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!


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

darth_josh wrote:


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

 

elaborate on this 'strawman' since there was nothing in that argument where I characterised my opponent's argument. Did a strawman communism? did I strawman left wing ideals? Are you telling me that the policies of the left never include coersion to mould citizens so they can fit some ideal vision of society?

 

Quote:

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.

 

Other individuals and their beliefs are irrelivent if you own the land. If you own the land where a holy man is believed to have held a speech you can build a brothel on iyt if you like. That's the answer under libertarianism. If the land is so important to a religious group they can get together and purchase it themselves. Clearly, as a hold site it would have more value to them than others and they'd be prepared to pay more. Especially in the case of Muslims where there's more than enough people to each chip in and save this sacred site.

 

Quote:

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.

Laws are often for an entire country. And for state laws they are very similar from state to state (at least in Australia). Immigration is not simple and options are limited.

The market does not control people's decisions. It makes certain decisions more attractive as they are more lucrative but people are still free to make decisions that have less financial reward if there's something else they get out of it.

Quote:

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.

 

 

The left of the political spectrum. Meaning the group of individuals that hold a certain set of ideals, commonly identified as left-wing.

 

Quote:


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?

Nothing. In fact I think this is the only scale in which communism is a positive thing, and there are examples of it working. This is not what this discussion is about. It's about state level decisions on how people are allowed to live. Within a libertarian state people are welcome to form their own communities on land they own. These can be completely communist if they like.

Quote:


Libertarians have no plans in place to affect change on a global scale that I have seen.

Libertarianism is not about social engineering, in fact it's a large part of what they oppose.

They don't want to force people to live one way or another. They want to allow people the maximum possible choice in how they live. It's not about guiding society one way or another, it's letting society define itself based on the desires of those individuals who make it up.

Quote:


Ultimate organization. Minimal invasiveness.

More govenrment organisation means more invasiveness.

Also, the social plans to change the world included in socialist ideals are totally invasive and often involve an attempt to re-wire human nature.

Quote:

Libertarians offer the perpetuation of a system designed for the few to succeed in my opinion.

Unfortunately that's the way reality works. Some will do well some will do poorly. It's not possible for everyone to be super-successful. Attempts to equalise this generally result in most people being dragged down to the level of the unsuccessful with a few corrupt individuals undeservedly retaining the lifestyles of the succesful.

There needs to be motivation. Ingenuity an effort need to be rewarded. The direct result of this is some will succeed and some will fail. Life is not warm and cuddly.

Right now we have a system where manipulation of the system is rewarded. The most successful people are accountants and lawyers bcause they can manipulate the system. They don't produce anything, their work has little real value but they are valued in the system due to all the red tape. Libertarianism involves getting rid of many of these superfluous rules. With a simpler system accountants would be reduced to book keepers and lawyers would be in serious over supply.

Quote:



Isn't that 'major problem' wrong enough?

Yes, that's why I don't consider myself a libertarian. However I would like to see society move a little bit more toward libertarianism. Just like many of those on the left would like to move a bit more toward communism but don't really want to go all the way.

It's about balance, it's always been about balance. I just feel the the balance needs to move a bit toward individual freedom and individual responsibility.

This is why I want libertarians to have a voice in politics. Not because I share the anarcho-capitalist ideals but because I see them as a force pulling back freedoms from other groups trying to take them away.

My personal politics are individualist. I think that society should be driven by the ideals of individual freedom and individual responsibility. If a model of communism can be provided in which people have maximum freedom then I'd have no problem with it. I do not conisder total anarchy to be maxiumum freedom. It will aways be a matter of balance between allowing freedom and avoiding infringing on the freedoms of others.

I actually like the idea of small communes where everyone works for the good of everyone. I just see it becoming too opressive when taken to country scale.

I personally do support certain well-defined socialism. I'd gladly give up a large portion of my paycheck for completely subsidisesd public transport, public education (including somewhere to remove totally disruptive students to so others can actually get something out of the classes and it's not ust a babysitting service), free tertiary education (for those who demonstrate ability and work ethic) and a quality public health system.

I may differ from other individualists on this but I believe in these things on individualist grounds. Without them, what an individual can get out of life is almost completely defined by the wealth of the family they were born into. I don't think people should be defined by their nationality, race or even their family.

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
I'm letting the first part

I'm letting the first part go because this next part warrants more attention.

ParanoidAgnostic wrote:

It's about balance, it's always been about balance. I just feel the the balance needs to move a bit toward individual freedom and individual responsibility.

This is why I want libertarians to have a voice in politics. Not because I share the anarcho-capitalist ideals but because I see them as a force pulling back freedoms from other groups trying to take them away.

Here is the difference. They want to do it on an ethically bankrupt basis and it seems quite subjective in nature. The "Yes we want drugs legalized, but only some of them..." kind of attitude. Or the "Yes. Pro-choice, but only in certain instances..." stand. To me, that takes a level of completely delusional hypocrisy that I cannot even fathom. The "Yes. Free markets, but only if no one gets trampled..." UGH!

Quote:
My personal politics are individualist. I think that society should be driven by the ideals of individual freedom and individual responsibility.

However, it isn't. If everyone were like you and I then we wouldn't have anything to discuss here. lol.

Quote:
If a model of communism can be provided in which people have maximum freedom then I'd have no problem with it. I do not conisder total anarchy to be maxiumum freedom. It will aways be a matter of balance between allowing freedom and avoiding infringing on the freedoms of others.

I have such a model. I hinted at its basis in the last post. Libertarians stop short of any propositions concerning the strong intermediary oversight needed to guarantee the freedoms they so long for.

The capitalist idea of 'democracy' is anything but. Right now, we must follow laws that make very little sense to us and do very little towards progress. Bringing the democratic level down to the people by putting the people collectively in control of their places based upon their own choices is possible, but only when governed by a strong intermediary intent upon keeping ideological enemies apart and unable to affect choices made by different people.

Quote:
I actually like the idea of small communes where everyone works for the good of everyone. I just see it becoming too opressive when taken to country scale.

In a community of 1,200 people, vote counting on any issue would take less than an hour and would be subject to complete public oversight. Currently, we try to count 100,000,000 votes on a single issue in a single day to resolve who will be the one person with a veto  that will effect everyone. I feel oppressed now. I have no recourse. Nowhere to move in the country that is not effected by that veto.

Quote:
I personally do support certain well-defined socialism. I'd gladly give up a large portion of my paycheck for completely subsidisesd public transport, public education (including somewhere to remove totally disruptive students to so others can actually get something out of the classes and it's not ust a babysitting service), free tertiary education (for those who demonstrate ability and work ethic) and a quality public health system.

Take out worrying about the paycheck. Well-defined socialism works to get rid of currency by placing worth on the individual and their needs. I don't know what occupation you do, neither do I know what occupation you wish that you could do instead. However, I would want you or anyone to do what you chose rather than be forced to just do 'something' in order to get a paycheck.

Let's face it. Everyone needs housing. Everyone needs food. Everyone needs internet(in my opinion even the fundies). Everyone needs the opportunity to make their own lives liveable and express themselves openly.

Easy. Do what you must to do what you want. Work 30 hours per week for the collective. Use the other 138 for sleep and whatever else.

In a community of 1,200 people, it is easy to keep track of what time someone wants to eat their meals and even easier for the members of the community in charge of food to make sure that the individual not only gets what they need, but what they want as well. 

I'm preaching now aren't I. 

Quote:
I may differ from other individualists on this but I believe in these things on individualist grounds. Without them, what an individual can get out of life is almost completely defined by the wealth of the family they were born into. I don't think people should be defined by their nationality, race or even their family.

I don't want people to be trapped by economic means which is why anything involving the perpetuation of 'markets' is abhorrent to  me. 

 

Let me ask 5 questions of you personally ParanoidAgnostic. Not too personal, but relevant.

1.) What would you like to do as an occupation? Anything. It can be weird even.

2.) What time of day do you sleep best normally?

3.) Do you eat on a relatively regular schedule?

4.) How much space do you require to be comfortable at home? with kids if any? with spouse/companion?

5.) If the community that you had chosen to live in with like-minded individuals changed too much for you to be comfortable, would you be open to moving to another that better fit with your own philosophy/ideology? 

These things are dependent upon subjective terms. However, they are intersubjectively possible. Under the 'market' system we are currently in, you don't have these same freedoms.

I assert that under a libertarian system, the economic chains of bourgeois slavery to the oligarchy would force you to forget those answers to the questions presented. You and I would continue to run around chasing our quarters for nothing more than a fleeting feeling of success when all of the 'bills' are paid or postponed. Losing sleep. eating poorly, working long hours, trapped in a space too small to move around or too big to afford, no hope of being free from laws made by people who will never think the way you do.

Or. Answering a few questions. Being pointed in the direction of where to go to find the answers for yourself while providing a meaningful service to society by just doing what we had to in order to do what we want to do.

I can't get over how 'preachy' that sounds. Sorry. 

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


Family_Guy
Family_Guy's picture
Posts: 110
Joined: 2007-02-08
User is offlineOffline
Libertarians just want to

Libertarians just want to get out of paying taxes.  Bunch of assholes who don't want to help society, just want to line their own wallets.

 

If you want to be a Libertarian, fine.  Start by not using public transportation, public roads, public schools, the municipal water supply, the police, fire or paramedic personnel.  Make sure to pay people to haul away your garbage, and start saving every penny of yours for retirement, as you obviously want no part of welfare, social security or universal health care.

