Libertarians

[AquaAthena]

Naah not very many answers on this thread I would think.

Here are two thoughts about libertarianism that I had bookmarked, but don't recall the sources. I bookmarked them some time ago because they represented the direction I would like to see my country take. If you want to know more, check out RonPaul.com. [these following thoughts did not come from there, though] His son Rand, is less extreme than dad, Ron.

-------------------------------------------------------------

"No, a libertarian world isn't a perfect one. There will still be inequality, poverty, crime, corruption, man's inhumanity to man. But, unlike the theocratic visionaries, the pie-in-the-sky socialist utopians, or the starry-eyed Mr. Fixits of the New Deal and Great Society, libertarians don't promise you a rose garden. Karl Popper once said that attempts to create heaven on earth invariably produce hell. Libertarianism holds out, not the goal of a perfect society, but of a better and freer one. It promises a world in which more of the decisions will be made in the right way by the right person: you. The result will be, not an end to crime and poverty and inequality, but less of most of those things most of the time--often much less."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"LIBERTARIANS support maximum liberty in both personal and
economic matters. They advocate a much smaller government; one

that is limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence.

Libertarians tend to embrace individual responsibility, oppose

government bureaucracy and taxes, promote private charity, tolerate

diverse lifestyles, support the free market, and defend civil liberties."

 

[Bern80]

Another similar situation occurred several years ago in Grand Isle County near the northern shores of Lake Champlain where the power company needed to expand the infrastructure to bring in power from Hydro Quebec. But the shoreline property owners complained so loudly that it finally wound up that the EXISTING lines were made to come down and all the lines buried, which cost a fortune. And guess who ultimately paid the price so that those property owners didn't have their lake views obstructed? The rest of us.

It's their property. You don't have a right to electrical power at the expense of violating someone elses property rights. It's that simple.

 

[Vast LWC]

Here are two thoughts about libertarianism that I had bookmarked, but don't recall the sources. I bookmarked them some time ago because they represented the direction I would like to see my country take. If you want to know more, check out RonPaul.com. [these following thoughts did not come from there, though] His son Rand, is less extreme than dad, Ron.

-------------------------------------------------------------

"No, a libertarian world isn't a perfect one. There will still be inequality, poverty, crime, corruption, man's inhumanity to man. But, unlike the theocratic visionaries, the pie-in-the-sky socialist utopians, or the starry-eyed Mr. Fixits of the New Deal and Great Society, libertarians don't promise you a rose garden. Karl Popper once said that attempts to create heaven on earth invariably produce hell. Libertarianism holds out, not the goal of a perfect society, but of a better and freer one. It promises a world in which more of the decisions will be made in the right way by the right person: you. The result will be, not an end to crime and poverty and inequality, but less of most of those things most of the time--often much less."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"LIBERTARIANS support maximum liberty in both personal and
economic matters. They advocate a much smaller government; one

that is limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence.

Libertarians tend to embrace individual responsibility, oppose

government bureaucracy and taxes, promote private charity, tolerate

diverse lifestyles, support the free market, and defend civil liberties."

Indeed. The only problem with Libertarianism that I have is when people take it to the extreme, and become, for all intensive purposes, anarchists.

Of course, I do disagree with the methods where economics and business is concerned, as I fear the unchecked power of corporations immensely, and feel that without some level of economic control, we would fall victim to their soul-less search for ever-growing profits.

 

[Oddball]

I have written a great deal on the topic and find the attitude part of the problem in modern America. A 'me first, fluck the rest of you' position that makes Madoff understandable.

Here are some excellent links.

Why I Am Not a Libertarian
Why is libertarianism wrong?
Critiques Of Libertarianism: So You Want To Discuss Libertarianism....
The American Conservative -- Marxism of the Right

You've written next to nothing....All you do is fling a few turds of ignorance, stereotype, strawmen and arrogant elitist moralizing, with a few links to some obscure Fabian socialist nobodies who happen to agree with you.

Oh, looky!....You did it again!

 

[Bern80]

The problem is not Libertarianism, per se.

Extremists of any philosophy tend to speak in broad, simple terms, that have little application in the real world.

Extreme Libertarians, which are the ones you hear the most from, are good examples of this.

When you use empty rhetoric like "smaller government", and "individual freedoms" to describe the policies that you would put in place, you're not really saying anything.

Of course, Communists are the same way. They have broad ideas about "economic equality" and "working for the common good", but when it comes down to implementation on a large scale, they fail miserably.

