference between these two statements?

1) The most opressive societies in the real world have been built on far left ideals.

Meaning: There are some societies and were some in the recent past that were more opressive than other societies of the same era. These societies were built on far-left ideals.

2) Left wing ideals have always led to opression.

Meaning: Every time a society has been built on left-wing ideals it has been opresive.

 

You see, the first statement (the one I actually made) does not say that it is certain or even likely that a society built on left-wing ideals will be opressive. However when a left wing society is oppressive it's far more opresive than opressive non-left societies.

I am, naturally, talking about communism. Which is the core of the left (socialism) taken to the extreeme. When we have seen it implemented on a large scale it has created the most oppressive societies of the modern world. Not even islammic theocracies can compare to the opression seen (and not seen due to censorship) in china.

I was responding to the quote that argued theoretically that libertarianism (at least one form of it) would inevetably lead to oppression. I just found it ridiculous when we've seen numerous oppressive societies built on both left and right ideologies in reality. We should be afraid of imagined consequences of an ideology over observed consequences of others?

Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!


qbg
Posts: 298
Joined: 2006-11-22
User is offlineOffline
ParanoidAgnostic

ParanoidAgnostic wrote:

Funny that the most opressive societies in the real world have been built on far left ideals

I would have to say that that is only close.

The most oppressive societies of recent (the "Communist" ones) were built on the idea of eventually achieving socialist/communist ideals.

The Soviet Union, for example, was socialist in name only. Lenin, etc. thought that because Russia was pre-capitalist, it would need to go through capitalism first.

"What right have you to condemn a murderer if you assume him necessary to "God's plan"? What logic can command the return of stolen property, or the branding of a thief, if the Almighty decreed it?"
-- The Economic Tendency of Freethought


Adnihilo
Adnihilo's picture
Posts: 72
Joined: 2006-09-07
User is offlineOffline
Paranoid Delusional Paronid Agnostic

ParanoidAgnostic wrote:
Adnihilo wrote:
ParanoidAgnostic wrote:

The left can be just as authoritarian as the right. They have different motivations and justifications but in the end they just want to make everyone live by their rules.

You need to comprehend the multi-dimensional world of political orientation or ideology that relates to both social and economic dimensions rather than comprehending it from your more simplistic left to right linear viewpoint. Yes, the left can be authoritarian as you can see here and they're called communists - who are the antithesis of the Anarcho-huckster found in right wing NeoLibertarians. By the same token, a left libertarian, or genuine liberal progressive [anarchist meaning against hierarchical power] will find the right wing Authoritarian the most disagreeable form of government. An-archy" means "without a ruler," or more generally, "without authority," and it is in this sense that anarchists have continually used the word.

You need to read the posts you are responding to.

I said "The left can be just as authoritarian as the right." and you somehow took it to mean "The left and right are always very authoritarian."

You need to comprehend my posts and stop putting words in my mouth ParanoidAgnostic No where do I infer, much less state "The left and right are always very authoritarian." Nor do I agree with what you even so wrongly claim I 'took' in your statement with "The left and right are always very authoritarian." Communism, as I did however state and point out above, is the authoritarian left while Fascism is the authoritarian right. The libertarian left and libertarian right however advocates the needs and rights of the individual over the gov't they empower.

ParanoidAgnostic wrote:
Clearly I know there is more to if than left and right. As covered earlier I don't see myself fitting anywhere along the traditional left-right continuum.

Clearly you STILL DO NOT comprehend what I pointed out in my originally response above ParanoidAgnostic or you'd be able express the differentiation between the opposite dimensions of Authoritarian Fascism versus Libertarian Anarchism and left Communism versus right NeoLibertarianism.

They are 4 political orientations, 2 left and 2 right, that exist regardless of how you personally don't see yourself "fitting anywhere along the traditional left-right continuum." You don't fit along the 'traditional left-right continuum' because that is an incomplete, simplistic model for political orientation YOU, like any right minded NeoLibertarian, or left progressive [original] Libertarian, does not fit into.

Your buying into Cold War propaganda pitting the west against the east that naively and wrongly divided the world into 'commie pinko evil atheists' against 'good Judeo-Christian capitalists'. Or at least that's what the propaganda in this country touted- especially back in the 50s era of McCartyism...

ParanoidAgnostic wrote:
My point, as you seem to agree with, is that the left is not all about freedom and the right does not have a monopoly on opression.

Here you indicate an awareness of this reality without being able to understand the reasons why based on the 4 dimensions of political ideology I delineate further up.