Let's get down to brass tacks - Libertarianism is a way for people to whine about how the big bad evil government takes 1/3 of their money for all of the services they get FROM THE GOVERNMENT.  No free lunches, assholes. 

"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


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

Family_Guy wrote:

Libertarians just want to get out of paying taxes. Bunch of assholes who don't want to help society, just want to line their own wallets.

 

If you want to be a Libertarian, fine. Start by not using public transportation, public roads, public schools, the municipal water supply, the police, fire or paramedic personnel. Make sure to pay people to haul away your garbage, and start saving every penny of yours for retirement, as you obviously want no part of welfare, social security or universal health care.

Let's get down to brass tacks - Libertarianism is a way for people to whine about how the big bad evil government takes 1/3 of their money for all of the services they get FROM THE GOVERNMENT. No free lunches, assholes.

In defense of the goofballs, their idea is a 'pay as you use' the services.

Unfortunately, many communities could not afford to keep their level of service without the federal government. Shhh. Don't spoil that delusion for them too soon. lol. 

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

darth_josh wrote:


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.

Where does that fit in libertarian philosophy? I thought it was the current batch right wing fascists that like setting up deals where their buddies get government handouts? Like Republicans who will talk big about the "free market" then turn around and bail out industries left and right.

Maybe I'm reading this wrong. *shrug* 

-Triften 


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

triften wrote:
darth_josh wrote:


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.

Where does that fit in libertarian philosophy? I thought it was the current batch right wing fascists that like setting up deals where their buddies get government handouts? Like Republicans who will talk big about the "free market" then turn around and bail out industries left and right.

Maybe I'm reading this wrong. *shrug*

-Triften

If it comes from the government to ADM it's called a subsidy.

When it comes from Archer Daniels Midland to a farmer, it is market manipulation, but completely legal by Libertarian standards.

Since paying farmers not to grow soy beans in Indiana on certain years only indirectly affects the price, they can't be drug back into court over it. 

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
Family_Guy

Family_Guy wrote:

Libertarians just want to get out of paying taxes.  Bunch of assholes who don't want to help society, just want to line their own wallets.

 They simply believe that they are entitled to decide how to spend the money they earn.

Quote:

If you want to be a Libertarian, fine.  Start by not using public transportation, public roads, public schools, the municipal water supply, the police, fire or paramedic personnel.  Make sure to pay people to haul away your garbage, and start saving every penny of yours for retirement, as you obviously want no part of welfare, social security or universal health care.

 That's pretty much the idea, however while their money is paying for these services anyway they have every right to use them.

Quote:

Let's get down to brass tacks - Libertarianism is a way for people to whine about how the big bad evil government takes 1/3 of their money for all of the services they get FROM THE GOVERNMENT.  No free lunches, assholes. 

The idea is that they feel they should be able to decide what services they want and pay for them. Not have the government decide how to spend their money.

To do away with government services and pay only for what they choose to use is the libertarian ideal. If they don't have children they don't need to pay for school, why should they subsidise others who chose to reproduce?

I don't agree with it but I don't think it's a stupid idea. I also think that a lot of libertarians don't want to all the way to dismantling the government. They just want to live in a country where the government has a lot less involvement in people's lives. That naturally includes financial involvement.

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
darth_josh wrote: Here is

darth_josh wrote:

Here is the difference. They want to do it on an ethically bankrupt basis and it seems quite subjective in nature. The "Yes we want drugs legalized, but only some of them..." kind of attitude. Or the "Yes. Pro-choice, but only in certain instances..." stand. To me, that takes a level of completely delusional hypocrisy that I cannot even fathom. The "Yes. Free markets, but only if no one gets trampled..." UGH!

 I'm not sure where you're getting this from. I think you may be confusing libertarianism with some other postions because "Yes we want drugs legalized, but only some of them..." is exaclty what libertarianism is against.

The libertarian ideal would be that all drugs are legal.

Maybe some libertarians would say this because have personal hang-ups about harder drugs or maybe they are trying to be main-stream enough to at least make a little change in the libertarian direction but it's not based on the libertarian ideal.

Quote:

The capitalist idea of 'democracy' is anything but. Right now, we must follow laws that make very little sense to us and do very little towards progress. Bringing the democratic level down to the people by putting the people collectively in control of their places based upon their own choices is possible, but only when governed by a strong intermediary intent upon keeping ideological enemies apart and unable to affect choices made by different people.

 The idea of 'keeping ideological enemies apart' disturbs me. You want to segregate society based on opinions? We need to be exposed to ideas we dissagree with for our own personal growth. What about children born in one idelogical community? They never get to see that there's other ways to look at life. What happens if they somehow decide that they don't agree with the ideology of their commune? Who can they turn to?

Segregated, the hatred and misunderstanding between ideological groups can only grow. The end result of this would be volence.

Quote:

Take out worrying about the paycheck. Well-defined socialism works to get rid of currency by placing worth on the individual and their needs. I don't know what occupation you do, neither do I know what occupation you wish that you could do instead. However, I would want you or anyone to do what you chose rather than be forced to just do 'something' in order to get a paycheck.

How does your perfect system deal with labour shortages in specific jobs?

With capitalism if there aren't enough people doing a certain job then the imbalance between supply and demand increases the pay offered for that particular job. This makes the job more attractive to people who may have otherwise prefered another job. If there are too many people doing another job then the supply/demand forces decrease the financial reward for that job. This will make other jobs appear more attractive even if that particular job is their ideal job.

 

How does your society deal with a situation where you need 100 garbage men but it's naturally noone's dream job or you have 300 people choose to be teachers and only need 200?

 

What about deciding who get's what resources? You've provided housing for your citizens in a seaside community. 10 of the houses are across the road from the beach, with spectaular views out across the ocean. Naturally most citizens would like one of these houses. How do you decide who get's them?

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
And what about the U.S.

And what about the U.S. Postal Service? Privatize that! Watch bedlam in motion.

A new union among the proletariat would break out every other day in every field of labor.

Or shall we just compartmentalize those things as 'fitting' with Libertarianism?

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


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
darth_josh wrote: And what

darth_josh wrote:

And what about the U.S. Postal Service? Privatize that! Watch bedlam in motion.

Yes, for certainly UPS, FedEX, DHL and a dozen others couldn't do an adequate job, lol.

The USPS is irrelevent at this point, at best.

Face it, often times, in fact most of the time, the private sector can get things done as well, if not better than the clods currently in charge.

I've stayed out of this argument, because I felt it was waged on false premises. Essentially, the anti-libertine crowd is arguing against the chaos that WOULD insue from a dramatic paradigm shift. That's bull.

Of course switching to a libertine system overnight would cause proplems. Nobody in the of the libertine bent I know is advocating such a ridiculously irressponsible thing.

Change takes time.

We start by ending the drug war and the war in Iraq. Two things I'm fairly sure the vast majority of libertines would support.

Social and economic changes can come after that, and in stages. It makes little sense to change th e way things work overnight. You do it slowly, and evaluate what you are doing ast you implement it.

Of course the next step would be to legalize gay marriage amd lift all restrictions on stem cell research.

Then we'll eliminate immigration restrictions and work for true free trade.

Then we'll eliminate property and income tax, so that you can finally actually OWN your home and property.

Additional reforms can wait till the next term or five. Personal responsibility is NOT something we are used to as Americans.

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.


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

ParanoidAgnostic wrote:

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.

darth_josh wrote:
You call 'no true scotsman' and then followed with a strawman???

ParanoidAgnostic wrote:
Elaborate on this 'strawman' since there was nothing in that argument where I characterised my opponent's argument.

As we see here others also have problems with your repeated fallacious "straw man" tactics ParanoidAgnostic. It is you who is using a rather discusting version of Straw Man fallacious arguments repeatedly and 'conveniently' ignoring a person's actual position and substituting a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. That is the straw man in a nutshell. You employ a similar version to the straw man fallacy below.

ParanoidAgnostic wrote:
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."

For Example of your straw man tactic above you

1. Present your original statement "The left can be just as authoritarian as the right"

2. Substitute your completely distorted view of something you claim I said or think by restating it in quoted statement form as if I made it "The left and right are always very authoritarian."

3. Then you absurdly proceed to argue against this distorted false quote you created yourself about what I think or believe to fit the argument to your needs.

Not only do I NOT believe what you falsely restated I believe "The left and right are always very authoritarian" in quotes no less, I would never infer, make or state such a ludicrous statement ANYWHERE. What I did say in my original response to your original statement that you were not comprehending is that "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."

ParanoidAgnostic wrote:
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."

Here above you use the exact same straw man tactic that distorts what I actually said by creating your own fallacious version of it BY QUOTING it as if I'd actually written it!

Below is what I actually posted to you Paranoid Scizoid in commenting on your original statement of "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.

No where do I infer or state what your falsely claim I infer or state by distorting it as "left wing ideals have always led to opression." Stop twisting what you claim I say into false quotes to suit your own fallacious arguments. As anyone can see, I'm responding directly to your statement above in disagreeing with your stance that 'most' oppressive societies are built on far left ideals. I did not read your statement backwards. You just restated all I wrote in yet again a quote I didn't make or infer to support your own delusions about what I actually did say.

