Anarchists and libertarians - Please click here

[BrokeLoser]

I would fall left of center, but not by a whole lot. I do like classical liberalism (supposedly the foundation of libertarianism, no?), but I do think it is correct to petition our government to ensure not just the simple individual rights of existence and possession, but also of quality of life. I do think we should have publicly funded education, healthcare, and elections. I think our espousal of capitalism generates more than enough wealth to accomplish these things that I feel are the very basics of human existence. I believe every human has a right to the basics of food shelter, and healthcare, and education.

So, call me a libertarian that doesn't hate government, but also does not "trust" government any more than I trust the people who invent and reinvent it every day. I believe in the rule of law, and I do not believe in thought crimes. I think suppression of terrible opinions neuters our society and removes our tools for meeting bad ideas head on with better ideas.

So, you tell me... what am I?

Your comment about "food, shelter, healthcare and education being basic human rights" is why you're being accused of being a communist. So, consider this...

Right = something that everyone should/has to be afforded.

If everyone is afforded it, where does it come from? Who provides it? The simple answer is "society."

Therefore, society is responsible for providing everyone with the basic needs of food, shelter, healthcare and education.

Furthermore, since those are all "rights", someone is afforded them regardless of whether or not they've contributed to the society in a manner equal to or exceeding the affording of said rights.

If i were to summarize that, i might say "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."

Has Fort Fun Indiana addressed your post?
I haven’t read through the entire thread yet but I’d guess he/she will pretend to have conveniently “skipped” over it.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The two areas I differ from most libertarians is in the area of abortion (I am against it) and the Fed Govt dealing with pollution (I am for it as pollution crosses state lines).

And, I may disagree with you on those points, but I understand your reasoning and I believe your intent is to maximize liberty.

I struggle with abortion. On the one hand, how can I maximize a mother's liberty by using government force to make her carry a baby she does not want. On the other hand, what about the baby's rights? I end up deciding that using government force on one to effectively act as an unwilling servant to the other is the greater offense to liberty, as harsh as the result may be. I don't blame others for wanting to stop it.

I can appreciate the differing conclusions if I know that the pure princilpe of maximizing liberty drove the thought process.

 

[Illya. K. Makrus]

The word "libertarian" has become a cliche nowadays, and I'm not sure what you mean here.
I do think some of the philosophical principles in classic libertarianism is appealing.

 

[WheelieAddict]

True anarchists aren't going to vote in your poll because

 

[sparky]

True anarchists aren't going to vote in your poll because

Because they don't believe in government , at least in the organized sense.....we do ,however, have a Libertarian Party , who's stances are often subscribed to.

They work until they reach extremes , like any other political stripe

Of related interest,and somewhat political resurgence ,are the Randists

albeit a somewhat romanticized retro-stance

~S~

 

[Two Thumbs]

Hi everybody. I'm just trying to get a sense for how many people here are truly freedom-minded. Please vote to indicate your position, and feel free to elaborate, or bring up anything you'd like (or just vent your inevitable frustrations) in this thread! Thanks so much!

*note that I've made a distinction between full-on anarchists/voluntaryists, Libertarian party supporters, and other libertarians who condone some form of minimal government.

I share some Liber views on many things. well, they were conservative views until they went all batshit with them.

anarchy is the opposite of freedom

 

[sparky]

Somalia might serve as an anarchy example.....~S~

 

[Votto]

Hi everybody. I'm just trying to get a sense for how many people here are truly freedom-minded. Please vote to indicate your position, and feel free to elaborate, or bring up anything you'd like (or just vent your inevitable frustrations) in this thread! Thanks so much!

*note that I've made a distinction between full-on anarchists/voluntaryists, Libertarian party supporters, and other libertarians who condone some form of minimal government.

Yea, I hate labels.

So here is the deal, I love freedom, as does everyone else, but there are issues with freedom which leads me away from being labeled Libertarian

1. Collectivists build armies to crush others around them. This is why Libertarians have never had a voice and will never have a voice. How can you fight these collectivist thugs without forming your own collectivist movement to defeat them both militarily and politically?