ParanoidAgnostic wrote:
Adnihilo wrote:
ParanoidAgnostic wrote:
I'll accept the Democrats (although they don't actually appear to have policies, they just complain about everyone else's)

Adnihilo wrote:
The Dems, at least in America don't appear to stand behind their own alleged left leaning social and economic dem policies and platform because as you can see all Dem candidates 'allowed' to lead the pack from a continuing demise in US democracy [election fraud] are actually [pro war] Right Wing Authoritarians according to their voting records and public statements. The only truly progressive Democratic candidates running for Prez in America have been forced out its fraudulent election system.

ParanoidAgnostic wrote:
That was in reply to a point about the Australian Democrats. The American Democrats are an entirely different matter.

It should be obvious to you that US Democrats are not an entirely different matter if you've read just some of the news in your own country about the US as I have. They're apparently very similar to Aussie Dem politicians for 'most' will agree the Dems here in America have little backbone and don't seem to support the policies they've 'run' on in platform. Fact is, all of the Top Tier candidates in US, Dems included, will continue the war, while the two that pledge to end it are pushed aside: Ike was right: Military-Industrial Complex, the war machine, now owns the media & openly push pro-war candidates

ParanoidAgnostic wrote:
Evidence against the Australian greens supporting personal freedom. From their web page: http://greens.org.au Then there's the massive socialism implied in their plans

Again your still showing you don't comprehend the the differentiation between Left Libertarian ideology or Anarchism and left Communism. It is Communism the right NeoLibertarian capitalist will find most offensive to their ideals.

Regardless of how much your perceptions may tell you the Aussie Green Party is a 'communist' leaning Party, their speeches, manifestos, voting records, and platform have been scrutinized to produce this chart putting them in the Left Libertarian quadrant, not the left Communist one.. Although the Aussie Green Party could be said to be 'towing the line' between left libertarianism and Communism. Since I can't personally validate your Aussie 'perceptions' on Aussie politics from being an American, I defer to the judgement from a team of political orientation professionals studying the political ideologies of western political parties for many years now over yours..

ParanoidAgnostic wrote:
Adnihilo wrote:
ParanoidAgnostic wrote:
Funny that the most opressive societies in the real world have been built on far left ideals

How on earth can you perceive France as well as other social democracies across Europe and in Canada as 'oppressive' ??? Universal Health Care is oppressive? Govenments empowered to protect labor against the greed of corporations, against wage slavery, against unjust termination and overall ill treatment is oppressive?

You've read my statement backward. I wrote "the most opressive societies in the real world have been built on far left ideals" and you somehow read "left wing ideals have always led to opression."

No I didn't read the statement backwards or 'read' it as "left wing ideals have always led to opression." I need to insist here and now that you stop putting words in my mouth as you've yet done again here ParanoidAgnostic! No where do I infer or state that you think "left wing ideals have always led to opression." Stop twisting what you think I say to suit your own fallacious arguments.

ParanoidAgnostic wrote:
Do you see the subtle difference between these two statements?

It's irrelevant PARANOID because I didn't make EITHER STATEMENT nor do I care about the delusions you are maintaining by making either of them that falsely claims 1 you made up was mine..

ParanoidAgnostic wrote:
Left wing ideals have always led to opression Meaning: Every time a society has been built on left-wing ideals it has been opresive.

That's utter Horseshit ParanoidAgnostic Do you really think the social democracies found in Norway, France, Sweden, Holland, Canada and many more are oppressive in contrast to the right wing authoritarian banana republic fraudulent democracy found here in the US? If so, you're blind, deaf and dumb about the world around you...

ParanoidAgnostic wrote:
You see, the first statement (the one I actually made)

Now it appears you're saying I've altered your statements when responding to your posts - when it's been you all along MAKING CRAP UP that wrongly restates' what you think I meant to write.

I submit you have answered your own question as to:

Why are libertarians generally ridiculed?

In my experience it's always been the Anacho-Huckster in the social darwinist, Capitalist NeoLibertarian like yourself Paranoid Delusion Paronid Agnostic - who repeatedly proves they fail to comprehend their own ideology - that deems themself worthy of this ridicule you are pondering about....

If there was a God, Man wouldn't have had to invent him [reversing Voltaire's famous quote].


ParanoidAgnostic
ParanoidAgnostic's picture
Posts: 402
Joined: 2007-05-20
User is offlineOffline
I don't think I can

I don't think I can be bothered arguing with you any more Adnihilo since you seem to be dedicated to conveniently misinterperting what I'm saying. I cannot figure out why you feel the need to do this because from what I can decipher from your rantings we agree on a lot. Maybe you'd rather win an argument than have a discussion.