Again, I need to insist here and now that you stop putting words in my mouth ParanoidAgnostic Then you having the fucking nerve to claim it is I who is "dedicated to conveniently misinterperting" what you say? Your delusions are only superceeded by your outright lies ParanoidAgnostic .

You ParanoidAgnostic at least DESERVE TO BE RIDICULED from employing such low life, sneaky, straw man tricks to completely distort, and/or misrepresent what I and others as well, including darth_josh, have presented in posts. Essential it's misreprenting truth - a form of lying to support your own delusions.

ParanoidAgnostic wrote:
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 blatantly lie in quotes about what I say using straw man tactics to attack anything I say and claim it is 'me' who wants to win an argument? The Aussie education systems has failed you Paranoid.

Rantings? You distort what I say stating something I didn't infer or write and then employ straw man fallacies to claim it is I who is ranting? Again, you deserve to be ridiculed ParanoidAgnostic for what you really are as a bold faced liar.

ParanoidAgnostic wrote:
You even argue with "Left wing ideals have always led to opression"

NO I DO NOT argue that YOU LOONEY TOON!!! Now you claim I side with you about something I completely disagree with, and never inferred in your straw man distorted restatement you put in quotes about what I did not say or infer? What is wrong with your brain??? Are you intentionally this ignorant? Can't you see I DO NOT ARGUE for this statement that only YOU HAVE MADE here in "Left wing ideals have always led to opression" What the fuck is wrong with YOU????

ParanoidAgnostic wrote:
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.

I read and comprehend your posts just fine. However I will not stand for your blatant repeated LIES that are consistently distorting my comments by restating them into quotes you create in a sleazy attempt to misrepresent what I actually wrote and meant!

ParanoidAgnostic wrote:
To clarify again. I am not a right-libertarian.

Personally I don't care what you are - all I do now is you are a liar in posts using fraudulent scumbag tactics to make your fallacious points.

ParanoidAgnostic wrote:
If anything I'd consider myself a individualst and rather central in terms of left and right

There's no such political ideology as 'individualst' or individualist. If you take a political ideology indicator survey your political views will predominantly be in one of the 4 multi-dimensional categories that includes the social political dimension along with economic. On this simplistic rather naive standard left-right political ideology scale you keep referring to how do you distinguish leftists like Stalin from Gandhi? Or right wing Neo-Liberatarians [anarcho-capitalists] from right wing Fascists like Hitler or NeoCons [NeoFascists in my mind's eye] like Bush?

We're all individuals with varying political views, so instead of claiming this odd ball centrist 'individualst' political ideology, find out for yourself what political ideology your real political views lean towards by taking this multi-dimensional political ideology indicator survey here.

ParanoidAgnostic wrote:
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

I am a genuine LEFT Libertarian who knows the difference between the original European social anarchist and the anarcho-huckster capitalist version of it that started in the US.

Take the political indicator survey Paranoid, tell us all the results, and I'll at least respect your attempt to 'know thyself' and may forgive you for your repeated sleazy straw man tactics you utilized in you posts provided YOU STOP distorting and misrepresenting the context of what I and others have posted. Because based on your first page posts you don't seem to comprehend the economic AND social dimensions of left and right authoritarian hierarchical governments versus their left and right liberatarian 'less government is more' counterparts.

Your post asks Why are libertarians generally ridiculed?

I think many may find the answer to this query you make provided in the very posts you've made....

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


kmisho
kmisho's picture
Posts: 298
Joined: 2006-08-18
User is offlineOffline
Yellow_Number_Five

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:
Yes, for certainly UPS, FedEX, DHL and a dozen others couldn't do an adequate job, lol.

The USPS is irrelevent at this point, at best.

Even if I agree, it still seems to me that you are talking about change eventually rendering an old way irrelevant and not necessarily that the new way was right all along.

Quote:
Face it, often times, in fact most of the time, the private sector can get things done as well, if not better than the clods currently in charge.

I've stayed out of this argument, because I felt it was waged on false premises. Essentially, the anti-libertine crowd is arguing against the chaos that WOULD insue from a dramatic paradigm shift. That's bull.

The pricate sector can get things done, but it is not ALL about getting things done. It depends on what you want done. And I still think other issues trump getting things done. Down with Machiavelli.

Quote:
Of course switching to a libertine system overnight would cause proplems. Nobody in the of the libertine bent I know is advocating such a ridiculously irressponsible thing.

Change takes time.

We start by ending the drug war and the war in Iraq. Two things I'm fairly sure the vast majority of libertines would support.

Social and economic changes can come after that, and in stages. It makes little sense to change th e way things work overnight. You do it slowly, and evaluate what you are doing ast you implement it.

Of course the next step would be to legalize gay marriage amd lift all restrictions on stem cell research.

Then we'll eliminate immigration restrictions and work for true free trade.

Then we'll eliminate property and income tax, so that you can finally actually OWN your home and property.

Additional reforms can wait till the next term or five. Personal responsibility is NOT something we are used to as Americans.

I like that you actually laid out a plan, rather than asserting that "my way is right so we should switch to being right instantaneously." This attitude has long been one of my peeves with the most extreme libertarians.

I would like to ask one thing, though. You do employ one thing that appears to be a trick that I see from a lot of self-styled libertarians and that is a shell-game of conflating freedom and personal responsibility. I am told that the libertarian ideal is founded on freedom so it would not be good to argue with it. But when we start talking about corruption and lawless being a predictable side-effect of Freedom with a capital F, the libertarian frequently(without explanation) morphs freedom into personal responsibility. The fact is that personal responsibility is necessarily a restriction on freedom even if it is no more than one placing limits on oneself. Further if it is NOT only self-control, it must be control from without (and I think it would be completely stupid to think that even if we follow all good steps there would still not be a significantly damaging cadre of criminals raring to exploit Freedom). There must be some entity with the power of creating law and enforcing it, i.e. a government.

This is where libertarianism collides with concepts of government and for me loses all sense. If you are not an anti-government libertarian, this does not apply to you. But if you are (or someone) please explain to me government without a government.


ParanoidAgnostic
ParanoidAgnostic's picture
Posts: 402
Joined: 2007-05-20
User is offlineOffline
Adnihilo, I still think you

Adnihilo, I still think you are misunderstanding my posts but this argument is unhelpful.

 

Adnihilo wrote:

Take the political indicator survey Paranoid, tell us all the results.

Been there, done that. but I did it again for your benefit.

Economic Left/Right: -1.62

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.44

 

Quote:

There's no such political ideology as 'individualst' or individualist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individualism

 

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
darth_josh wrote: And what

darth_josh wrote:

And what about the U.S. Postal Service? Privatize that! Watch bedlam in motion.

A new union among the proletariat would break out every other day in every field of labor.

Or shall we just compartmentalize those things as 'fitting' with Libertarianism?

 

I'm genuinely interested in how your version of communism deals with shortages and surplusses in people doing certain jobs and the distribution of limited resources.

I know that I put the question rather mockingly and I'm sorry for that. As I said, if someone can put forth an idea for communism that works and maintains a high degree of personal freedom then I'd have no problem supporting it. I just have trouble seeing how these two problems (really one problem from two points of view) would be solved without government coersion or declaring some people "more equal than others."

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


munky99999
munky99999's picture
Posts: 46
Joined: 2007-12-28
User is offlineOffline
Just to toss my 2 cents

Just to toss my 2 cents in... I like anarchist vs libertarian debates. Being a social democrat... they have many valid points.

 

If Libertarians think government is so bad... why do they want to just fight it down to just a little...

 We think slavery is very bad... we didnt want to make it small... we needed to irradicate it.

 Another good point is that historically... everytime someone tries to make a small government. It rebounds and becomes larger than before.

Furthermore... the common arguments against the libertarian party or ron paul... is that they arent making the government smaller... its just shifting the choice to the states.

If texas wants to make atheism completely illegal... but california wants to make atheism the only religion allowed... the federal government doesnt really have a way of enforcing seperation... as history saw with the american articles of confederation...

Lets take an example of global warming... the USA has certain regulations... california wants to implement stronger regulations... why shouldnt they be allowed to? 


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

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:
darth_josh wrote:

And what about the U.S. Postal Service? Privatize that! Watch bedlam in motion.

Yes, for certainly UPS, FedEX, DHL and a dozen others couldn't do an adequate job, lol.

The USPS is irrelevent at this point, at best.

Irrelevant? Ok. One wonders how long the bidding war would take for sending tax papers, rebates, and bills from the IRS until the process of eliminating said agency comes to fruition.

Let alone WHERE it would go since things can wind up in the wrong zip code now. Oh yeah. Hmmm. Zip codes. Where'd those come from? 

Quote:
Face it, often times, in fact most of the time, the private sector can get things done as well, if not better than the clods currently in charge.

At what cost to the people? Things to see:

Bill for daily driving on privately owned roads in order to get to work.

Police: "Here is the bill for my wages for pulling you over, sir."

Bill for handcuff rental, jail cell rent, and food for jail time even if found innocent. [side note: They do this where I live. One guys bill was $713 for one week and he was found innocent. According to the sherriff, he still has to pay. It's in civil court this month some time.]

"Sorry that your house burnt down. Please remit the payment for the fire brigade and equipment rental to extinguish it."

"Sorry that your house burnt down. Please see my insurance representative for damages incurred to my lawn by the fire truck."

I don't share your optimism with regard to the 'private sector'. Perhaps it is just the private sector that I see.

