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!
A far better statement is
TAX EVASION IS TREASON
Dying in a far away land for oil is sad but in no way patriotic, paying your taxes on time shows have at least some interest in the well being of your country
Ah, so PAYING for kids to die in the sand for oil shows you have interest? Interest in what? Seeing more kids die in the sand for oil?
Thanks for having the interests of our country at heart when you happily pay for the slaughter
I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
Then you clearly need to brush up on your logic. An analogy is false if it is argued that if A has property B then C is like A if it also has property B, this was clearly not the case in the argument I took offence to. For the analogy to make sense, you must demonstrate, clearly, that A and C share the same property for similar reasons.
There is no factor of having to share the same property for similar reasons.
A street light is like a star. Both provide light at night, both are in predictable locations, both are overhead, and both serve no function in the daytime.
Do streetlights and stars share the same property of emitting light because of the similar reasons? No.. last I checked... streetlights dont run on nuclear fusion.
Doesnt mean that it's a false analogy.
You acknowledge that I do believe in rule of law, then go on to argue against one who does not. We don't play games like that here
I was originally speaking about anarchy before. I was finishing my point and not arguing agaisnt you... I clearly state that I get the argument from anarchists and such.
Again, did you have a point? You are saying an awful lot and making very little sense.
Just making the point that in Canada we do not make it illegal to marry because you are homosexual. Which was your issue.
Good for Canada, how is this germane to my point?
Mmmm Canada. I dunno how it's related but Canada sure is awesome.
This is fucking insanity. You are defending property tax on a moral basis (I think, it is difficult to make sense of your rantings)?
All I'm saying is, when I buy a car or a property and pay off the creditor, I should own that thing free and clear. If, after I pay for it, I'm still charged a percentage of what it is worth every year under threat of jail or seizure, I NEVER actually OWN what I've purchased. I have a fundamental problem with that. Many people do.
Actually... with regards to car... it was excise taxes... not property taxes. afaik. Now your house is property taxes... and yes indeed. You do not ever own 100% of it. You would have an allodial title if it was 100%... like an embassy. Which the government literally has no jurisdiction to what is going on in your land. You also are not taxed. The government does own part of your land even when you own it all in terms of no mortgage or anything.
And even if you argue that driving is a priviledge, ownership shouldn't be. When you buy a TV, you fucking own that TV. When you buy a home, you never truly own that home. I fail to see why a distinction should be made or why one cannot own such things outright.
The idea is that they own part of the land... they also hold jurisdiction over that land. So crimes done on your land can be punished. They also have a renting fee basically for owning that land. As a property tax.
Many family farms are taken over every year by the IRS for example. Homes and land that had been in a family's possession for decades. The same family works the land for al that time, yet the IRS steps in and auctions their land off. That's disgusting.
I suspect there's more to it than that. IRS being american I'm not entirely aware of what is happening.
OK, so, you clearly don't have a clue as to how to lay out a rational argument. Honestly, reread what you just wrote, it's gibberish.
It's not my argument? Again I'm repeating what I commonly hear from anarchists.
In the future, address my arguments, point by point, and make clear counter arguments. Save irrelevent analogy against a position that does not even resemble mine for another time.
I was responding to my previously stated anarchist point.
again, you are arguing against a position that is not mine. Take your strawmen somewhere else to burn.
You are arguing against an anarchist, and I'm not an anarchist.
I'm quite well aware I am arguing against an anarchist position... I just so happen to keep pointing that out. I am also quite aware you are not an anarchist. Therefore I really dont see how this can even remotely be considered a strawman. I am not misrepresenting your position if I outright am not even talking about it... as I say
"This is another thing anarchists point out."
Or something to that effect... I am clearly not arguing against you in any way.
So, now correlation = causation? When did that hapen?
When I use the word statistically or likely... I am clearly speaking correlation. It's a pretty damn strong correlation. I never ever made the claim that there's causation occuring. It would be absurd for me to have done that. I really dont see where you read me making the point that it is causation.
That's actually the first thing you've said that makes any sense. Yes, libertine positions DO tend to be those of the intellectual elite, and for good reason. Why that is a bad thing is beyond me - it DOES make it more difficult to convey the notions of such though, I do admit.
Considering this is like the first time I opened the discussion to beyond anarchism... it's kind of funny... especially more funny because anytime I speak about anarchism it's automatically considered gibberish or something. Why is it a bad thing? Perhaps because those intellectual elites aren't attached to reality much... many of these anarchist-libertarians basically argue for an idealistic state... while not really considering the issues with making government small in some ways. To the intellectual elite... they see their life and see very little law enforcement involvement or other various government branches... so eliminating them or making them so underpowered there will be no problem. The reality is... the government does a great deal of good and that good needs to be done.
As a libertarian you see this and realize you need a national defence. Even if it's a small one for more defensive use only. Outright elimination of national defence would be absurd. A few million soldiers with very few truly transferable job skills wont be taken well.
Are you kidding me? The STATES ARE what keeps creationism out of schools. Were commander dipshit in chief allowed to control local curricula, what do you think we'd be learning right now?
The bottom line is, this IS NOT the Federal govs perogative.
As I said... but again... the fight had to go to federal courts over many issues... which were approved by the states... How many states was it impossible for an atheist to give testimony or hold public office? If I remember correctly... during the court battle in kansas... they didn't expect to win... because of the rightwing judge... their plan was to bring it to federal level. Yet they did win.
That IS a potential problem (or blessing depending on how you look at it), but what you'd see happen is initially people flocking toward liberal and conservative states and communities, but rest assured, after people find out what living in a "True Christian" state is really like, you'll see some serious changes.
Would you? I honestly dont see how you can say that given history...
You'll have nothing but intolerant crackers wallowing in their own depressed work-a-day economy and prosperous communies with intelligent folks. That won't take long to change, or start another civil war, but I've a feeling it will intellectually and culturally boot strap most folks.
you're willing to have a civil war just to have a small government?
I guess in the end I'm asking why we hold hanging on to the notion of a UNITED states as something we cannot eventually leave behind. The European Union is working toward this right now. Eventually, if we are truly to get along, we need to do away with political borders and focus more on individual ones.
I really doubt this will happen ever... let alone in the next thousand years.
So, you would buy carrots from a farm that sold carrots that made people sick? The market can sort this shit out - look at Consumer Reports or Underwrighters Labs as an example. The FDA and USDA are notoriously fallable and slow. The private sector could easily do just as good a job.
The thing is... not everyone actually checks such websites... hell I certainly dont. Word of mouth doesnt work all that well. Again sure the market can be great... the reality is that such things just arent going to work all that well.
Go look at your toaster, I guantee you'll find a UL symbol on it.
actually no. Most likely because I'm not american.
I don't. After we drastically cut our military, pull out of Iraq and start staying out of other folks business, terrorists won't have a reason to come here. [/qote]
If there was any question as to why I discontinued my participation in this thread, here is the answer. lol.
I'll just ridicule politics in silence.