2. Freedom is only worthy of a moral society. If we were all amoral convicts behind bars, would you still want to give us our freedom? The question then begs, how do you ensure that society has a moral fiber worthy of freedom while still letting them have their freedom? As Ben Franklin aptly pointed out, the Constitution will only last until society will become so corrupt that they will need a despot to contain them.

Unfortunately, the general attitude in the GOP is, morality is not big deal, it's just about the dollars and cents and a really big army is all we need.

 

[sparky]

I find libertarians agreeable , until it's radicalized ,unfortunate that there's always some extremist that paints the entire movement in a bad light.

For ex, libertarians uphold the 1st as untouchable & inalienable , no gub'mit need apply...

But that hit the wall so easily with the West Baptist's Fred Phelps & co protesting fallen soldiers funerals ,because of the military's don't ask,don't tell policy

sadly , the scotus had to (yet again) step in , because the fabric of society was unraveling (yet again)

~S~

 

[TNHarley]

Im all about freedom and individual liberty but i dont consider myself either of those

Interesting. How would you define your position (either by name, or description)?

He's a lying snowflake. He believes in big government, not freedom.

What sort of "big government" do i believe in, exactly?

 

[Votto]

Somalia might serve as an anarchy example.....~S~

Anarchy is just code for a soon to be despot to take power.......unless you are Somalia. It's not worth time and effort of your average depsot.

 

[sparky]

And history is lousy with examples Votto.....~S~

 

[bripat9643]

Im all about freedom and individual liberty but i dont consider myself either of those

Interesting. How would you define your position (either by name, or description)?

He's a lying snowflake. He believes in big government, not freedom.

What sort of "big government" do i believe in, exactly?

I apologize. I had you confused with someone else.

 

[Votto]

And history is lousy with examples Votto.....~S~

History is a wonderful way to understand where exactly we are headed.

If only you were a better student of history, your political views would change.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

anarchy is the opposite of freedom

Tossing out assertions without justifying them with arguments is kind of useless. Anarchy means "no rulers" - how on earth can that be the opposite of freedom.

If you mean that in the absence of law, people would limit each other's freedom through personal violence and coercion, that doesn't mean anarchy is the opposite of freedom; it just means that individual people act immorally, which they do now, and it has nothing to do with anarchy. These are two separate considerations.

Anarchy merely asserts that assuring violence and coercion by creating an institution to that effect is misguided, immoral, and unacceptable. Government is literally the opposite of freedom - it is slavery. Be it free-range slavery, partial slavery, consensual slavery, "you're free to leave, but while you're here you'll do as I say" slavery, whatever. Anarchy is freedom, by definition. Speculations about what would happen in that state of freedom is another topic.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

...I love freedom, as does everyone else, but there are issues with freedom which leads me away from being labeled Libertarian

1. Collectivists build armies to crush others around them. This is why Libertarians have never had a voice and will never have a voice. How can you fight these collectivist thugs without forming your own collectivist movement to defeat them both militarily and politically?

2. Freedom is only worthy of a moral society. If we were all amoral convicts behind bars, would you still want to give us our freedom? The question then begs, how do you ensure that society has a moral fiber worthy of freedom while still letting them have their freedom? As Ben Franklin aptly pointed out, the Constitution will only last until society will become so corrupt that they will need a despot to contain them.

Unfortunately, the general attitude in the GOP is, morality is not big deal, it's just about the dollars and cents and a really big army is all we need.

First of all, there's the assumption here that you and I have anything to say about it. We don't "let" people have their freedom. People are free. We then choose whether to act immorally by infringing upon that freedom, or acting morally and logically by acknowledging the reality of their natural inherent freedom.

If humanity is immoral, how does it help to take a few from amidst that immoral throng, and clothe them in immense power? This only serves to magnify immorality, not mitigate it.