Quote:
I've stayed out of this argument, because I felt it was waged on false premises. Essentially, the anti-libertine crowd is arguing against the chaos that WOULD insue from a dramatic paradigm shift. That's bull.

Of course switching to a libertine system overnight would cause proplems. Nobody in the of the libertine bent I know is advocating such a ridiculously irressponsible thing.

Change takes time.

Sure. Absolutely. I agree. Overnight would be next to impossible. And always of course, it takes time to get all three colors of a group in the game of MONOPOLY as well.

I'm looking at the end result of libertardism.

Since we like glittering generalities in this thread(I said 'WE' meaning me too). How about this gem?

Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

People translate 'free trade' into 'crush the competition'.

Quote:
We start by ending the drug war and the war in Iraq. Two things I'm fairly sure the vast majority of libertines would support.

I'm for ending the war in Iraq.

When you start talking about legalizing drugs, you lose me. That's begging chaos. Let alone an almost irrefutable truth that while under the influence of drugs, 'personal responsibility' is the farthest thing from one's mind.

Quote:
Social and economic changes can come after that, and in stages. It makes little sense to change th e way things work overnight. You do it slowly, and evaluate what you are doing ast you implement it.

Who evaluates? Who adjusts the implementation?

Quote:
Of course the next step would be to legalize gay marriage amd lift all restrictions on stem cell research.

No need to resort to libertarianism for that.

Quote:
Then we'll eliminate immigration restrictions and work for true free trade.

"True free trade" is a very scary and not very profitable or secure. U.S. Customs stops more than just drugs and dangerous fruits from entering the country.

How would you propose the privatization of that government agency?

Quote:
Then we'll eliminate property and income tax, so that you can finally actually OWN your home and property.

HIP HIP HOORAY! Hope you enjoy staying at that home on your property because it's going to cost you BIGTIME to go anywhere.

I'm all for eliminating the IRS, but they're going to create new taxes or increase the taxes already paid for everything else that people NEED as well as the luxury stuff. One seemingly simple truth about business is:

You can never revenue less and you aren't supposed to spend more to do the same operation.

So what would you propose? Spending less or sales taxing more?

Quote:
Additional reforms can wait till the next term or five. Personal responsibility is NOT something we are used to as Americans.

Agreed. It comes down to the question of: "Will Americans EVER be capable of it?" As it sits now, I trust people regarded as 'low-life' more than I do the people commonly associated with 'libertine values' because the former are less likely to look at me as a 'profit margin'.

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


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
kmisho

kmisho wrote:
Yellow_Number_Five wrote:
Yes, for certainly UPS, FedEX, DHL and a dozen others couldn't do an adequate job, lol.

The USPS is irrelevent at this point, at best.

Even if I agree, it still seems to me that you are talking about change eventually rendering an old way irrelevant and not necessarily that the new way was right all along.

That's like saying if I'm pro secularist stability, I'm advocating the quasi-stability religion currently engenders us with. In both cases, we are talking about a clear pardigm shift that requires a change in the way people think. Superstition progressing toward reason and dependence and control seqwaying toward personal responsibility and freedom.

Quote:
Quote:
Face it, often times, in fact most of the time, the private sector can get things done as well, if not better than the clods currently in charge.

I've stayed out of this argument, because I felt it was waged on false premises. Essentially, the anti-libertine crowd is arguing against the chaos that WOULD insue from a dramatic paradigm shift. That's bull.

The pricate sector can get things done, but it is not ALL about getting things done. It depends on what you want done. And I still think other issues trump getting things done. Down with Machiavelli.

Well, I suppose  you traded rhetohric for rhetohric, but left me little to comment on, meh.

Quote:
Quote:
Of course switching to a libertine system overnight would cause proplems. Nobody in the of the libertine bent I know is advocating such a ridiculously irressponsible thing.

Change takes time.

We start by ending the drug war and the war in Iraq. Two things I'm fairly sure the vast majority of libertines would support.

Social and economic changes can come after that, and in stages. It makes little sense to change th e way things work overnight. You do it slowly, and evaluate what you are doing ast you implement it.

Of course the next step would be to legalize gay marriage amd lift all restrictions on stem cell research.

Then we'll eliminate immigration restrictions and work for true free trade.

Then we'll eliminate property and income tax, so that you can finally actually OWN your home and property.

Additional reforms can wait till the next term or five. Personal responsibility is NOT something we are used to as Americans.

I like that you actually laid out a plan, rather than asserting that "my way is right so we should switch to being right instantaneously." This attitude has long been one of my peeves with the most extreme libertarians.

I have lots of plans! But I just wanted to give  you an idea of of what one guy who is a strong libertine would have in mind. You need that much to have a conversation.

Quote:
I would like to ask one thing, though. You do employ one thing that appears to be a trick that I see from a lot of self-styled libertarians and that is a shell-game of conflating freedom and personal responsibility. I am told that the libertarian ideal is founded on freedom so it would not be good to argue with it. But when we start talking about corruption and lawless being a predictable side-effect of Freedom with a capital F, the libertarian frequently(without explanation) morphs freedom into personal responsibility. The fact is that personal responsibility is necessarily a restriction on freedom even if it is no more than one placing limits on oneself. Further if it is NOT only self-control, it must be control from without (and I think it would be completely stupid to think that even if we follow all good steps there would still not be a significantly damaging cadre of criminals raring to exploit Freedom). There must be some entity with the power of creating law and enforcing it, i.e. a government.

An EXCELLENT point. Yes, you are correct that I bring up freedom and responsibility  in the same breath. Personally I feel you cannot have one without the other. Freedoms ENTAIL responsibilities and vice versa. For example, your freedom of speech entails you exercise it with the responsibility of not enciting a riot or spreading libel.

You however fail on your next point, that in a libertine system, nobody would be there to enforce responsibility.

In this sense, you, as many do, equat a libertine system with anarchy. I DO NOT advocate anarchy. There can STILL be rule of law in a libertine system, in fact, I feel there must be.

A libertine system is one of limited, prefferencially localaized government, not a system of NO government or rule of law at all.

Quote:
This is where libertarianism collides with concepts of government and for me loses all sense. If you are not an anti-government libertarian, this does not apply to you. But if you are (or someone) please explain to me government without a government.

I feel I have explained it, or laid out the rudiments for it. Do not equate being anti government with advocating anarchy. Do that, and we'll probably get along fine.

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.


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Just to toss my 2 cents

Just to toss my 2 cents in... I like anarchist vs libertarian debates. Being a social democrat... they have many valid points.

 

If Libertarians think government is so bad... why do they want to just fight it down to just a little...

Less of an inherently repressive thing is better.

 

Quote:
We think slavery is very bad... we didnt want to make it small... we needed to irradicate it.

False analogy. Yes, in both instances we ARE dealing with repression and denial of freedoms, but in ANY civilized society one must accept MINIMAL restrictions to live in harmony - most of these are based on simple empathy, and not enslaving, robbing or murdering your neighbor is certainly part of that. Telling us who can marry who, when we can buy a beer and charging us taxes on things we already presumably own is not.

 

Quote:
Another good point is that historically... everytime someone tries to make a small government. It rebounds and becomes larger than before.

A very good criticism. I honestly have little to counter it, because, we've never really tried what I'm advovating. I don't know how it will work out in the end, but to recognize that something is wrong, and then try to do NOTHING about it, is inanity.

I'm advocating an ideal, I'll admit that. Just like I wish people would embrace reason and reject superstition, I'd wish they'd embrace personal responsibility and limited government. Somehow, I think when one is achieved, the other will be to. And even if it is a losing fight NOW, I'll make that fight in the hopes of changing the future - in BOTH cases.

Quote:
Furthermore... the common arguments against the libertarian party or ron paul... is that they arent making the government smaller... its just shifting the choice to the states.
Quote:

Did you miss my tirade against Ron Paul?

Quote:
If texas wants to make atheism completely illegal... but california wants to make atheism the only religion allowed... the federal government doesnt really have a way of enforcing seperation... as history saw with the american articles of confederation...

Well, libertarians certainly DO advocate for more local control, but within the Constitution. There are simply some things the FEDERAL government has NO business being involved in - abortion, marriage (of ANY kind), drug use, personal property, etc. I would rather these things be states and local rights issues, at least then, we couldn't become a complete nation of Puritans. Because, frankly, if you read the Constitution, the National gov has no business being involved in these things.

Quote:
Lets take an example of global warming... the USA has certain regulations... california wants to implement stronger regulations... why shouldnt they be allowed to?

They should, who ever said they shouldn't? It isn't the national gov's position to dictate environmental policy either.

And btw, you've just refutted your own rebuttal that no individual state would work to enact more responsible standards on its own. 

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.


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
darth_josh

darth_josh wrote:
Yellow_Number_Five wrote:
darth_josh wrote:

And what about the U.S. Postal Service? Privatize that! Watch bedlam in motion.

Yes, for certainly UPS, FedEX, DHL and a dozen others couldn't do an adequate job, lol.

The USPS is irrelevent at this point, at best.

Irrelevant? Ok. One wonders how long the bidding war would take for sending tax papers, rebates, and bills from the IRS until the process of eliminating said agency comes to fruition.

Uh, you do know I advocate getting rid of the IRS, right?

Quote:
Let alone WHERE it would go since things can wind up in the wrong zip code now. Oh yeah. Hmmm. Zip codes. Where'd those come from? 