You even argue with " Left wing ideals have always led to opression" which if you read in context I quite clearly wrote to illustrate what I hadn't said. I cannot hope to gain anything from a argument with someone who won't read my posts, just scans them to pick things out of context of (as far as I can tell) purposefully misinterpeted.

To clarify again. I am not a right-libertarian. If anything I'd consider myself a individualst and rather central in terms of left and right. I don't think business should be given licence to do whatever they can get away with in the market but I also don't agree with large scale socialism.

I disagree with both for the same reason. I value individual freedom. total anarcho-capitalism will mean only the very rich are free. large scale socialism will mean we are not able to feely the money we earn.

I started this thread to find out why libertarian ideas are so quickly silenced by ridicule in political discusion. The name of this forum implied that I may be able to get a genuine libertarian to offer their point of view, instead I find myself defending a point of view I don't hold against the ridicule I didn't expect to find here.

 

 

Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
I don't know what programs

I don't know what programs you get down under, but in America (and Canada..) the show 20/20 has an anchor John Stossel who is openly Libertarian. You also might want to search for the books he's written and he talks about why he feels that Libertarians are oppressed.

Here's a vid with him talking about libertarianism

 

 


 

 

 


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2642
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
  "Ridicule is the only

 

"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions." - Thomas Jefferson

Interestingly enough, Jefferson is mentioned on the front page of www.lp.org

Oddly enough, Dinesh D'Souza is also ridiculed by libertarian bloggers as well as by our own Kellym78.

Ahhhh. Choices. Choices.

Since we are in a thread seemingly dedicated to libertarianism AGAIN, I will address somethings called 'social consequences' quite often overlooked by libertarian speakers like our 'friend' Mr. Stossel. This part of that video is priceless:

I found his answer as to why he didn't sue interesting from a judicial standpoint. After all, Dr. D answered his question. LMAO.

Going back to the first bit of Cpt.Pineapple's Stossel video:

What are the reasons most commonly given by drug-dealers and prostitutes for their actions? money and inability to find something else. correct?

As an allegedly progressive political ideology, libertarianism falls on its proverbial ass right there. Assuming that everyone who sells their body WANTS to sell their body is idiotic at best. Assuming that drug-dealers could have the drive to parlay their talent in a retail environment or pharmaceutical endeavors if allowed free markets is naive at best. Why? Because we are constantly in fucking AWE of the stupidity with which others choose to lead their lives. We want to separate ourselves from that/those with which we cannot relate to on a fundamental basis. Asinine as it may sound to y'all libertarians, one of my freedoms is not to have to put up with crackheads asking me if I want to buy some 'shit' every time I go into a convenience store. Likewise, there are people who don't want to be in the market category for $5 blow jobs when they are walking into Wal-Mart with their kids. There is a place and a time.

Let alone the fact that I can't keep religion from infiltrating my family's personal space. If Libertarianism is followed in just those two aspects(prostitution and drug-dealing) then I will have that to contend with on a daily basis as well.

And if I shoot the crackhead trying to sell my kid some 'shit'? We-he-hell! I have infringed upon their right to the free market that is my children.

I have more.

Nevermind.

I told myself to let it go for a while.

 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Quote: "Ridicule is the

Quote:

"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions." - Thomas Jefferson

 

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Voltaire


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2642
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Quote:

"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions." - Thomas Jefferson

 

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Voltaire

There was more to the post than the one quote, my dear Cpt. 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


ParanoidAgnostic
ParanoidAgnostic's picture
Posts: 402
Joined: 2007-05-20
User is offlineOffline
darth_josh

darth_josh wrote:

 

"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions." - Thomas Jefferson

   

 And I suppose you are the final judge of what is an unintelligible proposition? It's very convenient to label someone who dissagrees with you as an idiot so you don't need to consider their opinion long enough to rebut it.

I have no idea what context that quote was taken from but in this context it is a cop out.

Total anarcho-capitalism may be ridicuous but then so is fascism and communism. We don't need to take every idea to it's extreeme. I'm sure that most libertarians don't want anarcho-capitalism just like most liberals don't want communism and most conservatives don't want fascism.

I think the fact that libertarians have principles that govenrments should abide by implies that there is still a government in their system. There are still laws but they are laws that protect freedom and nothing more. 

 

Quote:


As an allegedly progressive political ideology, libertarianism falls on its proverbial ass right there. Assuming that everyone who sells their body WANTS to sell their body is idiotic at best.

If someone is forced to sell their body then that would be against the law. the person forcing them is taking away their freedom.

 However if two consenting adults freely come to an arrangement in which they have sex and one pays the other for it then there is no problem.