If thugs gang up and try to oppress you, then I suppose you have to fight them, as the revolutionaries did 250 years ago. But getting lost in speculations does not serve to help us determine what role we will play in all of this. We must decide if it's wise or prudent to justify our own immorality by citing the immorality of others; in which case, the next man can point to our immorality to justify his own. We must decide if we're going to be the change we want to see in the world, and try to persuade others to do the same, or if we're just going to "go along to get along" until the cattle cars come rolling in.

If you truly love freedom, it behooves you to care for it, protect it, provide fertile ground for its thriving. Love isn't just a feeling, it's also a behavior. What does it mean to say you love something, but then willingly beat it, subvert it, and stifle it? If you're not fully supporting freedom because you're afraid of what will happen if you do, then you don't love it, you just wish you were the kind of person who did.

 

[Votto]

...I love freedom, as does everyone else, but there are issues with freedom which leads me away from being labeled Libertarian

1. Collectivists build armies to crush others around them. This is why Libertarians have never had a voice and will never have a voice. How can you fight these collectivist thugs without forming your own collectivist movement to defeat them both militarily and politically?

2. Freedom is only worthy of a moral society. If we were all amoral convicts behind bars, would you still want to give us our freedom? The question then begs, how do you ensure that society has a moral fiber worthy of freedom while still letting them have their freedom? As Ben Franklin aptly pointed out, the Constitution will only last until society will become so corrupt that they will need a despot to contain them.

Unfortunately, the general attitude in the GOP is, morality is not big deal, it's just about the dollars and cents and a really big army is all we need.

First of all, there's the assumption here that you and I have anything to say about it. We don't "let" people have their freedom. People are free. We then choose whether to act immorally by infringing upon that freedom, or acting morally and logically by acknowledging the reality of their natural inherent freedom.

If humanity is immoral, how does it help to take a few from amidst that immoral throng, and clothe them in immense power? This only serves to magnify immorality, not mitigate it.

If thugs gang up and try to oppress you, then I suppose you have to fight them, as the revolutionaries did 250 years ago. But getting lost in speculations does not serve to help us determine what role we will play in all of this. We must decide if it's wise or prudent to justify our own immorality by citing the immorality of others; in which case, the next man can point to our immorality to justify his own. We must decide if we're going to be the change we want to see in the world, and try to persuade others to do the same, or if we're just going to "go along to get along" until the cattle cars come rolling in.

If you truly love freedom, it behooves you to care for it, protect it, provide fertile ground for its thriving. Love isn't just a feeling, it's also a behavior. What does it mean to say you love something, but then willingly beat it, subvert it, and stifle it? If you're not fully supporting freedom because you're afraid of what will happen if you do, then you don't love it, you just wish you were the kind of person who did.

The vast majority of people who have walked the Earth have been slaves to other men. So to then say that we were born "free" is inaccurate.

Naturally, if there were no people around, or just the cool ones that don't feel the need to control you and micromanage your life for their own benefit, they you would be 100% free of human tyranny.

And lastly, how do you fight a gang of thugs and should you play by their own game? As for the American Revolution, it was a perfect storm. You had an entire ocean separating the colonies from the British Empire, plus you had a group of well educated rich men who formed a cabal to give the movement purpose and direction. You also had the French helping the colonists who had a few lucky victories. Take any of these factors away and the rebels hang in futility.

Most don't have these options.

But the funny thing is, if you do have those options, you have an added conundrum. You tend to become what you are fighting. Case in point, the Founding Fathers inexplicably created the Alien and Sedition Acts immediately after the Revolution which made it illegal to speak out against the government. Thomas Jefferson was outraged at this and swore to fight those Acts off, which he did, but not before using them for his own advantage.

What was left of the Acts was used by FDR to lock away innocent Japanese Americans.

 

[Some Guy]

Has Fort Fun Indiana addressed your post?
I haven’t read through the entire thread yet but I’d guess he/she will pretend to have conveniently “skipped” over it.