Are you serious? Don't answer that if you are.

Quote:
Quote:
Face it, often times, in fact most of the time, the private sector can get things done as well, if not better than the clods currently in charge.

At what cost to the people? Things to see:

Bill for daily driving on privately owned roads in order to get to work.

You pay that bill every day, it just isn't itemized or based on how much you actually USE said road. Try again.

Quote:
Police: "Here is the bill for my wages for pulling you over, sir."

Bill for handcuff rental, jail cell rent, and food for jail time even if found innocent. [side note: They do this where I live. One guys bill was $713 for one week and he was found innocent. According to the sherriff, he still has to pay. It's in civil court this month some time.]

Actually, here is the scenario:

You are arrested, found guilty by your peers based on evidence.

YOU make restitution for the damage YOU caused, including court costs. I'm unsure what damage has  been done by going 65 in a 55, but feel free to try to quantify it. I'm sure you'll make an argument about people killed by speeding. Frankly, I think the OWNER of the road is responsible for making it safe. If I owned a road, and a guy was consistently driving unsafely on it and I knew about it, I'd not let him drive on my road, but individual acts of stupidity or carelessness are on the driver in full.

That may not sound much different than the way it works now, and it shouldn't. If you injure another party through your own negligence, you are responsible. The only difference is who owns the road.

I personally don't advocate speed limits, but if the community did, that's what ought to occur. Personally, I don't think a crime has occurred unless a persons' rights have been violated or damages have been assessed - but that's my opinion, not my position.

Quote:
"Sorry that your house burnt down. Please remit the payment for the fire brigade and equipment rental to extinguish it."

Damn right. If they put out YOUR house, YOU should pay for it. Crazy idea, I know. That's not to say insurance plans would not be in place. My own neighborhood has a private fire, police AND ambulance service. People have been working this shit out on their own for quite some time.

Quote:
I don't share your optimism with regard to the 'private sector'. Perhaps it is just the private sector that I see.

Let me know if that was supposed to be a point. I didn't see it.

Quote:
Quote:
I've stayed out of this argument, because I felt it was waged on false premises. Essentially, the anti-libertine crowd is arguing against the chaos that WOULD insue from a dramatic paradigm shift. That's bull.

Of course switching to a libertine system overnight would cause proplems. Nobody in the of the libertine bent I know is advocating such a ridiculously irressponsible thing.

Change takes time.

Sure. Absolutely. I agree. Overnight would be next to impossible. And always of course, it takes time to get all three colors of a group in the game of MONOPOLY as well.

Oh, that was SOOO funny, I guess is was a dig on capitalism, right?

Quote:
I'm looking at the end result of libertardism.

Since we like glittering generalities in this thread(I said 'WE' meaning me too). How about this gem?

Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

So you agree with me? How is libertinism giving anyone "absolute power"? Explain it, slowly. And I'm talking power on the level you HAND to your governernment now. Illeagal search and seizure, checking out your library queue, wire taps, emminent domain, Gitmo and crazy naked terrorist piles in secret prisons.

Quote:
People translate 'free trade' into 'crush the competition'.

Some do. So what. Google pwns MS in the search wars and eventually swallows them, and its the end of the world. Or, we continue down the path we're on and a finger goes in your ass every time you get on a  bus. That's the road we're heading down, willingly no less thanks to people who don't see the problem.

Quote:
Quote:
We start by ending the drug war and the war in Iraq. Two things I'm fairly sure the vast majority of libertines would support.

I'm for ending the war in Iraq.

When you start talking about legalizing drugs, you lose me. That's begging chaos. Let alone an almost irrefutable truth that while under the influence of drugs, 'personal responsibility' is the farthest thing from one's mind.

How would legalizing drugs lead to chaos, exactly? Spell it out. Do you honestly buy into the bullshit argument that more people would do it if it were legal?

Quote:
Quote:
Social and economic changes can come after that, and in stages. It makes little sense to change th e way things work overnight. You do it slowly, and evaluate what you are doing ast you implement it.

Who evaluates? Who adjusts the implementation?

You and I. The people for once, starting on the local level. 

Quote:
Quote:
Of course the next step would be to legalize gay marriage amd lift all restrictions on stem cell research.

No need to resort to libertarianism for that.

I beg your pardon, but I don't recall ANY of the current runners other than Gravel advocating it in any serious manner, and Gravel is certainly a left libertine. 

Quote:
Quote:
Then we'll eliminate immigration restrictions and work for true free trade.

"True free trade" is a very scary and not very profitable or secure. U.S. Customs stops more than just drugs and dangerous fruits from entering the country.

How would you propose the privatization of that government agency?

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. 

Quote:
Quote:
Then we'll eliminate property and income tax, so that you can finally actually OWN your home and property.

HIP HIP HOORAY! Hope you enjoy staying at that home on your property because it's going to cost you BIGTIME to go anywhere.

I'm all for eliminating the IRS, but they're going to create new taxes or increase the taxes already paid for everything else that people NEED as well as the luxury stuff. One seemingly simple truth about business is:

You can never revenue less and you aren't supposed to spend more to do the same operation.

So what would you propose? Spending less or sales taxing more?

Wrong, This is EXACTLY what I want. The people who USE the roads will pay for the roads. The people who have fires pay for fires, etc.

In the meantime, I like Mike Gravels idea about replacing the income tax with a sales tax. That would more reflect on who is using services and charge them accordingly.

Quote:
Quote:
Additional reforms can wait till the next term or five. Personal responsibility is NOT something we are used to as Americans.

Agreed. It comes down to the question of: "Will Americans EVER be capable of it?" As it sits now, I trust people regarded as 'low-life' more than I do the people commonly associated with 'libertine values' because the former are less likely to look at me as a 'profit margin'.

I find that insulting. I'm too poor to look at anyone as a profit margin, I simply advocate fair play and freedom.

Honestly, what does it say about us as a society if we are FORCED to help kill who our president deems enemies and occasionally help the less fortunate amoung us under threat of prison? That IS the system we have in place now. 

I've always willingly given to charity, money, blood, clothes, organ donor promises.....I've never given to killing other folks - except when income tax is deducted from my pay.

Forgive me for having a problem with that.

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.


munky99999
munky99999's picture
Posts: 46
Joined: 2007-12-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote: False analogy. Yes,

Quote:
False analogy. Yes, in both instances we ARE dealing with repression and denial of freedoms,

If there is a point of similarity than the analogy is not false. To show that it is false beyond that would be to show how the similarity doesnt make sense in the inference of the analogy. Just to move beyond this... you dont do this in the next steps.

Quote:
but in ANY civilized society one must accept MINIMAL restrictions to live in harmony

I do believe I did state that I get these points from anarchists. Who literally are of the position of making every single person their own country. No ruler of any kind over yourself. Therefore you rule yourself. Meaning NO minimal restrictions. The issue with this is that you do not than have jurisdiction over that person unless that person agrees to that jurisdiction. The most you can do is sanction the person. Now the issue as seen with the American Articles of confederation. The rulers did not have the funding nor capability of  governing the people in any meaningful way. Such a similar government today could never fund National defence nor federal level law enforcement in the same method.

 

Quote:
most of these are based on simple empathy, and not enslaving, robbing or murdering your neighbor is certainly part of that.

The point is that the government IS coercive on these points. The small government would also still be coercive toward tax evasion and such. The point in creating certain laws was because of negative effects. Such as robbery. Most people(not all) see how robbery is a bad thing. Than the government looks at things like abortion. Again most people might see abortion as a bad thing. The collective morality thusly wants to infringe on the freedoms of thieves and abortion recipients. The problem here is... you can ban robbery entirely. Someone can find themselves in a bad position where morally it is an ok thing to do in turn to steal. The point would be... in court you just explain that situation as mitigating problems. You than aren't going to be punished. I honestly cant think of an example... but again it's the usual problem with moral absolutism. "Thou shalt not lie or else" Than that nazi soldier speaks with the christian family and askes if they are hiding jews in their attic. Well if you had moral absolutism... lying is wrong always... you have to give up those jews to the nazis. 

 Same sort of thing.

 

Quote:
Telling us who can marry who,

Same-sex marriage is legal in Canada. It's actually considered a hate crime if a priest wants to not marry homosexual. I'm pretty sure it hasn't been appealed or anything.

 

Quote:
when we can buy a beer

Pretty sure Canada also again has no blue laws. I do believe the law in Canada basically allows the market to decide whatever it likes. I'm not a beer kind of guy. I do know that LCBO is open during sundays. Though not as much. 

Quote:
and charging us taxes on things we already presumably own is not.

They aren't taxing you because they own 1% of your car or something. They are just excise taxes. They are basically taxing you for doing things which likely arent moral... but they cant outright ban them. They want to raise the cost of that act so as to generate money from that possible abuse. Such as CD-Rs. You pay an extra tax on those most likely. BECAUSE they are so likely to being used in copyright infringement. Driving a car is a privilege and not a right. Instead of driving and having to pay these excise taxes... buy a bike or jog everywhere.

 

Quote:
A very good criticism. I honestly have little to counter it, because, we've never really tried what I'm advovating.

Well forgive me for not knowing exactly what you're position entails... but libertarianism and small government has happened many times historically. The USA is a great example. Look how much that blew up. Every communist country was also the same thing. The first inbetween government wasn't perfect... they limited government. It exploded and jumped into communism. Dictatorships have a few other examples. Though dictatorships aren't necessarily big government all the time. 

