Libertarianism

Let's talk about the libertarianism!

2get

libertarians are generally douchebags. this is a known fact. they read some shitty ayn rand book and think their fucking geniuses.

I like Libertarianism, I suppose. I don't really know a whole lot about it as a political movement, except that the general idea is less government... and that I agree with.

Ayn Rand is pretty good, in my opinion, so I suppose I might fit your stereotype. I was a Libertarian before I read it, does that make a difference?

I think Libertarianism, insofar as I am familiar with it, is generally a smarter political philosophy than the confusing philosophies espoused by the Republicans and Democrats (do they even have philosophies any more?), or really any other American political party. Certainly a better bet than Communism or Socialism, wouldn't you agree?

>>4
You admit you don't even fully understand what libertarianism is (and there's a lot of variants out there), yet you bandy the term around? You even have the gall to call yourself one?

Travel much?

Do you just like to hear yourself talk?

I find it is generally bad policy to associate myself completely with any movement, as I am not a mindless drone. I have my own opinions, and never agree with any organization 100%. Thus, I took care to distance myself from the actual political body while remaining open to discuss the philosophy.

Nobody really wants to talk with you (probably because you are anonymous and it's difficult to tell what you've said, and maybe also because you seem to be an asshole) but I indicated that I was interested in discussing Libertarianism insofar as I am familiar with it. You seem to think that you know more, but instead of talking about it or otherwise furthering the conversation, you chose to be insulting.

I assume by your command of capital letters that you are >>1 and not >>3. Did you want to talk or not?

>>6 Yes, but not to YOU.

>>6
No, that was my first post.

The tone was scathing because most "Libertarians" I've met were a dangerous bunch: they're intelligent, greedy, naive, and highly conceited. It doesn't help that libertarianism is a vague concept compared to other ideologies, thus attracting every bright rebellious shithead with an opinion. This may not be you, so I'll explain briefly why I have such problems with libertarianism:

Libertarianism is broad (it's somewhat like anarchism in that sense). In fact, it's a lot like anarchism: it sounds great on paper. Less government? Great! More power to the people? Fantastic! Individual responsibility? Right on!

The problem is that many people don't want to take responsibility. No, they want to take advantage of people. Oh, you might hear the anarchists crow that it's just the way we're socialized, but I prefer empirical evidence over some pie-in-the-sky fantasy. And the government? Why, we don't need taxes! It'll run mysteriously on the generosity of others! And some want no government at all (hello anarchism).

Except that power fills a vacuum.

The main gripe I have though is thoroughly economic: libertarianists appear to believe in a complete laissez-faire economy. This delves into the whole public/private issue, but I'd like to point something out: the United States. Yeah, a lot of the ideals that the founding fathers espoused were fairly libertarian. Look at the US today. Notice something?

As I said, I prefer to give precedence to systems that have been demonstrated. I've never seen a pleasant minarchist or anarchist system of any size. Yet, in my travels, I've found that the opposite is usually the case: take a look at Western Europe, Canada, Australia, and other social or semi-social democracies. Pseudo-political scientists can keep their unproven systems, and I'll stick with what works. They may not be perfect, not by a long shot, but there does appear to be a general trend.

And all the ideals the libertarians like to dole out? Who says other systems can't have them too? Those ideals are used since it appeals to everyone - and therefore obviously not the sole domain of libertarianism.

The only time I'll reconsider the libertarian ideology is if I see it successfully used, preferably through a gradual evolution of the system. Until then, it's just a fantastic toy of mental masturbation.

And don't get me started about anarcho-capitalist libertarians.

With any luck lolocaust will notice this thread. If anyone knows political systems, it's him.

10GET

i just want lower taxes okay

>The problem is that many people don't want to take responsibility. No, they want to take advantage of people.

The problem is that people who are attracted to libertarianism are attracted to it specifically because they do not want to accept responsiblity.

The long story short is, libertarianism is the party of people who don't want to pay taxes, full stop.

Coorporations are state sponsored apparently.
I did not know that. Nor do I know the advantages of coorporations which gives it state sponsership status.

>>11
How is giving your money to the government "accepting responsibility"?

It's the complete opposite. You accept responsibility by doing things yourself, not by giving another entity power over your life.