Quote:
 

one of my freedoms is not to have to put up with crackheads asking me if I want to buy some 'shit' every time I go into a convenience store.

 No, not being irritated is not fundamental human freedom. Why? many Muslims are irritated (enraged would probably be a beter word) by people who don't live by their rules. If it was the Muslim's right to not be irritated, offended or enraged then we'd all be forced to live by their standards.

Why do you assume drugs would continue to be sold in the same manner if they were legal anyway? When was the last time you bought some moonshine? 

Quote:
 

Let alone the fact that I can't keep religion from infiltrating my family's personal space. If Libertarianism is followed in just those two aspects(prostitution and drug-dealing) then I will have that to contend with on a daily basis as well.

 personal property and the right to defend it is fundamental to libertarian ideals. You have the right to decide who enters your home and what they may do there. 

 

Social consequences are not overlooked by libertarians they just believe that it's none of the government's business. It is not the government's role to take part in social engineering.


Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
darth_josh

darth_josh wrote:
Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Quote:

"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions." - Thomas Jefferson

 

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Voltaire

There was more to the post than the one quote, my dear Cpt.

 

I posted that stuff because Parnoid was asking about Libertarians, and I thought he would like to look into Stossel.

 

I never said I was a Libertaran or that I agreed with Stossel so there was no point in responding to rest and defending Stossel or Libertarianism.


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2642
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
When I spoke of people not

When I spoke of people not WANTing to sell their body, you missed the part about the person not having any other recourse. Not that they would be slaves. Currently, the main impetus for one becoming a prostitute isn't because it sounds like a dandy job to have, it is because their opportunities are squelched by the job market.

Under the present regime of drug 'control', I do not have to tolerate drug-dealers in my face at the convenience store. I consider that a freedom. I must still tolerate the same bums(I only give money once to the same individual bum.) I must still tolerate Yolanda in the tank top, jogging pants, flip flops summer ensemble sidling up to me while I am pumping gas to ask if I would like $5 worth of mouth so she can buy a rock. One can see that I have made concessions.

Quote:
personal property and the right to defend it is fundamental to libertarian ideals. You have the right to decide who enters your home and what they may do there.

That's just it. You're not getting it. I wish that society as a whole were capable of living in this fantasy world where personal property actually meant something.

I can't shoot every jesus freak, drug dealer, whore, or travelling salesman that walks up onto my porch in a 'free market environment' or else I have violated their rights. In this libertarian system, my personal property becomes as salient as theirs in their mind.

Look at the entire concept of 'freedom of speech' as outlined in the 1st. It expressly states "Congress shall make no law..." It doesn't say anything about people against people. Nothing is stated there that gives anyone the right to speak to anyone else. It merely states that the government cannot control that speech. Even that in and of itself is an indefensible proposition as we can see by simply living in a 'christian nation' full of churches with direct mail capabilities and bicycle riding closet homophobes. One minute difference to my particular environment is the 'church of christ' evangelicals. My personal property is labeled as: "Trespassers might be welcomed. Evangelists might be crucified." Has that stopped the christ-tards from knocking? Fuck no. In a society where these libertarian 'values' are espoused, would it stop then? Hypothetical Fuck no.

If one thinks that people wouldn't exploit these 'freedoms' and manipulate the system to their own ends then I'm going to ridicule that proposition.

So many intricate things are involved that each and every one that I or someone else puts up is dealt with by a glittering generality and a message of hope that society will be 'respectful' of each other when this dream world comes into fruition.

I am not normally a cynic about human endeavors.

There are alternatives that are as equally psychotic as libertarianism, but none so self-destructive in my opinion.

I know that we're not talking 'anarcho-capitalism'

And I know that we're looking at extreme instances, but honestly all that we have to discourage us from examining these extreme cases are the words of people who are living under the delusion that all of society would be better off or at least indifferent to everyone else in this system.

Just like socialism, libertarianism has no working examples to study. As frustrating as that is, I fear the implementation of any experiments in libertarianism in our demographic.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


triften
Silver Member
triften's picture
Posts: 591
Joined: 2007-01-01
User is offlineOffline
Darth_josh, Why do you

Darth_josh,

Why do you think that the door-to-door person would have some "right to salespitch" that would trump your property rights?

Maybe you should change your sign to "No Tresspassing" and actually start pressing charges.

-Triften 


cam
Posts: 77
Joined: 2007-11-19
User is offlineOffline
ParanoidAgnostic wrote:

ParanoidAgnostic wrote:

Evidence against the Australian greens supporting personal freedom. From their web page: http://greens.org.au

These include support for current anti-freedom laws and the desire to create new ones.