 

Quote:
I don't know how it will work out in the end, but to recognize that something is wrong, and then try to do NOTHING about it, is inanity.

This is another thing anarchists point out. My favourite example is the one of the... You are on a plane which is crashing... you can see the mountain that is about to be crashed upon. Again libertarians are suggesting is to just toss off the most people and try to stabilize with very little. The unfortunate thing is that you tossed the pilot off the plane and this plane is going to transform in a giant starship to fly over that mountain. Anarchism is basically letting the plane crash and not die and go down with the plane....

The reality however is that I see now evidence of this mountain and we may have a few yellow lights and perhaps a couple red lights. The plane is not going down and we have the appropriate tools to repair the plane before anything bad happens. Nothing is perfect. The issue is that the current system is not causing big problems... *at least not in the American world* there's far more good occurring because of government than harm. Irradicating government or limiting it so much that it becomes far less effective. Will not fix any issues... perhaps fix a few issues in the american situation... but will cause a nice big list of problems.

Quote:
I'm advocating an ideal, I'll admit that. Just like I wish people would embrace reason and reject superstition, I'd wish they'd embrace personal responsibility and limited government.

Even in the Star Trek world... there is a need of jails-brigs. You virtually eliminate personal need of property because of replicators. Yet there are still constantly people who find thrill or something in breaking the law. Rejecting superstition is a pretty realistic thing... but there will always be those few really nuts people... be they loch ness monsterists, kleptomaniacs, or serial killers. There will always be people who do these things. In fact I dont believe there would be any change in these groups because of the change of government. Those compelled to be serial killers or kleptos will still be compelled to be.You thusly still need an effective need for law enforcement. Starfleet security infact are a pretty big force... anywhere in the world within 4 seconds... now that's some serious manpower.

Quote:
Somehow, I think when one is achieved, the other will be to.

Actually on the contrary factually and statistically. The more likely the country is atheistic or rather far less superstitious are infact the countries in the world who have large governments... who tax and pay much into the education systems. The top 25 countries or so on the scale of atheism also are the countries which have universal health care... I recently checked this. If the country has universal health care... it's also highly probabilistic that the country is pretty damn socialistic and thusly a big government.

 

Quote:
And even if it is a losing fight NOW, I'll make that fight in the hopes of changing the future - in BOTH cases.

Which is great. If you truly believe as such and it makes you happy to fight for such a future. GREAT. The unfortunate fact is that anarchism-libertarianism is something that's basically only going to appeal to more intelligent anti-establishment kinds of people. This is why punk music and such are so very anarchistic or anti-government. The reality is that the majority of people in a country are morons who perfer to get their political advice from Oprah, whoever looks like they will be a good leader(as in... he's wearing a nice tie... I'll vote for him), decide to pick their representive by their name(I like Tom Lantos... it's a strong name... Adeline Geo-Karis sounds like a foreigner(stinkin greeks lol)... he'd be a terrible choice... Smiling ), or the good old usual... well I vote liberal/democrat always. They dont have a clue about the people they are voting for... they are just going to vote liberal because they always vote liberal.

 Rest of the post is just a big quote. I think I'm going to miss points or something perhaps.

 

Quote:
Did you miss my tirade against Ron Paul?

Yep.

 

Quote:
Well, libertarians certainly DO advocate for more local control, but within the Constitution. There are simply some things the FEDERAL government has NO business being involved in - abortion, marriage (of ANY kind), drug use, personal property, etc. I would rather these things be states and local rights issues, at least then, we couldn't become a complete nation of Puritans. Because, frankly, if you read the Constitution, the National gov has no business being involved in these things.

You didn't really address the point that the federal government doesn't really have the power any longer. You are just killing the constitution and recreating the problems of the articles of confederation. Obviously Ron Paul isn't a complete idiot and has been around the block on the issues. That's why he proposes changing the constitution.

Furthermore... my examples were on religion for the point. As Ron Paul says and you often can argue... the separation of church and state does not create protection FROM religion. It's only protection from the government toward religion of any kind. So atheism not really being a religion allows them to make it illegal. While making the state religion for california atheism while not necessarily making any other religion illegal or anything... Nothing really is violated as per the constitution. Furthermore since it's not freedom from religion... teaching creationism in schools would be perfectly fine.

So far I do believe it has been the state level who stopped them... perhaps you would see it go through.

 Kind of reminds me of the April Fools thing where a news article announced that the State of Alabama has officially changed the value of PI to be 3.0 in line with the Bible. It's awesome because of how believable it is. That's why it spread as a true story on the net.

Quote:
They should, who ever said they shouldn't?

The federal government in the usa said california couldnt do it. It was a main topic for the republican debate in california... the question being directly from Schwarzenegger. McCain gave the thumbs up. Thusly McCain for his approval. I'm pretty sure that was the big question that swayed Arnold.

Quote:
And btw, you've just refutted your own rebuttal that no individual state would work to enact more responsible standards on its own.

Not a refutation at all. My position isn't that giving the option to the states that they will all become freedom whores and cause problems... for example in positions of religion. I know that most of the blue states infact would indeed become pretty strong. Which exceptions obviously... Michigan likely would take good advantage of far less laws and regulations. There would also be red states which become good also. It's not that no individual state would become more responsible. It is moreso that there are some who would take good advantage and go back to 1830 in terms of laws and knowledge. That's the problem here.

 MANY laws and regulations that occur in some places are very minor things. For example... lets say you would like a nice glass of carrot juice. Well there are loads of regulations on the market up until you pouring that carrot juice. There is pesticides and all kinds of things... they are to try to eliminate possible problems. Than the carrots are taken from the ground... it needs to be washed up properly and prepared some ways... you than mash it up... you than have to pasteurize the juice. You do this to kill off any potential viruses and harmful organisms.

Well the joke is... "Organic" foods eliminates loads of these regulations... for the most part to not a big problem... very little chance of evil african bugs laying bad crap into the carrots... but the biggest problem is that they dont pasteurize the carrot juice. This than doesn't kill off the bacteria which is very very common in soil. The bacteria germinates and than you have Botulism in lethal amounts living in this carrot juice. What's the chance of this happening? 1-2%??? Ya pretty much... botulism frequently gets into your body but doesn't germinate; or does but doesn't germinate to a real large level because of the small probability. How do you fix this small probablity from happening?  Make it a law so you have to pasteurize the juice. Suddenly that 1-2% becomes oh so negligible that calling it a percentage is meaningless.

 That's the reason for these sorts of regulations. If you eliminate this regulation... the state says MEH why have it? and they dont do it... you are going to hurt many people.

Perhaps Maine will have been burnt recently because of this and it's in their minds... they take the usual regulation and make it even moreso strong. Great.... whatever... 


mrjonno
Posts: 726
Joined: 2007-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Wow lots of long essays

Wow lots of long essays here, but lets get to first principles

 Freedom is NOT always a good thing

Not everything comes down to what an individual wants

Freedom is not natural its a product of a functioning society/goverment

Personal property/wealth only exists because society/government recognises it. You do not own a car because you have earned money to pay for it, you own it because you have a receipt and the law (government) recognises the transcation.

You do not have the 'right' to earn any money in nation never mind keep any of it. In fact you dont even have a right to live in a country unless you pay taxes towards it.

 In fact every base principle of libertarians is you are born with rights and that is fundamentally wrong you arent

 


kmisho
kmisho's picture
Posts: 298
Joined: 2006-08-18
User is offlineOffline
Yellow_Number_Five

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
Yes, for certainly UPS, FedEX, DHL and a dozen others couldn't do an adequate job, lol.

The USPS is irrelevent at this point, at best.

Even if I agree, it still seems to me that you are talking about change eventually rendering an old way irrelevant and not necessarily that the new way was right all along.

That's like saying if I'm pro secularist stability, I'm advocating the quasi-stability religion currently engenders us with. In both cases, we are talking about a clear pardigm shift that requires a change in the way people think. Superstition progressing toward reason and dependence and control seqwaying toward personal responsibility and freedom.

Yes. I am talking about a paradigm shift, especially in the light of evolving ethics and am making a distinction between this idea and the idea that we were always doing things wrong and now we need to do them right.

This points to a difference between me and the right/wrongers and that is that ethics evolve.

Quote:
Quote:
I would like to ask one thing, though. You do employ one thing that appears to be a trick that I see from a lot of self-styled libertarians and that is a shell-game of conflating freedom and personal responsibility. I am told that the libertarian ideal is founded on freedom so it would not be good to argue with it. But when we start talking about corruption and lawless being a predictable side-effect of Freedom with a capital F, the libertarian frequently(without explanation) morphs freedom into personal responsibility. The fact is that personal responsibility is necessarily a restriction on freedom even if it is no more than one placing limits on oneself. Further if it is NOT only self-control, it must be control from without (and I think it would be completely stupid to think that even if we follow all good steps there would still not be a significantly damaging cadre of criminals raring to exploit Freedom). There must be some entity with the power of creating law and enforcing it, i.e. a government.

An EXCELLENT point. Yes, you are correct that I bring up freedom and responsibility  in the same breath. Personally I feel you cannot have one without the other. Freedoms ENTAIL responsibilities and vice versa. For example, your freedom of speech entails you exercise it with the responsibility of not enciting a riot or spreading libel.