>>13
The logic goes like this: the government helps everyone in the state by protecting them from outside invasion, crime, building good roads, being a haven for corrupt politicians, etc. etc.

They do this regardless of whether you want them to or not, whether you give them money or not because your fellow citizens are giving the government money. Therefore you should chip in, join the bandwagon, accept responsibility, watch as your money is stolen, donate involuntarily, etc.

This seems like weird circular logic, though.

libertarianism is an alliance between social darwinists and pot-heads.

>>15
I completely agree.

Copy of B debate part 3
-They'd come back. You can never elimnate "anamolies". Just be careful of who you put in charge or they might come killing anyone who engages in oral sex, handjobs, mutual masturbations, or likes sex for reasons other than procreation- citing it as "unnatural".
-Why must you fuckers think that sexually active means emotionally capable? Fucking teenagers for the most part aren't even emotionally capable for sex. They end up having it and then they get fucked up over it.
-child porn involves rape yes it should be banned as should any form of "glorified rape" (thats when the woman is shown to be enjoying it) because it encourages anti-social sexuality. rape is not the same as glorified rape, murder is not the same as glorified murder. Books that teach people to kill are illegal (the terrorist handbook with poison and explosive formulas) why not books that make rape seem like a nice thing!
If we can jail a politician for inciting a lynching (you don't have to follow his orders but some will!) then we should be able to jail a lolikon artist for inciting a rape in the minority of people who don't ever understand another way of having sex.
-Yeah everyone pretty much needs to die, but sometimes I get to thinking that maybe humans can create an equilibrium where there isn't much violence/instability, and that involves removing people who would think about having sex with children among others.
-and why exactly does child porn have to be rape?
-prepubescent not preteen dumbass
I was 10 and a half when I first had my period and started thing about sex...sure I wasn't ready for any sexual activity before 16 at least.
gah after all, does it matter how old the kid is? What counts most is consent or lack thereof.
-Because it's sex with an unconesnting individual you jackass. The fact of the matter is nobody wants to teach their children about sex, so they aren't informed. You don't like that? Well too bad, cuz the majority of people don't like you, and all it boils down to in the end is the will of the majority, so keep whining.
-Avergae loss of virginity is age 17. That means a good percentage lose it before and after that age. Teenagers are in general less emtionally mature than adults sure, but not every person below the age of your choosing is totally ignorant about their bodies, desires, and feelings, and not everyone above that age are perfectly aware of theirs.
Physical and emotional sexual maturity, if most of human society over the past couple thousand years is any indication- occurs between ages 14 and 18.
Again, I'm not saying that everyone should go out and start having sex as soon as they turn X years old, but that the age at which a person can engage in a healthy sexual relationships with no ill effects is generally younger than western judo-christian culture generally gives them credit for.
But very few (not even full grown women) appreciate the sexual advances of some random 30+ year old unattractive male stranger.
-True. Many child abuse victims don't understand what happened to them and think it is either natural to be hurt by adults or that they did something bad to deserve it.
Kids need to be taught what sex is, who is it for, how it works and how to recognize someone who is touching you where he/she is not allowed to. Children need to know that they can say 'no' if they don't want to be touched/have sex...and that anything that happen to them is not their fault.
-What I love about lolicon, guro, pedophilia, rape, is not whether it's arousing or not as much as the fact that it holds nothing sacred. I see it as a nice big FUCK YOU to all the fags who whine and bitch about anything they've been taught is wrong existing.
-It actually has little to do with judeo-christian culture, as judeo-christians used to get married at younger ages in the past as well. It has more to do with advancing society and the things you need to learn to be able to survive in the world and raise a family, which take many more years to cultivate; and before you're physically, emotionally and possibly financially capable for raising a family, sexual activity is not usually promoted. It is tolerated, but ideally since sex is a reproductive act it is encouraged to be held off until such a time.
-Oh, and also, fuck you for not being content to just live your own stupid life and having to retaliate at the people who believe they should hold morals, fuckwad hypocrite.
-so if somedbody comes over and cracks your skull open with a stone, since morals are "Lo2l"O!11 FOR FUCK LAMoRRzrZZR"!!!!" that's fine too?
Morals are the little thing that differs a human from an ape.
But fucking child molester scumm like you, who tries to act tough on the internet, probably is not willing to understand that.
-I'm all for freedom of speech but by definition "my freedom stops where yours starts". The rights to be a pedophile/rapist stop when they infringe on the right of a child/person to choose to have sex and live life unharmed.
I and many others here are fine with most deviancies: BDSM, coprophilia, age-difference etc as long as both (or more) parties are consenting.
A person who says no or a child who doesn't understand sex or want it is not a consenting partner.
As for animals, I really don't know.
Anyhow what counts is that many hentai guro and lolikon/shotacon depict rape as opposed to the fetishist stuff in which tops and bottoms come together in agreement to have sex in their own albeit strange ways.
It's not about natural/unnatural or religion: it's about consent and only about consent.
Making a non consensual act seem good or enjoyable to the victim is ...i hate to use the word... well wrong.