Principles:

 

Quote:

The Australian Greens do not support the legalisation of currently illegal drugs.

 

Really? Has their policy changed? They used to support decriminalisation of cannabis and other softer drugs. Perhaps this is just at the state level?

 

 

Goals:

Quote:

equal representation of women and men in public life. (forced equality, it should always be the best person for the job, not a quota system)

Here we go. What have you got against empowering women so they have more chance at equal representation? It's not like they are going to force everyone to elect 50/50 men and women. What it means is that they recognise that we still live in a male dominated society. They recognize male privilege, do you?

 

Quote:

family-friendly workplaces and public spaces. (A workplace is not a creche and the government should not be forcing employers to turn their offices into child-care centres)

Government doesn't have to use force, but it could use things like tax incentives. What is wrong with making it easier for people to raise a family and hold down a job at the same time?

 

Quote:

increased representation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in all levels of, government and other decision making roles. (quotas again)

Once again, do you reconise white privilege? Do you? Do you recognise that aboriginal people are the most downtrodden people in Australia. Racism against aboriginal people is everywhere, I see it everywhere. 'Aussies' have quite racists attitudes. Aboriginal people deserve an extra helping hand to get their communities back in working order, and the rest of us have to stop being so racist and give them a chance. Maybe then we will see more of them in parliament. It's not about quotas.

 

Measures:

Quote:

ban all advertising and all sponsorship of tobacco products.

Fucking good. Tabacco corporations are no friend of liberty. They profit from making people sick.

Quote:

establish an independent body to regulate alcohol advertising.

Good. People drink enough without having advertising every-fucking-where.

Quote:

reduce the effects of passive smoking, by introducing a ban on smoking in defined public spaces.

I'm ok with this. I don't want tabacco smoke in my face. As an ex-addict I don't want it near me. I do howerver recognise that there should be defined spaces where people CAN smoke.

 

Quote:

prohibit advertising promotions for alcohol that encourage excessive drinking.

Yep. Liberty for people, not for drug corporations.

I won't go on..


ParanoidAgnostic
ParanoidAgnostic's picture
Posts: 402
Joined: 2007-05-20
User is offlineOffline
cam wrote:   Quote: The

cam wrote:

 

Quote:

The Australian Greens do not support the legalisation of currently illegal drugs.

 

Really? Has their policy changed? They used to support decriminalisation of cannabis and other softer drugs. Perhaps this is just at the state level?

According to their site they want to keep it illegal but help drug users stop using rather than punish them for using. So yes I tihnk they support decriminalisation.

This is a step in the right direction but not the full libertarian stance.

Quote:

Here we go. What have you got against empowering women so they have more chance at equal representation? It's not like they are going to force everyone to elect 50/50 men and women. What it means is that they recognise that we still live in a male dominated society. They recognize male privilege, do you?

The only 'male privilege' is due to public attitudes. Many people still believe that men are more capable and more reliable. Affirmative action will not help fix these attitudes. Enforcing 'equality' only reinforces their beliefs that women are less capable because they need help competing against men.

Quote:

Government doesn't have to use force, but it could use things like tax incentives. What is wrong with making it easier for people to raise a family and hold down a job at the same time?

 Governments generally go for the stick rather than the carrot.

Quote:

Once again, do you reconise white privilege? Do you? Do you recognise that aboriginal people are the most downtrodden people in Australia. Racism against aboriginal people is everywhere, I see it everywhere. 'Aussies' have quite racists attitudes. Aboriginal people deserve an extra helping hand to get their communities back in working order, and the rest of us have to stop being so racist and give them a chance. Maybe then we will see more of them in parliament. It's not about quotas.

People have a right to their own opinions. While people hold racist opinions maybe we should look at the reasons for those opinions rather than enforcing a 'correct' opinion of aboriginal people. Why is is that racism against Aboriginals is still sot strong while other racial groups that were once hated have been generally accepted? Maybe at some point we have to look at the behavior of large portions of the Aboriginal population.

I don't agree with the racists I believe in judging everyone on individual merits regardless of factors like race and gender (which is also why I'm against articifially levelling the playing field based on race and gender). I do however feel that they have a right to hold racist opinions. The correct solution to these opinions is to make sure they don't act on them in such a way that someone's freedom is infringed on and then show them they are wrong. Policies that basically admit that Aboriginals cannot compete with the white man will not achieve this.

 

Quote:

Fucking good. Tabacco corporations are no friend of liberty. They profit from making people sick.

 The point is that it's the smoker's body and it's their choice to destroy it. Libertarians don't believe it's the government's job to protect them from their own stupidity.

Quote:

Good. People drink enough without having advertising every-fucking-where.