You however fail on your next point, that in a libertine system, nobody would be there to enforce responsibility.

In this sense, you, as many do, equat a libertine system with anarchy. I DO NOT advocate anarchy. There can STILL be rule of law in a libertine system, in fact, I feel there must be.

A libertine system is one of limited, prefferencially localaized government, not a system of NO government or rule of law at all.

If confusing anarchy and libertarianism is a mistake, it wasn't I who made it. This was the only reason I used the term "self-styled" when referring to Libertarians. They gave me this idea, and I thought it seemed pretty bizarre from the beginning.

Example: I was discussing this with someone who talked about "privatizing law." According to any normal idea of government (a body with the authority of enforcement) "privatizing law" is a contradiction in terms.

Maybe the more interesting question here is the freedom/responsibility link.


kmisho
kmisho's picture
Posts: 298
Joined: 2006-08-18
User is offlineOffline
As to the original question

As to the original question of why libertarians are ridiculed. In my neck of the woods, people who call themselves libertarians are normally gun-nuts or tax dodgers who use "freedom" rhetoric to defend any horrible idea they come up with.

So I think it's not as much an attack on libertarianism is it is an attack on libertarian people who act like this.


munky99999
munky99999's picture
Posts: 46
Joined: 2007-12-28
User is offlineOffline
kmisho wrote: As to the

kmisho wrote:

As to the original question of why libertarians are ridiculed. In my neck of the woods, people who call themselves libertarians are normally gun-nuts or tax dodgers who use "freedom" rhetoric to defend any horrible idea they come up with.

So I think it's not as much an attack on libertarianism is it is an attack on libertarian people who act like this.

I think that's actually quite fair. You can easily add in the anarchists to this also. The biggest thing you always hear about...

 

TAXATION IS THEFT!!!!1!!one!!!!

 

Which is a false claim anyway. Yet they always almost immediately will bring up that taxation is wrong and things that the government do is wrong sometimes.

 Libertarians are just a little less deluded than anarchists in that they realize that the government is doing a number of things that couldn't be replaced nor ended. Which is basically a "want to have cake and eat it too sort of thing" They dont want to be paying big taxes... for example the excise taxes that are being complained about. Yet they still want the same services that are provided by the government.


kmisho
kmisho's picture
Posts: 298
Joined: 2006-08-18
User is offlineOffline
munky99999 wrote: kmisho

munky99999 wrote:
kmisho wrote:

As to the original question of why libertarians are ridiculed. In my neck of the woods, people who call themselves libertarians are normally gun-nuts or tax dodgers who use "freedom" rhetoric to defend any horrible idea they come up with.

So I think it's not as much an attack on libertarianism is it is an attack on libertarian people who act like this.

I think that's actually quite fair. You can easily add in the anarchists to this also. The biggest thing you always hear about...

 

TAXATION IS THEFT!!!!1!!one!!!!

 

Which is a false claim anyway. Yet they always almost immediately will bring up that taxation is wrong and things that the government do is wrong sometimes.

 Libertarians are just a little less deluded than anarchists in that they realize that the government is doing a number of things that couldn't be replaced nor ended. Which is basically a "want to have cake and eat it too sort of thing" They dont want to be paying big taxes... for example the excise taxes that are being complained about. Yet they still want the same services that are provided by the government.

I don't know of anyone who put it better than old Tom Paine:

"For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform, and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him out of two evils to choose the least."


mrjonno
Posts: 726
Joined: 2007-02-26
User is offlineOffline
A far better statement

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

 

 

 


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

mrjonno wrote:

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

 

Sure. When your country represents you in a fair manner. I'm not asking for everyone in the government to think like me all of the time. Once in a while would be nice though.

A long time ago, we pitched y'alls tea into a harbor because we weren't fairly represented. Whose tea do we pitch overboard now since it is supposed to be ours? 

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


mrjonno
Posts: 726
Joined: 2007-02-26
User is offlineOffline
A democratic government can

A democratic government can represent the people but cannot possible represent you as an individual. Its not a perfect form of government but its by far the best we have come up with so far


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
munky99999

munky99999 wrote:

Quote:
False analogy. Yes, in both instances we ARE dealing with repression and denial of freedoms,

If there is a point of similarity than the analogy is not false. To show that it is false beyond that would be to show how the similarity doesnt make sense in the inference of the analogy. Just to move beyond this... you dont do this in the next steps.

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.

Quote:
Quote:
but in ANY civilized society one must accept MINIMAL restrictions to live in harmony

I do believe I did state that I get these points from anarchists. Who literally are of the position of making every single person their own country. No ruler of any kind over yourself. Therefore you rule yourself. Meaning NO minimal restrictions. The issue with this is that you do not than have jurisdiction over that person unless that person agrees to that jurisdiction. The most you can do is sanction the person. Now the issue as seen with the American Articles of confederation. The rulers did not have the funding nor capability of  governing the people in any meaningful way. Such a similar government today could never fund National defence nor federal level law enforcement in the same method.

WTF?

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

Quote:
Quote:
most of these are based on simple empathy, and not enslaving, robbing or murdering your neighbor is certainly part of that.

The point is that the government IS coercive on these points. The small government would also still be coercive toward tax evasion and such. The point in creating certain laws was because of negative effects. Such as robbery. Most people(not all) see how robbery is a bad thing. Than the government looks at things like abortion. Again most people might see abortion as a bad thing. The collective morality thusly wants to infringe on the freedoms of thieves and abortion recipients. The problem here is... you can ban robbery entirely. Someone can find themselves in a bad position where morally it is an ok thing to do in turn to steal. The point would be... in court you just explain that situation as mitigating problems. You than aren't going to be punished. I honestly cant think of an example... but again it's the usual problem with moral absolutism. "Thou shalt not lie or else" Than that nazi soldier speaks with the christian family and askes if they are hiding jews in their attic. Well if you had moral absolutism... lying is wrong always... you have to give up those jews to the nazis. 

Gibberish. Sorry. That shit made NO sense.

 

Quote:
Quote:
Telling us who can marry who,

Same-sex marriage is legal in Canada. It's actually considered a hate crime if a priest wants to not marry homosexual. I'm pretty sure it hasn't been appealed or anything.

Again, did you have a point? You are saying an awful lot and making very little sense.

 

Quote:
Quote:
when we can buy a beer

Pretty sure Canada also again has no blue laws. I do believe the law in Canada basically allows the market to decide whatever it likes. I'm not a beer kind of guy. I do know that LCBO is open during sundays. Though not as much.

Good for Canada, how is this germane to my point? 

Quote:
Quote:
and charging us taxes on things we already presumably own is not.

They aren't taxing you because they own 1% of your car or something. They are just excise taxes. They are basically taxing you for doing things which likely arent moral... but they cant outright ban them. They want to raise the cost of that act so as to generate money from that possible abuse. Such as CD-Rs. You pay an extra tax on those most likely. BECAUSE they are so likely to being used in copyright infringement. Driving a car is a privilege and not a right. Instead of driving and having to pay these excise taxes... buy a bike or jog everywhere.

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.

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.

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.

 

Quote:
Quote:
A very good criticism. I honestly have little to counter it, because, we've never really tried what I'm advovating.

Well forgive me for not knowing exactly what you're position entails... but libertarianism and small government has happened many times historically. The USA is a great example. Look how much that blew up. Every communist country was also the same thing. The first inbetween government wasn't perfect... they limited government. It exploded and jumped into communism. Dictatorships have a few other examples. Though dictatorships aren't necessarily big government all the time. 

Was there a point or a counter postion somewhere in there? If so, I missed it.

 

Quote:
Quote:
I don't know how it will work out in the end, but to recognize that something is wrong, and then try to do NOTHING about it, is inanity.

This is another thing anarchists point out. My favourite example is the one of the... You are on a plane which is crashing... you can see the mountain that is about to be crashed upon. Again libertarians are suggesting is to just toss off the most people and try to stabilize with very little. The unfortunate thing is that you tossed the pilot off the plane and this plane is going to transform in a giant starship to fly over that mountain. Anarchism is basically letting the plane crash and not die and go down with the plane....

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.

Quote:
The reality however is that I see now evidence of this mountain and we may have a few yellow lights and perhaps a couple red lights. The plane is not going down and we have the appropriate tools to repair the plane before anything bad happens. Nothing is perfect. The issue is that the current system is not causing big problems... *at least not in the American world* there's far more good occurring because of government than harm. Irradicating government or limiting it so much that it becomes far less effective. Will not fix any issues... perhaps fix a few issues in the american situation... but will cause a nice big list of problems.

More gibberish.

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.

Quote:
Quote:
I'm advocating an ideal, I'll admit that. Just like I wish people would embrace reason and reject superstition, I'd wish they'd embrace personal responsibility and limited government.

Even in the Star Trek world... there is a need of jails-brigs. You virtually eliminate personal need of property because of replicators. Yet there are still constantly people who find thrill or something in breaking the law. Rejecting superstition is a pretty realistic thing... but there will always be those few really nuts people... be they loch ness monsterists, kleptomaniacs, or serial killers. There will always be people who do these things. In fact I dont believe there would be any change in these groups because of the change of government. Those compelled to be serial killers or kleptos will still be compelled to be.You thusly still need an effective need for law enforcement. Starfleet security infact are a pretty big force... anywhere in the world within 4 seconds... now that's some serious manpower.-

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.

Quote:
Quote:
Somehow, I think when one is achieved, the other will be to.