wrongthreadGET

The people who don't accept responsability for their own business will be the ones who become poor.  Maybe they won't deserve it, but it should not be anyone else's responsability to take care of them. 

Thing is, it takes smart people to make a Libertarian society work.  That means years of social darwinism.  Get rid of the "Gimme" crowd.

and >>16, agree.

The people who don't accept responsability for their own business will be the ones who become poor.  Maybe they won't deserve it, but it should not be anyone else's responsability to take care of them. 

Thing is, it takes smart people to make a Libertarian society work.  That means years of social darwinism.  Get rid of the "Gimme" crowd.

and >>16, agree.

it should not be anyone else's responsability to take care of them

And why not? Just 'cause, right? Everyone is an island, and it's a zero-sum game!

You want to take survival of the fittest? Okay, you got it, along with all the crime, violence, back-stabbing, and other things people do in order to survive. Let's not forget that diseases are often contagious, and thus a social problem.

it takes smart people to make a Libertarian society work

Just like you? You can't even spell a common word properly.

>>21
But I don't want to be *forced* to help someone. That's ridculous.

Also you're a commie.

>>22
Ad Hominem attacks are the sure sign of a weak mind. Your 'smart society' fails before it even gets the first person!

>>22
Of course you don't want to be forced. Because you don't want to at all. Pure greed, nothing else. Stop trying to rationalize your way out of the obvious; you're not fooling anyone.

Are you familiar with Tragedy of the Commons? You're a prime example why Libertarianism won't work.

I think >>11 said it best.

And you want to keep supporting the people who can't pull their own weight, so that in the future they may continue to pull your society down?  If you feed laziness and stupidity, you'll grow nothing but laziness and stupidity!

God, there have to be more Libertarians here.  Come on, speak up!

>>23
I was referring to >>21's ad hominum attack on >>19

>>25
Except that people will do whatever it takes to survive. Given the choice between hurting to take your money, or starving to death, I'd hurt you. You'd do the same to me.

It's nice to take about bums pulling society down, but have you ever considered that, as a democracy, social safety nets are mandatory to prevent the society tearing itself apart? The only way you could prevent such a system from short-term destruction is a police state. But a Libertarian society is supposedly free. Ergo, contradiction. It can't exist.

Anyway, are you familiar with Tragedy of the Commons? How do you reconcile this with a Libertarianism?

>>26
a) You talk about "smart", yet you seems to lack that property. Responsibility is a common word which only a fool can't spell. If you can't fulfill what you preach, why should we listen? Think about it.
b) It's ad hominem, not ad hominum.

s/take/talk/
s/seems/seem/

>>28
b) It's ad hominem, not ad hominum.
Thanks; I was too lazy to google.

>>30
Anonymous doesn't like it when Anonymous pretends to be him.

>>28
What the fuck are you talking about? Can you please write logically.

Tragedy of the Commons is idiotic.  Wikipedia said the guy who wrote it himself misunderstood how the commons worked, so it's safe to say it was an asenine argument from the start.

To humor you, consider this; in libertarianism, you'd own your own land.  There wouldn't be some communal place where you put your livestock (to use the Tragedy of the Commons example).  Therefore, it's in your best interest to preserve the land and maintain it well, for your own interest.

When maintaining things is the government's responsability, they INEVITABLY screw it up.  Politicians don't care; it's not their money.  That's why as much should belong to individuals as possible, because individuals give a damn about how it is managed and how long it lasts.