I am of the opposite mind. That there are people like you in the world who think things need to be more complicated than they are. You complicate things so you can you use at an excuse to rationalize immoral choices. What is this complexity that requires large government? Where is the complexity the justifies sacrificing someone's freedoms for the benefit of the other?

 

[Vast LWC]

I am of the opposite mind. That there are people like you in the world who think things need to be more complicated than they are. You complicate things so you can you use at an excuse to rationalize immoral choices. What is this complexity that requires large government? Where is the complexity the justifies sacrificing someone's freedoms for the benefit of the other?

ON a basic level, what you describe is the basis of all civilization.

To become a civilization, all must sacrifice at least some of their "freedoms" for the benefit of the whole.

 

[Bern80]

I am of the opposite mind. That there are people like you in the world who think things need to be more complicated than they are. You complicate things so you can you use at an excuse to rationalize immoral choices. What is this complexity that requires large government? Where is the complexity the justifies sacrificing someone's freedoms for the benefit of the other?

ON a basic level, what you describe is the basis of all civilization.

To become a civilization, all must sacrifice at least some of their "freedoms" for the benefit of the whole.

The basic concept of libertarianism is that people should be left to their own devices so long as their choices don't infringe upon the freedoms of others. Explain to me why that level of freedom must be sacrificed for the benefit of the whole.

 

[Vast LWC]

The basic concept of libertarianism is that people should be left to their own devices so long as their choices don't infringe upon the freedoms of others. Explain to me why that level of freedom must be sacrificed for the benefit of the whole.

Because, just like communism, there are always external and internal forces that will destroy such a society.

Lack of infrastructure in such a Libertarian idealized system would weaken the country dramatically.

Lack of regulation would allow the greedy to eventually destroy the system to their own benefit.

 

[Sheldon]

Except there's that pesky little consideration of what to do if the landowner just says no. Right now in Vermont, the public utility responsible for power transmission, and the lines and towers that support it, can't get certain property owners in outlying areas to sell a right-of-way regardless of the amount offered. But of course they're also the same ones (residents of bedroom communities) who scream the loudest when there's a power failure, often due to aging and crumbling poles and towers.

The landowner has the right to refuse to sell their property. If they say no then you come up with another idea, offer more money, or give up.

In the specific situation, the matter has been tied up in litigation for over three years, costing both the state and the landowners big bucks. And for what? Just so some rich hobby farmer can get his name in the paper and espouse his "libertarian" principles?

The power company NEEDS to expand the line because of all the new developments that have sprouted up in the last 30 years. Those homes and businesses need their lights on. What is the option?

I think I remember reading something like that in the Kelo v New London opinion.

 

[JBeukema]

Only Libertarians need answer.

You obtain right-of-way by declaring it and paying the landowners just compensation (the 5th Amendment mentions something about this)[/quote]


Who pays?

Who builds it?

Who owns it?

Who maintains it?

 

[Oddball]

Nobody.

Commies like you declare that the roads are state property and off limits to all non-members of the party.

 

[Sheldon]

Lack of infrastructure in such a Libertarian idealized system would weaken the country dramatically.

Well, like you said, there's different degrees of libertarianism. The (big l) Libertarian party is unlike the (little l) libertarianism you'd see on the Mises website, or taught in the Austrian school

I think there are some libertarians who won't get worked up over a government monopoly on infrastructure, while there are some others who think all roads and highways should be privatized to a toll system. There can be competent arguments for the latter, but i won't make them because I don't believe in that aspect of it.

Like modern liberalism and conservatism, there are different degrees of adherence to classical liberalism.

Lack of regulation would allow the greedy to eventually destroy the system to their own benefit.

Regulation can sometimes but not always be a code word for corporate favoritism.

Some libertarians will frame certain environmental regulations as justified since it is the governments responsibility to ensure each individual is not poisoned by the air and water. And if those environmental laws are applied to the courts, breaking them would be a criminal offense (manslaughter?) against individuals in the offending company. For good or bad, the board would be held criminally responsible for breaking environmental regulation laws.

I think most libertarians would be against the Articles of Incorporation. There really is more than one road to serfdom, and most libertarians are aware of this and will disapprove of corporate America and the mutual backsratching that happens on K Street with the politicians.