Actually on the contrary factually and statistically. The more likely the country is atheistic or rather far less superstitious are infact the countries in the world who have large governments... who tax and pay much into the education systems. The top 25 countries or so on the scale of atheism also are the countries which have universal health care... I recently checked this. If the country has universal health care... it's also highly probabilistic that the country is pretty damn socialistic and thusly a big government.

So, now correlation = causation? When did that hapen?

 

Quote:
Quote:
And even if it is a losing fight NOW, I'll make that fight in the hopes of changing the future - in BOTH cases.

Which is great. If you truly believe as such and it makes you happy to fight for such a future. GREAT. The unfortunate fact is that anarchism-libertarianism is something that's basically only going to appeal to more intelligent anti-establishment kinds of people. This is why punk music and such are so very anarchistic or anti-government. The reality is that the majority of people in a country are morons who perfer to get their political advice from Oprah, whoever looks like they will be a good leader(as in... he's wearing a nice tie... I'll vote for him), decide to pick their representive by their name(I like Tom Lantos... it's a strong name... Adeline Geo-Karis sounds like a foreigner(stinkin greeks lol)... he'd be a terrible choice... Smiling ), or the good old usual... well I vote liberal/democrat always. They dont have a clue about the people they are voting for... they are just going to vote liberal because they always vote liberal.

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.

 

Quote:
Did you miss my tirade against Ron Paul?

Quote:
Quote:
Well, libertarians certainly DO advocate for more local control, but within the Constitution. There are simply some things the FEDERAL government has NO business being involved in - abortion, marriage (of ANY kind), drug use, personal property, etc. I would rather these things be states and local rights issues, at least then, we couldn't become a complete nation of Puritans. Because, frankly, if you read the Constitution, the National gov has no business being involved in these things.

You didn't really address the point that the federal government doesn't really have the power any longer. You are just killing the constitution and recreating the problems of the articles of confederation. Obviously Ron Paul isn't a complete idiot and has been around the block on the issues. That's why he proposes changing the constitution.

Your crazy assertion means little without an argument behind it. I personly think Ron Paul is a dbag.

Quote:
Furthermore... my examples were on religion for the point. As Ron Paul says and you often can argue... the separation of church and state does not create protection FROM religion. It's only protection from the government toward religion of any kind. So atheism not really being a religion allows them to make it illegal. While making the state religion for california atheism while not necessarily making any other religion illegal or anything... Nothing really is violated as per the constitution. Furthermore since it's not freedom from religion... teaching creationism in schools would be perfectly fine.

That's a very poor interpretation of the Constitution and not consistent with legal precident.

Quote:
So far I do believe it has been the state level who stopped them... perhaps you would see it go through.

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.

 

Quote:
Quote:
They should, who ever said they shouldn't?

The federal government in the usa said california couldnt do it.

Thanks for making my point.

Quote:
Quote:
And btw, you've just refutted your own rebuttal that no individual state would work to enact more responsible standards on its own.

Not a refutation at all. My position isn't that giving the option to the states that they will all become freedom whores and cause problems... for example in positions of religion. I know that most of the blue states infact would indeed become pretty strong. Which exceptions obviously... Michigan likely would take good advantage of far less laws and regulations. There would also be red states which become good also. It's not that no individual state would become more responsible. It is moreso that there are some who would take good advantage and go back to 1830 in terms of laws and knowledge. That's the problem here.

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. The intellectual elite will flea. 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.

And if we don't see that, then fine. FUCK those people. Cut them off, let them form communities for their own backward way of life and stop dragging the rest of us down. 

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.

 

Quote:
Quote:
MANY laws and regulations that occur in some places are very minor things. For example... lets say you would like a nice glass of carrot juice. Well there are loads of regulations on the market up until you pouring that carrot juice. There is pesticides and all kinds of things... they are to try to eliminate possible problems. Than the carrots are taken from the ground... it needs to be washed up properly and prepared some ways... you than mash it up... you than have to pasteurize the juice. You do this to kill off any potential viruses and harmful organisms.

Ok, seems fitting you end on gibberish.

Quote:
Well the joke is... "Organic" foods eliminates loads of these regulations... for the most part to not a big problem... very little chance of evil african bugs laying bad crap into the carrots... but the biggest problem is that they dont pasteurize the carrot juice. This than doesn't kill off the bacteria which is very very common in soil. The bacteria germinates and than you have Botulism in lethal amounts living in this carrot juice. What's the chance of this happening? 1-2%??? Ya pretty much... botulism frequently gets into your body but doesn't germinate; or does but doesn't germinate to a real large level because of the small probability. How do you fix this small probablity from happening?  Make it a law so you have to pasteurize the juice. Suddenly that 1-2% becomes oh so negligible that calling it a percentage is meaningless.

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.

 Go look at your toaster, I guantee you'll find a UL symbol on it.

Edit:
and by the way, I just reread this thread, and you ignored a SHITLOAD of what I said and cherry picked a lot of lines. I'm sorry I didn't notice that before I wrote my response.

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.


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
mrjonno wrote: Personal

mrjonno wrote:

Personal property/wealth only exists because society/government recognises it. You do not own a car because you have earned money to pay for it, you own it because you have a receipt and the law (government) recognises the transcation.

Partly true. I do agree that what we agree upon as a society dictates what is acceptable and what is so - that how we live is subjective based upon the society that we live in.

With that in mind, I'd hope you'd at least be willing to say that what I advocate is not "wrog" or antithetical to our nature. It may go against current mores, but it certainly is not outside the realm of how we could conduct ourselves and conduct ourselves on at least a similarly civil ground as we do now.

I will say, however, that the concept of ownership and possession does exist within other species, especially primates.

We as a society define HOW we treat such concepts, and we do that through disussion and social interation, what we're doing now.

The concepts remain, and are not unique by any stretch of the imagination.

Quote:
You do not have the 'right' to earn any money in nation never mind keep any of it. In fact you dont even have a right to live in a country unless you pay taxes towards it.

Right, see the Soviet Union and how that worked out. Yes, there are plenty of ways we can cohabitate, we've tried quite a few.

 

Quote:
In fact every base principle of libertarians is you are born with rights and that is fundamentally wrong you arent

When did I say that?

Rights come from mutual contracts and responsibilities. Rights are a two way street, they cannot exist without the capacity to reciprocate them.

Humans have rights, only because humans grant other humans rights, and we do so with certain expectations and caveates. Nothing decrees we are entilted to these rights, except contracts (be they business or constiutional or verbal or what not) we work out amoung ourselves. or have been worked out for us. No formal government is required for this, simply the ability to empathize and make agreements.

 And it should be noted that even those contracts don't really entitle you to anything without reciprocation and a collective mentality willing to uphold such agreements. And again, this does not require a government. In a civil society as large as ours though, I will say it requires a system of arbitration and laws - which I've already said I'm all for.

I think properties humans posess allow us to grant one another rights in the form of contract and mutual understanding. I don't think that humans possess rights by the mere fact that they are human - which is what intrinsic implies. A PERSON has rights, a human does not - at least not necessarily, and a PERSON only has rights based upon contracts and mutual understandings with those around him or her.

To say a human has such intrinsic rights implies that they come from somewhere, for example divinity.

I define the ability to have rights as part and parcle of the ability to understand what said rights entail and the ability to carry out the necessary responsibilities of reciprocation of such rights. 

Rights require responsibility.

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.


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
kmisho wrote: As to the

kmisho wrote:

As to the original question of why libertarians are ridiculed. In my neck of the woods, people who call themselves libertarians are normally gun-nuts or tax dodgers who use "freedom" rhetoric to defend any horrible idea they come up with.

So I think it's not as much an attack on libertarianism is it is an attack on libertarian people who act like this.

Well, for the record, I do own a shit load of guns. I'm a collector, and it's a hobby of mine. I'm a big WWII buff, so I have a LOT of weapons from that era. I also grew up hunting and fishing and have the equipment for that, plus the weapons of two grandfathers who have died and left their own collections to me (like a German Luger from Berlin and several Japanese weapons from Iwo Jima). I wouldn't say I'm a gun nut, in fact, I haven't fired a weapon in the last two years - just no time and no place to do it here in the city.

Still, like Heston said, you aren't taking those guns away from me unless you pry them from my cold dead hands. They are family heirlooms, and I've every intention of giving them to my future kids or to a museum.

If that makes me a nut, I'm a nut.

I do pay my taxes, because I prefer freedom to prison.

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.


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
mrjonno wrote: A far

mrjonno wrote:

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 Eye-wink

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.


munky99999
munky99999's picture
Posts: 46
Joined: 2007-12-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Then you clearly

Quote:
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.  

Quote:

WTF?

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.

 

Quote:
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.

 

Quote:
Good for Canada, how is this germane to my point?

Mmmm Canada.  I dunno how it's related but Canada sure is awesome.

 

Quote:

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.

 

Quote:
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.

 

Quote:
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.

 

Quote:
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.

 

Quote:

More gibberish.

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.

 

Quote:

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.

 

Quote:
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.

 

Quote:
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.

 

Quote:

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.

Quote:
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...

Quote:
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?

 

Quote:
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.

 

Quote:
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. 

Quote:
Go look at your toaster, I guantee you'll find a UL symbol on it.

actually no. Most likely because I'm not american. 


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2642
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
Quote: I don't. After we

Quote:
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.

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