 Once again. A libertarian would not consider it the to be the role of the goverment. Remember we're discusson whether the Greens lean toward libertarian, not whether we agree with their policies. Other than their forced equality I agree with much of what they believe in, it's just not libertarianism.

Quote:

I'm ok with this. I don't want tabacco smoke in my face. As an ex-addict I don't want it near me. I do howerver recognise that there should be defined spaces where people CAN smoke.

 I agree. I find little less pleasant than being forced to breathe in someone else's ciggarette. But it is still not a libertarian idea.

Quote:

Yep. Liberty for people, not for drug corporations.

Does advertising alchohol take away the freedom of others? Does an ad that glorifies binge drinking force people against their will to go out an binge drink?

Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2642
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
triften

triften wrote:

Darth_josh,

Why do you think that the door-to-door person would have some "right to salespitch" that would trump your property rights?

Maybe you should change your sign to "No Tresspassing" and actually start pressing charges.

-Triften

Perhaps.

At one time, I welcomed their visits because it gave me real people to 'pick on' with the unanswerable by faith questions.

Regardless of that, I was using evangelicals as one example of marketing strategy in an environment conducive to their 'product' which would be similar (in my opinion) to allowing drug-dealers to legally market their products in the same manner. 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


Zenrage
Zenrage's picture
Posts: 32
Joined: 2008-01-07
User is offlineOffline
Quote: 1) The most

Quote:

1) The most opressive societies in the real world have been built on far left ideals.

Meaning: There are some societies and were some in the recent past that were more opressive than other societies of the same era. These societies were built on far-left ideals.

2) Left wing ideals have always led to opression.

Meaning: Every time a society has been built on left-wing ideals it has been opresive.

And what you fail (miserably) to understand is that in any case, the oppresion only begins with the adaptation of right-wing or religious notions like "objective morality". In no case, has the tenets of a left-wing philosophy ever directly led to the oppression of its people. If anything, its the left-wing philosophies that are used as a cover to lure the people into a secure state long enough to apply corrupt, right-wing ideologies. 

  If you want to pretend that the Stalinist application of Marxist Communism is left-wing socialism taken to its extreme, then you are, yet again, miserably misinformed. The 20th century applications of Russian communism, oppressed its people through fascist social regulations. After Lenin brought the industry and equality to his people, Stalin brought totalitarian, military-enforced oppression which he used to butcher his people in numbers far higher than Hitler did - using techniques much like what George W Bush is using today. 

Marx's greatest error was that he neglected to include any form of monitoring or making the elite answerable to the working class. This is the exact same problem with free market, libertarianism. Corporate CEOs are not answerable enough to their workers or to the consumers to be held accountable for their actions. 

Quote:
I'm all for society so long as society exists for the individuals that live in it and not the other way around. When a society grows too collectivist the individuals exist only to serve the society.

You obviously have no clue what society is. Society is the collective need of the people who strive for a common goal. It is a team effort that perpetuates itself for the sake of the team and not the anti-social individual or the "free agent" who looks out only for himself. If you don't understand the nature of society, then you have absolutley no business suggesting the way in which it should be governed.

The individual desire to compete must be in tune with the collective need to compete with one another and not against the collective. If the individual can't accept this, then that individual needs to leave the collective because by remaining within it, the individual only does harm to himself and the collective. 

So, if you want out of society because it looks out for everyone and not just you, then you should wear a placard that says you are no longer under the protection of the society or its laws. I'd love to hear what you think of the collective nature of society after it stops protecting you and your family from rapists, murderers, theives and vandals when it withdraws any threat of legal penalty to those who would act abusively upon you or after the society removes any and all rights you mistakenly thought being outside of a society would automatically permit you, without socialist protection.  

   The reality is, and has always been, that libertarians only want the benefit of society when it directly benefits them. Once it focuses on other people for the sake of the whole team, then the libertarian wants to be free from the society like a whiny little 4-yr old who doesn't understand why his parents spend so much money on glasses for his brother when they don't help him to see. 


ParanoidAgnostic
ParanoidAgnostic's picture
Posts: 402
Joined: 2007-05-20
User is offlineOffline
Zenrage wrote:

Zenrage wrote:

And what you fail (miserably) to understand is that in any case, the oppresion only begins with the adaptation of right-wing or religious notions like "objective morality". In no case, has the tenets of a left-wing philosophy ever directly led to the oppression of its people. If anything, its the left-wing philosophies that are used as a cover to lure the people into a secure state long enough to apply corrupt, right-wing ideologies.