He must've missed it. Honest mistake, i'm sure.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

...I love freedom, as does everyone else, but there are issues with freedom which leads me away from being labeled Libertarian

1. Collectivists build armies to crush others around them. This is why Libertarians have never had a voice and will never have a voice. How can you fight these collectivist thugs without forming your own collectivist movement to defeat them both militarily and politically?

2. Freedom is only worthy of a moral society. If we were all amoral convicts behind bars, would you still want to give us our freedom? The question then begs, how do you ensure that society has a moral fiber worthy of freedom while still letting them have their freedom? As Ben Franklin aptly pointed out, the Constitution will only last until society will become so corrupt that they will need a despot to contain them.

Unfortunately, the general attitude in the GOP is, morality is not big deal, it's just about the dollars and cents and a really big army is all we need.

First of all, there's the assumption here that you and I have anything to say about it. We don't "let" people have their freedom. People are free. We then choose whether to act immorally by infringing upon that freedom, or acting morally and logically by acknowledging the reality of their natural inherent freedom.

If humanity is immoral, how does it help to take a few from amidst that immoral throng, and clothe them in immense power? This only serves to magnify immorality, not mitigate it.

If thugs gang up and try to oppress you, then I suppose you have to fight them, as the revolutionaries did 250 years ago. But getting lost in speculations does not serve to help us determine what role we will play in all of this. We must decide if it's wise or prudent to justify our own immorality by citing the immorality of others; in which case, the next man can point to our immorality to justify his own. We must decide if we're going to be the change we want to see in the world, and try to persuade others to do the same, or if we're just going to "go along to get along" until the cattle cars come rolling in.

If you truly love freedom, it behooves you to care for it, protect it, provide fertile ground for its thriving. Love isn't just a feeling, it's also a behavior. What does it mean to say you love something, but then willingly beat it, subvert it, and stifle it? If you're not fully supporting freedom because you're afraid of what will happen if you do, then you don't love it, you just wish you were the kind of person who did.

The vast majority of people who have walked the Earth have been slaves to other men. So to then say that we were born "free" is inaccurate.

Naturally, if there were no people around, or just the cool ones that don't feel the need to control you and micromanage your life for their own benefit, they you would be 100% free of human tyranny.

And lastly, how do you fight a gang of thugs and should you play by their own game? As for the American Revolution, it was a perfect storm. You had an entire ocean separating the colonies from the British Empire, plus you had a group of well educated rich men who formed a cabal to give the movement purpose and direction. You also had the French helping the colonists who had a few lucky victories. Take any of these factors away and the rebels hang in futility.

Most don't have these options.

But the funny thing is, if you do have those options, you have an added conundrum. You tend to become what you are fighting. Case in point, the Founding Fathers inexplicably created the Alien and Sedition Acts immediately after the Revolution which made it illegal to speak out against the government. Thomas Jefferson was outraged at this and swore to fight those Acts off, which he did, but not before using them for his own advantage.

What was left of the Acts was used by FDR to lock away innocent Japanese Americans.

We cannot confuse the natural state of man with his circumstances at any given time. Man is free, but his citcumstances may not permit for a full expression of that freedom, and often don’t. Morality equates to coming into alignment with what is, which is why we use the term “sin” or “wrong” to indicate immorality as an error.

Most war victories can be traced back to key circumstantial factors in hindsight, but it’s irrelevant to weigh speculative probabilities when determining matters of morality. Unless you want to adopt the utilitarian position, which permits for mass extermination if it would benefit a majority. I happen to think that a standing army is not necessary to defend a nation, but my greater concern is what you and I are doing right now.

What are we supporting? Does it align with our core values? How are we influencing humanity’s future? Are we allowing fear and speculation to infringe upon our moral judgement? Everything is continually changing, so what change are we being right now?

 

[Votto]

...I love freedom, as does everyone else, but there are issues with freedom which leads me away from being labeled Libertarian

1. Collectivists build armies to crush others around them. This is why Libertarians have never had a voice and will never have a voice. How can you fight these collectivist thugs without forming your own collectivist movement to defeat them both militarily and politically?