 

[JBeukema]

Old school liberals (today's libertarians)

Classical Liberalism =/= Libertarianism


Libertarianism's resemblance to liberalism is superficial; in the end, libertarians reject essential liberal institutions. Correctly understood, libertarianism resembles a view that liberalism historically defined itself against, the doctrine of private political power that underlies feudalism. Like feudalism, libertarianism conceives of justified political power as based in a network of private contracts. It rejects the idea, essential to liberalism, that political power is a public power to be impartially exercised for the common good
-Samuel Freeman

Those who emphasize the distinction between classical liberalism and libertarianism point out that some of the key thinkers of classical liberalism were far from libertarian:

Adam Smith should be seen as a moderate free enterpriser who appreciated markets but made many, many exceptions. He allowed government all over the place.[42]
​

For example, Adam Smith supports public roads, canals and bridges, though he favored the use of a toll to pay for these public works, so that they would be paid for proportionally to their consumption.[43]
Adam Smith also supported government regulation of the economy in particular when it benefits the poor or working-class[44], and was opposed to income inequality which he believed stemmed from concentrations of private property ownership.


Many notable classical liberals, such as the ideas of John Stuart Mill and John Dewey[47], evolved into democratic socialism, a political philosophy which most modern libertarians are opposed to for its anti-property stance.[45]

this seems about your reading level



BTW, I don't rely upon the proclamations of statists to determine whether or not I'm a "good" libertarian or not, Skippy.[/quote]

 

[xsited1]

Libertarians have this vast, though relatively simple, platform. They explain their philosophy with ease and precision but there is a reason this (non) governing scheme has never been used.............anywhere, anytime.

Actually, it was used in America for more than 150 years.

Myth #1: Busted.

Problem: You live in a Libertarian state and desperately need a new highway between cities. How do you obtain the right of way?

Only Libertarians need answer.

You obtain right-of-way by declaring it and paying the landowners just compensation (the 5th Amendment mentions something about this)....We're libertarians, not anarchists.

Myth #2: Busted.

Where and when were the libertarians in charge in America?

Libertarians believe property rights are supreme. The very thought of eminent domain would put them into fits.

Obviously you are NOT a good Libertarian.

onecut39 just got owned and now he's foaming at the mouth. I foresee a major meltdown coming soon.

 

[JBeukema]

I am of the opposite mind. That there are people like you in the world who think things need to be more complicated than they are. You complicate things so you can you use at an excuse to rationalize immoral choices. What is this complexity that requires large government? Where is the complexity the justifies sacrificing someone's freedoms for the benefit of the other?

ON a basic level, what you describe is the basis of all civilization.

To become a civilization, all must sacrifice at least some of their "freedoms" for the benefit of the whole.

The basic concept of libertarianism is that people should be left to their own devices so long as their choices don't infringe upon the freedoms of others. Explain to me why that level of freedom must be sacrificed for the benefit of the whole.

your freedom to do anything that infringes on the freedoms (interesting you didn't say 'rights') of others- you answered your own question

 

[JBeukema]

The basic concept of libertarianism is that people should be left to their own devices so long as their choices don't infringe upon the freedoms of others. Explain to me why that level of freedom must be sacrificed for the benefit of the whole.

Because, just like communism, there are always external and internal forces that will destroy such a society.

Lack of infrastructure in such a Libertarian idealized system would weaken the country dramatically.

Lack of regulation would allow the greedy to eventually destroy the system to their own benefit.

such as being discussed in the thread about deregulation

 

[JBeukema]

Who pays?

Who builds it?

Who owns it?

Who maintains it?

Nobody

And that's why only retards are libertarians.

This thread is complete.

 

[Bern80]

ON a basic level, what you describe is the basis of all civilization.

To become a civilization, all must sacrifice at least some of their "freedoms" for the benefit of the whole.

The basic concept of libertarianism is that people should be left to their own devices so long as their choices don't infringe upon the freedoms of others. Explain to me why that level of freedom must be sacrificed for the benefit of the whole.

your freedom to do anything that infringes on the freedoms (interesting you didn't say 'rights') of others- you answered your own question

This makes no sense and is certainly not what I said. Too many of you seem to be taking the easy road and are pretending libertarianism is one small step removed from anarchy.

 

[Oddball]

JBuckwheat does that all the time....Commies are like that.

 

[JBeukema]

The basic concept of libertarianism is that people should be left to their own devices so long as their choices don't infringe upon the freedoms of others. Explain to me why that level of freedom must be sacrificed for the benefit of the whole.

your freedom to do anything that infringes on the freedoms (interesting you didn't say 'rights') of others- you answered your own question

This makes no sense and is certainly not what I said

Why do you lie about what you said?