If you want to pretend that the Stalinist application of Marxist Communism is left-wing socialism taken to its extreme, then you are, yet again, miserably misinformed. The 20th century applications of Russian communism, oppressed its people through fascist social regulations. After Lenin brought the industry and equality to his people, Stalin brought totalitarian, military-enforced oppression which he used to butcher his people in numbers far higher than Hitler did - using techniques much like what George W Bush is using today.

So you're telling me that the Soviets and Chinese weren't true christians... oops I mean communists.

Communism is an ideal that turns the individual into nothing more than a component in a machine. The people exist only to keep the machine running. That is naturally opressive and as we have seen in all real-world large-scale communism it takes further opresion to force everyone in the society to accept that fate.

 

Ignoring communism for a second though the left want to take just as many freedoms as the right. They just have different motivations and justifications. The left try to homogenise attitudes. They try to make upsetting opinions unexpressible. I've sat through lectures on (Australian) Aboriginal rights which basically declared certain attitudes to be bad and not to be expressed ever. Opinions and Attitudes are not right or wrong, there's no moral absolute. They can be based on wrong information and poor logic (as are most racist attitudes) but the opinions themselves are not wrong. The left want to silence opinions they don't like, not by demonstrating how they are based on bad information but just by declaring them wrong. That's opressive, it may be opression you find aceptable but it's still opression.

Quote:

Marx's greatest error was that he neglected to include any form of monitoring or making the elite answerable to the working class. This is the exact same problem with free market, libertarianism. Corporate CEOs are not answerable enough to their workers or to the consumers to be held accountable for their actions.

I agree with you there. I'm just not convinced that a large-scale communist state would remain communist for long if people had the freedom to push for the state to be run in different ways.

Communist governments put a great deal of effort into making sure that citizens never question the system.

Quote:

You obviously have no clue what society is. Society is the collective need of the people who strive for a common goal. It is a team effort that perpetuates itself for the sake of the team and not the anti-social individual or the "free agent" who looks out only for himself. If you don't understand the nature of society, then you have absolutley no business suggesting the way in which it should be governed.

Society is a group of individuals with enough common goals that they can mutually benefit from working together. When you start working for the benefit of society rather than yourself or others then you're working to nothing. Society isn't an entity in itself it exists only as a group of individuals.

I'm an individualist. My values are based on the individual. That doesn't mean I'm selfish, if anything it's the opposite. I'm not just interested in my own individual rights. I also recognise that every other person is an individual and I respect and value their right to express themselves as individuals. Non-individualist philosophies consider society in itself to be the important entity and try to mould it to their idea of utopia, in doing so they crush the rights of people within the society.

Again, society only has value in defending the freedoms and furthering the goals of the sentient beings that make it up. Once it crosses the line and starts taking away freedoms for the sake of the society it's no longer for the benefit of the people who make up the society.

Quote:

The individual desire to compete must be in tune with the collective need to compete with one another and not against the collective. If the individual can't accept this, then that individual needs to leave the collective because by remaining within it, the individual only does harm to himself and the collective.

I agree. However in most cases it's close to impossible to leave the collective, and even less easy to form your own collective with other people who share your values. A country has a monopoly on how it's collective is run. Under these conditions I think that a 'collective' that allows as much individual freedom as possible is the most suitable. This way people can live their lives as they see fit. They can still benefit the group and benefit from the group without having to accept unneccesary restrictions.

Quote:

So, if you want out of society because it looks out for everyone and not just you, then you should wear a placard that says you are no longer under the protection of the society or its laws. I'd love to hear what you think of the collective nature of society after it stops protecting you and your family from rapists, murderers, theives and vandals when it withdraws any threat of legal penalty to those who would act abusively upon you or after the society removes any and all rights you mistakenly thought being outside of a society would automatically permit you, without socialist protection.

I'm sure I repeated many times that I think society does have value, but only in pretecting the individual. We are social animals by nature. We thrive through cooperation. I have no problem with cooperation as an individualist. All individuals benefit from the cooperation. However it works best when it's voluntary and symbiotic. Not coerced and parasitic.

Quote:

The reality is, and has always been, that libertarians only want the benefit of society when it directly benefits them. Once it focuses on other people for the sake of the whole team, then the libertarian wants to be free from the society like a whiny little 4-yr old who doesn't understand why his parents spend so much money on glasses for his brother when they don't help him to see.

Freedom benefits everyone. Do libertarians say "I demand free speech but only for myself and the people I agree with"? No, but I see many examples of non-individualist idealists saying what ammounts to that. The left want free speech, but not for opinions they declare socially unacceptable. The right want the freedom to preach their faith at everyone but don't want the same freedom for other faiths.