2. Freedom is only worthy of a moral society. If we were all amoral convicts behind bars, would you still want to give us our freedom? The question then begs, how do you ensure that society has a moral fiber worthy of freedom while still letting them have their freedom? As Ben Franklin aptly pointed out, the Constitution will only last until society will become so corrupt that they will need a despot to contain them.

Unfortunately, the general attitude in the GOP is, morality is not big deal, it's just about the dollars and cents and a really big army is all we need.

First of all, there's the assumption here that you and I have anything to say about it. We don't "let" people have their freedom. People are free. We then choose whether to act immorally by infringing upon that freedom, or acting morally and logically by acknowledging the reality of their natural inherent freedom.

If humanity is immoral, how does it help to take a few from amidst that immoral throng, and clothe them in immense power? This only serves to magnify immorality, not mitigate it.

If thugs gang up and try to oppress you, then I suppose you have to fight them, as the revolutionaries did 250 years ago. But getting lost in speculations does not serve to help us determine what role we will play in all of this. We must decide if it's wise or prudent to justify our own immorality by citing the immorality of others; in which case, the next man can point to our immorality to justify his own. We must decide if we're going to be the change we want to see in the world, and try to persuade others to do the same, or if we're just going to "go along to get along" until the cattle cars come rolling in.

If you truly love freedom, it behooves you to care for it, protect it, provide fertile ground for its thriving. Love isn't just a feeling, it's also a behavior. What does it mean to say you love something, but then willingly beat it, subvert it, and stifle it? If you're not fully supporting freedom because you're afraid of what will happen if you do, then you don't love it, you just wish you were the kind of person who did.

The vast majority of people who have walked the Earth have been slaves to other men. So to then say that we were born "free" is inaccurate.

Naturally, if there were no people around, or just the cool ones that don't feel the need to control you and micromanage your life for their own benefit, they you would be 100% free of human tyranny.

And lastly, how do you fight a gang of thugs and should you play by their own game? As for the American Revolution, it was a perfect storm. You had an entire ocean separating the colonies from the British Empire, plus you had a group of well educated rich men who formed a cabal to give the movement purpose and direction. You also had the French helping the colonists who had a few lucky victories. Take any of these factors away and the rebels hang in futility.

Most don't have these options.

But the funny thing is, if you do have those options, you have an added conundrum. You tend to become what you are fighting. Case in point, the Founding Fathers inexplicably created the Alien and Sedition Acts immediately after the Revolution which made it illegal to speak out against the government. Thomas Jefferson was outraged at this and swore to fight those Acts off, which he did, but not before using them for his own advantage.

What was left of the Acts was used by FDR to lock away innocent Japanese Americans.

We cannot confuse the natural state of man with his circumstances at any given time. Man is free, but his citcumstances may not permit for a full expression of that freedom, and often don’t. Morality equates to coming into alignment with what is, which is why we use the term “sin” or “wrong” to indicate immorality as an error.

Most war victories can be traced back to key circumstantial factors in hindsight, but it’s irrelevant to weigh speculative probabilities when determining matters of morality. Unless you want to adopt the utilitarian position, which permits for mass extermination if it would benefit a majority. I happen to think that a standing army is not necessary to defend a nation, but my greater concern is what you and I are doing right now.

What are we supporting? Does it align with our core values? How are we influencing humanity’s future? Are we allowing fear and speculation to infringe upon our moral judgement? Everything is continually changing, so what change are we being right now?

Freedom is a rather abstract concept. Freedom from what?

Usually most equate freedom with doing whatever the hell they want to do.

However, take a person who is a slave who may undergo a conversion to Christ and perhaps they may view themselves as free, free from the shackles of sin that once held them captive.

I'd say some of the most tortured human beings that have roamed this earth have been people with a great deal of power over others but can't seem to conquer their inner demons that hold them captive in their own minds.