Why can't bums live how they've always lived in the past?  Just drifting from town to town, NOT REPRODUCING? 

and >>28, shut the fuck up.

>>8


"The problem is that many people don't want to take responsibility. No, they want to take advantage of people. Oh, you might hear the anarchists crow that it's just the way we're socialized, but I prefer empirical evidence over some pie-in-the-sky fantasy. And the government? Why, we don't need taxes! It'll run mysteriously on the generosity of others! And some want no government at all (hello anarchism)."

That's called initiation of force, and it's one of the few situations in which Libertarianism advocates government intervention.  Read this: 

http://solohq.com/Articles/Rowlands/Two_Sides_of_Libertarianism.shtml

Libertarianism isn't about getting rid of government.  It's about redefining governments role from the great god in the sky from which all good things come, and into a passive and principaled protection scheme.

And I agree that environmental concerns should be collectivized, but not human concerns.  Humans should be able to take care of themselves.

>>23

Oh but you are. Only commies want everybodo to be forced to help, because they are too lazy to help themselves.

>>32
Just because the fellow based the model on an inaccurate assumption does not make it invalid in the real world. Why don't you read that Wikipedia entry a little more closely this time, instead of rushing off to post here the first sentence you see that supports your assertion? Besides, Tragedy of the Commons is just a smaller symptom of a larger problem: we're evolutionarily limited to short-term considerations.

Regardless, what you seem to have missed is that Tragedy of the Commons can apply to almost any human interaction. We're a social species, and must interact with each other to survive. And there will always be shared resources. Always. Even if it's just air.

Take a look at Western consumption: everyone knows they're using too much, but they figure that if they change their habits it won't make a difference (because everyone else still behaves the same). It's even a factor why there's so much voter apathy today ("what difference will my vote make?").

And I'd like to know where you came up with the "there wouldn't be some communal place where you put your livestock". People don't own everything, you know?

Ok, fine.  Yes, the government should impose limits on people dumping things into the air.  They should impose limits on people cutting up the trees, and causing dust storms.   But you know why?  Because such behaviors are an in violation with the no initiation of force principal.  Libertarianism isn't completely free of a concept of common good, you know?  They just believe the less government intervention, the less intervention of people to whom the capital and systems in question don't even belong, the better.  The less the rescources will be completely mismanaged and wasted, and the greater the quality of service will be. 

Libertarianism doesn't define a Utopia.

Ever wonder why Mc. Donald's serves such a tasty burger?  Because they want to!  They want your money!  More specifically, they want to be in business, and do business. They've won through the hardships and challenges of getting that burger to you so tastily, so they  stand to be able to do it most effectively.  The government, on the other hand, just decides, "This is what we'll do," and then does it, usually in a misguided and imbecillic way.  Instead of trying every method and seeing what works best, akin to the free market, (they wouldn't be able to even if they tried, not enough rescources or  ambition... Ever notice how when something doesn't work the government just rolls over on it?) they just try what "sounds best". 

I mean, if we put the government in charge of imposing limits according to what "they thought was best", they'd start doing crazy, misguided things.   Like the left wing in the USA.  They'd stop progress in favor of dumb things which have no consequence in the long run.  They're kicking people out of their houses now for the sake of a tiny blue shrimp that lives 100s of meters underground.  And then that land is going to go to waste, it'll jjust grow tall grass.

;See?  We basically have the same problem with human nature.  People can't make long term decisions because they base everything on extremes.

>>36
Ah, so you acknowledge the need for government? And how do you plan to fund it? Donations?

What I get a particular kick out of is the "private does it better" matra. No, private does some things better. If this isn't obvious to you, I don't think there's any point continuing this. Look to the US power grid, telephone system, or health care for a fine example of the wonders of privitization. Hell, look at any Western society that is increasing privitization, like New Zealand, Australia, and parts of western Europe.

"But wait!" you cry, "Those are government-enforced monopolies!" Bullshit. Power fills a vacuum. If there's non-initiation of force, how do you plan to prevent de facto monopolies from taking over the market? The entire power of government is based on force. If there's no force, it's useless. And if those monopolies control the market, what's to stop them from setting up their own government?

Libertarianism is full of logical inconsistencies. It's a fucking joke.

s/matra/mantra