Yes, in many cases the freedom rich libertarians want this the freedom to run a business to the detriment of employees and customers. That's the only major problem I have with the philosophy, and why I don't consider myself to be one. I don't believe that that is all there is to the philosophy though.

 

Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2642
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
Quote: So you're telling

Quote:
So you're telling me that the Soviets and Chinese weren't true christians... oops I mean communists.

Communism is an ideal that turns the individual into nothing more than a component in a machine. The people exist only to keep the machine running. That is naturally opressive and as we have seen in all real-world large-scale communism it takes further opresion to force everyone in the society to accept that fate.



Ignoring communism for a second though the left want to take just as many freedoms as the right. They just have different motivations and justifications. The left try to homogenise attitudes. They try to make upsetting opinions unexpressible. I've sat through lectures on (Australian) Aboriginal rights which basically declared certain attitudes to be bad and not to be expressed ever. Opinions and Attitudes are not right or wrong, there's no moral absolute. They can be based on wrong information and poor logic (as are most racist attitudes) but the opinions themselves are not wrong. The left want to silence opinions they don't like, not by demonstrating how they are based on bad information but just by declaring them wrong. That's opressive, it may be opression you find aceptable but it's still opression.


You call 'no true scotsman' and then followed with a strawman???
WTF? over

Quote:
Society is a group of individuals with enough common goals that they can mutually benefit from working together. When you start working for the benefit of society rather than yourself or others then you're working to nothing. Society isn't an entity in itself it exists only as a group of individuals.

I'm an individualist. My values are based on the individual. That doesn't mean I'm selfish, if anything it's the opposite. I'm not just interested in my own individual rights. I also recognise that every other person is an individual and I respect and value their right to express themselves as individuals. Non-individualist philosophies consider society in itself to be the important entity and try to mould it to their idea of utopia, in doing so they crush the rights of people within the society.

Again, society only has value in defending the freedoms and furthering the goals of the sentient beings that make it up. Once it crosses the line and starts taking away freedoms for the sake of the society it's no longer for the benefit of the people who make up the society.


We're trying to ask you, time and time again, who the fuck is going to make sure that your individual rights are protected? What about other individuals and their beliefs? "Sorry, you can't build there because that is where Muhammad gave a speech. It is holy."
Libertarians dodge this question constantly which another source of my disdain and ridicule.

Quote:
I agree. However in most cases it's close to impossible to leave the collective, and even less easy to form your own collective with other people who share your values. A country has a monopoly on how it's collective is run. Under these conditions I think that a 'collective' that allows as much individual freedom as possible is the most suitable. This way people can live their lives as they see fit. They can still benefit the group and benefit from the group without having to accept unneccesary restrictions.


Leaving one community for another that is closer to your idea would be easy. Benefit you. Benefit society. Perfect.
Conversely, forcing you by economic means to stay in your community is counter to that freedom. Several people are STUCK because there is no way that they can follow their choice. They must stay at their current 'job' in order to provide for themselves and their families.
In a libertarian society, the 'market' determines where you must go to succeed.

Your denigration of the concept of 'society' as an entity seems odd since you are also attacking the idea of the 'left'. Have you asked: 'Left' side of what? Uhhhhh. Society.

What would be so wrong with creating self-sufficient communities of like-minded individuals and allowing them the freedom to keep themselves the way they choose as long as their surplus goes to the collective? Similar to the 'state' idea we have except no corporations, but tighter local governance and ownership. Smaller than even 'counties' but responsible to the world. Rather than watching a surplus rot in storage because the 'price' isn't right, distributing that surplus to where it is needed.
Libertarians have no plans in place to affect change on a global scale that I have seen. Happy to watch people get paid for NOT growing food. They don't require people to work for it, they require people to manipulate this 'free market' ideal to their own ends.
Whereas even your average socialist has at least a societal plan that is adaptable to ideological differences. Ultimate organization. Minimal invasiveness. Democracy rather than oligarchy. Human rights oversight. Libertarians offer the perpetuation of a system designed for the few to succeed in my opinion. When that few that governs feels as if their power is threatened by popular opinion, they throw shit like 'economic stimulus' packages at us as if we were underfed cattle. The herd gobbles it up while the oligarchs pat each other on the back for making their money back and appeasing the masses.

Quote:
Yes, in many cases the freedom rich libertarians want this the freedom to run a business to the detriment of employees and customers. That's the only major problem I have with the philosophy, and why I don't consider myself to be one. I don't believe that that is all there is to the philosophy though.


Isn't that 'major problem' wrong enough?

 Your 'futurama' quote proves that you have seen Matt Groenig's idea of a future where 'markets' might lead us. What is your's?

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.